Sitting of 20 November 1969

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

  HOME DEPARTMENT
  CS Smoke
  Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the current methods of granting permission to the police for the use of CS gas in cases of civil disorder; and if he will make a statement.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): Chief officers of police in England and Wales do not contemplate the use of CS smoke to control civil disorder.
  Mr. Dalyell: Granted that the Government have done a good job in training the R.U.C., may we have an assurance that there has been a directive to police forces that never again will there be a repetition of the original events in Londonderry when CS gas was used by an untrained police force?
  Mr. Callaghan: That does not arise out of the Question. I am responsible for police in England and Wales.
  Mr. McMaster: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the same rules about the use of CS gas apply to the Army as to the police. so that there will be no repetition of what occurred when CS gas was used at a peaceful church parade at which there was no fear of either rioting or looting?
  Mr. Callaghan: The Question and my answer dealt with police in England and Wales.
  Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what
  1482
  action he is taking as a result of the Himsworth Committee Report on the use of gas in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Callaghan: The report recommended the enlargement of Sir Harold Himsworth's committee and the extension of its terms of reference to assess the evidence about CS in the widest possible way. This has been done, as indicated in the report itself.
  Mr. Dalyell: If part two of the Report is expected in March, may we be told something about the question that is left open by part one as 10 the effect of CS gas on the old, the sick, the pregnant and the very young? Will part two deal with those matters?
  Mr. Callaghan: I would expect the committee to take that fact into account as it was raised in the original report.
  Mr. Macdonald: In view of the fact that all forces, except the Metropolitan Police, hold devices which are inaccurate for discharging CS gas, what steps will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that these devices are replaced by more accurate ones?
  Mr. Callaghan: The stocks held by the police are for use only in limited cases, and I have no reason to believe that they are inadequate for that purpose.

  Community Relations
  Sir G. Sinclairasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the working relationships between the headquarters of the Community Relations Commission and the community relations councils throughout the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Callaghan: I believe that these working relationships are satisfactory, and I am aware of the great importance which the commission attaches to the support it can provide for the work of these councils.
  Sir G. Sinclair: In view of the public evidence of widespread dissatisfaction, will the Home Secretary inquire further into the relationship between the commission and the community relations councils, especially those of Birmingham, Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Wandsworth, and make a report to the House?
  Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman has referred to three councils out of 80. I am aware that there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction among a small number of councils. I constantly keep myself abreast of the relationship between the commission and the councils, and there is no evidence of widespread unrest.
  Sir G. Sinclairasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work of the Community Relations Commission.
  Mr. Callaghan: The commission has been in existence for less than a year. It is operating in a difficult area, but its annual report, which has been laid before Parliament, shows that a good deal of positive work has been done.
  Sir G. Sinclair: In view of the evidence of dissatisfaction among many senior members of staff, two of whom have resigned and others are contemplating employment elsewhere, will the Home Secretary now publish the Civil Service report, or will he institute an inquiry of his own and report to the House?
  Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman seems intent on making these assertions based on very little evidence. I am sorry that he is doing it when the commission is operating. It is a new body, which has teething troubles, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support it.
  I will consider publication of the report, but the hon. Gentleman should not draw the conclusion that that means I will publish it.
  Mr. Bidwell: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to draw to the attention of the commission and its chairman the need to get maximum local authority co-operation in community relations, as many Tory-controlled authorities, particularly Powellites and neo-Powellites, are dragging their feet on this question?
  Mr. Callaghan: I hope that local authorities will co-operate. My hon. Friend spotlights one of the difficulties in the relationship between the commission and local committees, which are voluntary bodies partially financed by other institutions, and it is likely that they will have their own views about the way that the matter should be conducted. It is for the commission to try to harmonise
  1484
  these views into a common programme of education in the matter.
  Mr. Deedes: Accepting what the right hon. Gentleman says about it being early days, will he accept that several things are wrong: first, the lack of a full-time chairman; second, a good deal of internal dissension; and, third, a lack of resolution by the Home Office in following up the results of its own inquiry early in the summer?
  Mr. Callaghan: On the first point, there need by no difficulty, if it were thought right, in considering whether the appointment should be full-time. That is not a point of principle.
  Second, I am not aware of any widespread dissatisfaction. 'The hon. Gentleman should not speak for the Commission or its staff. I am aware that a small number of people are dissatisfied and are certainly doing their best to ensure that the hon. Gentleman makes the most of their dissatisfaction. However, I have no evidence that it is widespread.
  On the third point, if we are at fault, I will follow it up; but I was not aware that we were at fault.

  Capital Punishment
  Mr. Woodnuttasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider introducing legislation to reintroduce capital punishment for the murder of law enforcement officers.
  Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir.
  Mr. Woodnutt: Would the Home Secretary not agree that for vicious men who are already in prison for the rest of their lives a further prison sentence cannot possibly be a deterrent, and that capital punishment may be a deterrent?
  Mr. Callaghan: That raises a wider question, but I am happy to say, and long may it continue, that no prison officer has been killed by a prisoner in one of Her Majesty's prisons for many years.
  Mr. Brooks: Would my right hon. Friend not accept that there is a curious anomaly in that there are a number of offences in Acts dating from 1772 to 1957 for which the death penalty is still retained? Would he indicate in what circumstances such penalties might be applied.
  Mr. Callaghan:No, Sir, not without notice. I seem to remember something of the kind in the Naval Discipline Act, but it is a long time since Admiral Byng.

  Football Matches (Hooliganism)
  Mr. William Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps he proposes to take to curb violence at football matches.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to deal with vandalism and violence before and after football matches.
  Mr. Callaghan: The arrangements for the quick exchange of information between police forces about hooliganism among football supporters on trains have been strengthened; a code of practice designed to encourage good behaviour by supporters has been circulated by the Football Association to all League clubs; and clubs are being encouraged to provide stewards to travel on football trains.
  Mr. Price: May I tell the Home Secretary, as one who frequently watches football matches from behind the goal, that there are serious riots on the way and that the effect on football will be disastrous? Will he do two things: first, ask clubs to keep rival supporters apart in the ground, and, second, tell magistrates that some of the punishments being imposed are totally inadequate?
  Mr. Callaghan: While I do not wish to avoid responsibility, neither of those matters happens to be my responsibility. The police are concerned with what happens outside the ground and not with what happens behind the goal. As for magistrates, there is a lot to be said for a general expression of opinion from the House if that is desired, but it is not for me to instruct them—indeed it would be resented if I were to try to do so—in the kind of sentences they should impose.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Would the Home Secretary, nevertheless, encourage the courts to strengthen the penalties and to suspend some of the young attenders at football matches who create disturbances for the same number of weeks as some players are suspended so that they cannot attend matches but have to turn up at police stations?
  Mr. Callaghan: The new liaison arrangements undertaken by the police have the effect, in certain appropriate circumstances, of requiring young people to report at police stations and at other places for work and other beneficial duties on a Saturday afternoon.
  Mr. Fred Evans: Would the Home Secretary accept that everybody in Wales shares the perturbation expressed in the House about incidents at the Swansea-Springbok game? Will his inquiry embrace methods of recruitment of stewards by clubs and the instructions issued to them? Will he also read carefully the depositions which I have sent to him today concerning detailed circumstantial evidence of violence at that particular game?
  Mr. Callaghan: If allegations are made against the police in relation to that particular game, I think I should hold myself free to consider the matter at a later time when I might have to come in in my capacity as an appellate authority. I would not want now to prejudge that issue. If complaints are made against stewards, then the complainants have their remedies in the courts if they can identify the persons who assaulted them. If they cannot identify them, I do not think that I can.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Why is it that when demonstrators attack the police it is described as crowd violence, but when the police use necessary force in the enforcement of law and order it is described as police brutality? Will the right hon. Gentleman rectify an omission the other day, when great concern was expressed in the House about the damage done to demonstrators but no one drew attention to the fact that we have every reason to regret the attack on a police sergeant which injured him severely?
  Mr. Callaghan: Vandalism is vandalism, whoever indulges in it. Violence is violence, by whoever it is practised. I hope that the House condemns both vandalism and violence, whoever is responsible. My experience shows that the police are extremely self-controlled in the manner in which they respond to a great deal of provocation. That is not to say that the occasional policeman does not lose his temper. He would be less than human if he did not. But, in his quieter moments,

  1487
  that is frowned upon by him and by his colleagues. That is a standard that we want to maintain.

  Arab Terrorist Activities
  Mr. Arnold Shawasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in view of the danger of increased Arab terrorist activities throughout the world, what precautions he has taken to safeguard persons and property in this country.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Shirley Williams): Chief officers of police keep a close watch on activities of this kind, but I do not think it would help to give details of precautions.
  Mr. Shaw: Has my hon. Friend given thought to the safety of this place? Is she aware that it is reported that one hon. Member of this House is associated with the terrorist El Fatah organisation, and that there are certain other hon. Members who hold funds, as far as we know for no specific purpose, subscribed by a foreign Government who are sympathetic towards the terrorist organisations?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is customary, if an hon. Member proposes to refer to another hon. Member, to inform the hon. Member concerned.
  Mrs. Williams: On the first part of my hon. Friend's Question, my right hon. Friend will do everything in his power to protect the House. I think that past experience has shown that that has worked. As for the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I think that he should substantiate his allegations, following which, of course, they will be taken up in the proper quarters.

  Fireworks Accidents
  Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reach decisions following the results of his Department's inquiry into accidents caused by fireworks.
  Mr. Roseasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further action he plans to take to limit the dangers to the public of fireworks.
  Mr. John Wellsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he
  1488
  will introduce legislation to raise the age of persons to whom fireworks may be sold.
  Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a further statement of departmental policy in relation to the sale of dangerous fireworks which may cause accidents.
  Mr. Spriggsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the present provisions for the sale of fireworks to children since 5th November. 1969 and what reply he has sent.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations that the sale of fireworks to the public should be restricted further, or banned. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend is considering whether the age of persons to whom fireworks may be sold should be raised, and proposes to arrange a meeting of all the organisations concerned with the problem of injuries caused by fireworks when the 1969 figures have been analysed.
  Mr. Lane: While the much lower rate of accidents this year is welcome, will the hon. Lady keep in mind the fact that there would be great public support for a proposal to raise the minimum age for buying fireworks to 16, not only from the point of view of the risk to children but, equally important, from that of the possible annoyance to older people?
  Mrs. Williams: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, it is encouraging that accidents have been well below the 1962 figures for some years now. Nevertheless, it is disturbing that, of those involved in accidents, a large proportion are young children under 13. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said in the Adjournment debate on 29th October that he would look very seriously at the possibility of raising the age at which children can be sold fireworks.
  Mr. Rose: Is my hon. Friend aware that, since the meetings four or five years ago between the Home Office and the manufacturers of fireworks, the manufacturers have been dragging their feet? May I suggest that fireworks manufacturers be invited to visit the burns unit

  1489
  of the Booth Hall Hospital in my constituency in order to see the results of some of these terrible accidents?
  Mrs. Williams: The manufacturers will certainly be invited to the meeting to be held by my right hon. Friend, and all these questions will be raised with them. As for my hon. Friend's invitation, I would suggest that he sends that direct to the fireworks manufacturers.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Leaving aside the question of the unsuitability of rejoicing at the death of one who, were he alive today, might be regarded more as a benefactor than as a malefactor, would it not be a new and ludicrous extension of paternalism to ban altogether the sale of fireworks? Is not the solution the more stringent enforcement of existing regulations?
  Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that some motor car drivers share his view about that historical figure in the past of the House of Commons. However, one has always to make a division between trying to forbid things and trying to treat people as responsible. Our view is that the distinction should be drawn between children who cannot be regarded as wholly responsible and parents who should take responsibility for what they do.
  Mr. Spriggs: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are two very important points at issue? They are the health and safety of children versus vested interests. Will my hon. Friend look at that issue when examining this problem, and take some action?
  Mrs. Williams: I can only repeat that, with regard to children, obviously the situation must be treated very seriously. Every time that Guy Fawkes day approaches my right hon. Friend endeavours to give the best possible advice to parents about the use of fireworks. It must be said clearly that parents have the major responsibility for protecting young children from the effects of dangerous accidents at this time.

  Police (Pensions)
  Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in his discussions with police representatives about the safeguarding of police pension rights which
  1490
  may be affected by the Government's new national superannuation scheme; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Callaghan: The Police Council for Great Britain, which f consult before making police pensions regulations, has set up a working party representative of all police interests to examine police pensions arrangements in the light of the Government's proposals for earnings-related pensions.
  Mr. Lane: While we are grateful for such reassurances as the Home Secretary and his colleagues have been able to give, will he bear in mind that the rate of resignations from police forces is already alarmingly high owing mainly to dissatisfaction with pay, and that uncertainty about pensions may for many be the last straw. Will he continue to give the matter the highest priority in the next few months?
  Mr. Callaghan: Assurances have been given to the police about pensions. I do not know where the rumours started, but the pension scheme is absolutely safe. They can retire now, and will be able to retire in future, at the normal age that they have in the past, without alteration.
  From this House, we have set up detailed machinery for working out rates of pay and provided negotiating machinery to do the job. When the time comes to review the arrangements, it will be for that machinery to do it.
  There is no evidence that wastage is any larger now than it has been. I would not like the hon. Gentleman's assertion to gain currency. I notice that he indicates disagreement. In his own force in Mid-Anglia, for example, it is running at about the normal rate.
  Sir D. Renton: As we have not had details of the assurances given to the police, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that: police officers' rights under the police pensions scheme will not in any way be diminished by the proposed new national. superannuation scheme?
  Mr. Callaghan: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cares to put down a Question, I will give a full and detailed answer. I am sure that he is not complaining that assurances have been given to the police.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The Home Secretary, who knows so much about this, will wonder whether he has gone far enough. Can he not tell the House now that the Government will ensure that there is a non-worsenment arrangement for the police in any changes that are made?
  Mr. Callaghan: I ask the House to keep to this, because, although it may think it advantageous to raise these questions now, there will be occasions when it will not. The best way to handle these matters is to allow the appropriate body, set up at the request of the police organisations, to enter into negotiations and discussion. A working party is considering this matter.

  Taxi-cabs, Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Worsleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he expects that the Maxwell Stamp Committee on the London cab trade will include in its report a consideration of all the problems which affect the trade at London Airport, Heathrow.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Worsley: While thanking the hon. Lady for that reply, may I ask her to go a little further? Will she agree that a disproportionate number of difficulties which seem to affect the London taxis originate at Heathrow? If she does agree, will she put that point to the committee?
  Mrs. Williams: The committee is aware, as indeed is the Home Office, that while the majority of London cab drivers endeavour to maintain the by-laws at Heathrow, there is a minority which is prepared both to break the rules about moving from the feeding car park to the taxi ranks and also occasionally to exploit the ignorance of foreigners trying to get to London. We take the most serious view of this, and the committee will look into it very closely.
  Mr. Snow: Is my hon. Friend aware that this irritation is not confined to foreigners, but extends to English people as well, including provincial people travelling through London Heathrow? What is so different about the conditions at Heathrow compared with Orly and Le Bourget, where the schedule for, the run-in
  1492
  to Paris is shown and any variations in the schedule are clearly marked and notified to the public?
  Mrs. Williams: I think that the answer to the next Question on the Order Paper will go some way to calming my hon. Friend's fears.
  Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the excessive fares still being charged by London taxis to and from London Airport; whether he will consult the British Airports Authority on this matter; and what other steps he proposes to take.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: Fares between London Airport and destinations in Greater London are now controlled by the London Cab Order, 1968. My right hon. Friend has received only three complaints of overcharging since that order was made.
  Sir J. Langford-Holt: Will the hon. Lady take steps to inquire what overchargings are made, because charges of £3 to £3 10s. are being asked for cabs for which 36s. to 38s. is the correct fare? The Minister has a real responsibility—it is not just for the British Airports Authority, which admittedly has done virtually nothing—because a large part of the journey is in the Metropolitan area.
  Mrs. Williams: As the hon. Gentleman rightly implies, the proper fare from Heathrow to London is about 33s. to 36s., plus tip. In any case where there is overcharging the person concerned should report this within seven days.
  Recently an allegation of overcharging was made on a widely seen television programme. But I must emphasise that where such allegations are made and not followed up with evidence being supplied to the Metropolitan police or to the British Airports Authority, it is hardly surprising that the Home Office is unable to take action.
  Mr. Oakes: Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether she has received any complaints about the operation at London Heathrow airport of so-called mini-cabs in flagrant breach of the London Cabs Act, 1968, with apparent impunity?
  Mrs. Williams: Yes, indeed. Some cheap rate mini-cab drivers and hire car drivers who should not be there do appear at London Airport. The British Airports Authority has power to say who may or may not be there. I fully understand the feeling of cab drivers, that if they are asked to keep to the rules everybody else should do so.

  Gun licences
  Miss Quennellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many gun licences have been granted, of all sorts, in the past 12 months to the nearest convenient date; and how this compares with those issued five, three and seven years ago, respectively.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: As has been explained to the hon. Member by letter, gun licences have not been required since 13th December, 1966, although, of course, shotgun certificates have been required since May of last year. Statistics for earlier years are to be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT for 21st October, 1968.—[Vol. 770, cc. 221–2.]
  Miss Quennell: First, I should like to express my gratitude to the Home Department for its co-operation in this matter.
  Second, in view of the number of firearms which appear to be used in violent crime now, does not the hon. Lady think that we should look at the legislation that was put on the Statute Book recently to see whether it is having the effect for which we all hoped?
  Mrs. Williams: As the hon. Lady will know, the intention of the Firearms Act was to control more closely the possibility of possession of firearms. Since the Act came into force on 1st May, 1968, 600,000 certificates have been issued by chief officers of police in England and Wales. We will review the situation, but I am sure that the hon. Lady appreciates it is a little early to do so now.

  Drugs
  Miss Quennellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what special studies his Department has made into the source or origin of supplies of illicit hard and soft drugs.
  Mr. Callaghan: Knowledge of the source of origin of illicit drugs is con
  1494
  stantly being assembled, in particular through information obtained from the enforcement agencies both here and overseas.
  Miss Quennell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that magistrates and others concerned with the drug addiction that is spreading in this country are perturbed at the large amounts of drugs that apparently are available? Surely, it would be much wiser to try to stop the influx of drugs at the sources at which they enter the country than to chase them around when they are in the country.
  Mr. Callaghan: This will be true of cannabis, and the Customs and Excise does its best about it. As regards manufactured drugs, it is the view of my experts in the Home Office that most of those which are illicitly circulated were licitly manufactured in the United Kingdom. Although it is sometimes easy to identify the actual manufacturer, the point of diversion into the illicit market is much more difficult to identify, but we are using all the resources of the police that we can to keep track of this.

  Borstal Centre, Portland (Deaths)
  Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the number of deaths which have occurred in the Portland Borstal Centre during the past six months; when these occurred; what was the cause of death in each instance; and what action he has taken or intends taking to prevent such occurrences in the future.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which was given to his Question on 22nd October. The measures taken to prevent attacks on inmates are kept under constant review.[Vol. 788, c. 255.]
  Mr. Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend for her kindness in interviewing me yesterday and for the discussions which ensued. Having said that, may I say that the information which she gave yesterday, and which she has given again today, is quite unsatisfactory, and that when the matter is no longer sub judice I shall take the opportunity of raising it on the Adjournment?
  Mr. Evelyn King: Does not the Question also show the delicacy and difficulty inherent in the tasks of a Portland borstal prison officer or housemaster? In the light of the risks that they run and the anxiety suffered by their wives—and one of the officers, too, was murdered in recent years —will the hon. Lady pay tribute to the quality of the work they do and the courage they show?
  Mrs. Williams: I think that borstal officers do a great deal of good in difficult circumstances. The answer to the point made by my hon. Friend is that in any case where an inmate in borstal loses his life there is an immediate departmental inquiry into the circumstances in an endeavour to establish all the facts.

  Parkhurst Prison (Category A Prisoners)
  Mr. Woodnuttasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange for the number of category A prisoners at Parkhurst Prison to be reduced by sending a proportion of them to other prisons; and if he will introduce regulations to enable prison governors regularly to transfer category A prisoners from one prison to another.
  Mr. Callaghan: The category A population of Parkhurst, excluding the special security wing, is being reduced from 46 to about 30 during the next few weeks. Allocations of category A prisoners must be controlled centrally, but they are reviewed frequently, and governors are free to propose transfers.
  Mr. Woodnutt: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the first part of that reply, which is very welcome. As regards the second part, he will know that rumours get round prisons when trouble is brewing, and that the best way to deal with it is to take immediate action to remove the ringleaders to other prisons. The right hon. Gentleman would be wise to give governors the power to do that.
  Mr. Callaghan: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says in the first part of his question, but this is a matter that must be controlled centrally. There are relatively few of these prisoners. I am often consulted about the proposed allocations. I am certain that we must have regard to the whole policy for the country as a
  1496
  whole and the limited number of prisoners concerned.
  Mr. Lipton: Does my right hon. Friend's reply mean that from now on his policy will be to reduce the number of category A prisoners in various prisons where they at present form a kind of inverted aristocracy in the prison, which has a very bad effect on the other prisoners?
  Mr. Callaghan: We have a limited number of prisons and prisoners. I have from time to time thought it a good thing to have a general post when trouble seemed to be brewing, but one must have regard to a number of factors, including the need to have people settled in one place for a period, and I think that the policy is working out as reasonably as one can get it to do, recognising that we are dealing with a particularly violent group of men.
  Mr. Deedes: How many prisons are there which can take category A prisoners?
  Mr. Callaghan: I think seven, but may I check that?

  Parking Penalties
  Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many parking tickets were issued by police authorities in the last year; what percentage of the fines went to defray cost of wages and administration; and what rules govern the disposal of the remainder of the fund.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: During 1968 the police in England and Wales issued 1,046,358 fixed penalty notices. The number of those that related to parking offences is not known. Fixed penalty payments are transferred to the Ministry of Transport without deduction for costs of administration.
  Mr. Digby: Are we to assume that this is the only form of central control—the transfer of these funds to the Ministry of Transport? Is there any information about how much of this money is being devoted to improve parking spaces for motorists?
  Mrs. Williams: Yes, Sir. Local authority profits from parking meters,

  1497
  which include excess charges, are used to finance the provision of off-street car parking. The other penalties which arise are transferred to the Ministry of Transport because the police are financed under. a separate Vote.

  Dangerous Chemicals (Storage)
  Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates are available of the quantities of cyanide and other dangerous chemicals which are stored in London and other major towns and cities; if he will take steps to increase the safety precautions necessary for the storage of these dangerous chemicals, in order to minimise the possibility of a major accident; and if he will make a statement.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: Information on which worthwhile estimates could be made is not available. I believe that, in general, dangerous chemicals are properly safeguarded; but if my hon. Friend thinks that there are some particular problems which require attention and will let me have details, I shall be glad to study them.
  Mr. Roberts: I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend, but is she aware that many experts feel that there are enough dangerous chemicals stored in London alone to wipe out half the population of Great Britain? Can my hon. Friend say when we can expect some developments from the Home Office committee which is looking into the question of the control and transportation of dangerous chemicals?
  Mrs. Williams: I hate to have my hon. friend disagree with me, but the powers of my right hon. Friend in this respect do not extend to custody or to precautions against theft. My right hon. Friend's powers in respect of transportation and labelling are considerable, and there is no evidence that these powers are not adequate at the present time.

  Elections (Public Holidays)
  Air. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to make the day of a general election a public holiday; if he will examine means of arranging for
  1498
  similar holidays on the days of some major local elections; and if he will make a statement.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: So far as concerns Parliamentary elections, this matter was considered by Mr. Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law, which recommended no change in the law. I see no reason for dealing differently with local government elections.
  Mr. Roberts: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the present system has a built-in advantage for the Tory Party, many of whose election workers, as they are the idle rich, are available earlier in the day, whereas many of our election workers, who have to earn their living, are available only much later? Will my hon. Friend look at this again?
  Mrs. Williams: I deplore a number of built-in advantages whic the Opposition have, but I do not think that we ought to add to them. It is the case that elections held on Saturdays, particularly, invariably have a lower poll than those held on another day of the week. I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that the greater the number of people who vote, the greater the number who will indicate their support for my party.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: Even assuming that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) is right, does not the hon. Lady agree that to offset that there is a distinct advantage to the Government by fiddling the Boundary Commission's Report?

  Ethel Gee (Prison Sentence)
  Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now recommend a revision in the prison sentence being served by Ethel Gee, sentenced at the same time as Lonsdale and the Krogers.
  Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir.
  Mr. King: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty, but was not the principal criminal in this spy trial, Lonsdale, sentenced to 25 years and released after serving one-eighth of his sentence, and thereafter the Krogers were sentenced to 20 years and released after serving less than half their sentence. Could it be equitable for this ageing typist, dominated as she was by her

  1499
  lover, to be almost alone in bearing the penalty for a crime which she did not instigate, and into which she was misled?
  Mr. Callaghan: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. As he knows, this case has given me, personally, some concern. The hon. Gentleman also knows, because I wrote to him about it, that I did not have a favourable recommendation from the Parole Board in this case, and, therefore, I do not feel that I should act at the present time.
  Mr. Rose: Is it not inevitably going to cause resentment that the ringleaders should be allowed to go free because of their powerful friends, whereas this rather pathetic woman must remain in prison? Do not we have a maxim that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done?
  Mr. Callaghan: Justice was done, but the question is when, and how much, mercy should come into the application of the justice. The people who have been referred to were foreign subjects and spies. Miss Gee is a citizen of this country, and the calculation is not exactly the same. But I note what my hon. Friend has said.
  Mr. Paget: Is not there a considerable difference between people like Lonsdale and the Krogers—who were loyal people serving their own country, as our own spies serve us—and those contemptible people who betray their own country for money?
  Mr. Callaghan: I repeat that I believe that justice was done. But the question arises as to the stage at which those who have been sentenced can be regarded as having fulfilled the appropriate sentence that public opinion would expect—and that is a matter that I shall keep under review, and I know that the Parole Board will also do so.
  Mr. King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  Mr. Moussa Balgobin
  Mr. Huntasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to ensure that immigration officers comply with the
  1500
  instruction in Command Paper No. 3465 of 1967 relating to the admission of those in possession of valid entry certificates, following the refusal of admission to Mr. Moussa Balgobin, of Mauritius. at Gatwick Airport on 14th August, 1969.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: I have no reason to think that immigration officers do not comply with the instruction.
  Mr. Hunt: Is not there a very important principle at stake here, in that Mr. Balgobin had a quite valid entry certificate and that there were clearly no grounds in law for us to have refused him admission to this country as a visitor? In view of that fact, is it not time that the instructions to immigration officers at Gatwick were made clearer? Did not those officers act quite wrongly in this respect?
  Mrs. Williams: One of the provisions of the instructions to immigration officers is that if an entry certificate is obtained by misrepresentation or the knowing concealment of material facts they have a right to refuse admission. In this case inquiry was made of the High Commission in Mauritius, which sustained the view that the entry certificate had been obtained by misrepresentation. As a result, Mr. Balgobin was refused admission. He then appealed to the High Court, and leave to appeal was given. He was offered bail until 21st September, but he returned home before his bail was up or the case could be heard, so it is difficult for the hon. Member or for me—with the best wishes of justice in mind—to reach a final conclusion in this case.

  School Crossing Patrols
  Mr. Huntasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will seek to arrange for the responsibility for school crossing patrols to be transferred from the Metropolitan Police to the local authorities.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: My right hon. Friend has asked the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to discuss the possible transfer of responsibility with the education authorities in the Metropolitan Police District. Any such change would require legislation.
  Mr. Hunt: I warmly welcome that answer, as far as it goes, but is my hon.

  1501
  Friend aware that I have two separate examples in my constituency, in Mead Way and Hayes Lane, where applications for school crossing patrols have been supported by parents, teachers, governors and managers of the schools concerned and have yet been turned down? How can a police commissioner sitting in New Scotland Yard know all the local factors involved? Will that point be borne in mind in the discussions that will now take place?
  Mrs. Williams: As the hon. Member implies, the situation is otherwise outside London. Talks are to be held to see whether we cannot bring the situation within London into line with what happens outside it.
  Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that some aspects of that answer were given to me nearly 12 months ago, since when nothing has happened? Is she further aware that many police forces and local authorities would prefer local authorities to be responsible for the provision of this service? Will she do all that she can to hasten this wish into a reality?
  Mrs. Williams: Yes, Sir.

  Remand Accommodation Women (Midlands)
  Mrs. Renee Shortasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide suitable and convenient alternative remand accommodation to the Brockhill Remand Centre for women in the West Midlands.
  Mrs. Knightasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in view of the resolution passed unanimously by the Magistrates' Association at its annual general meeting on 10th October, 1969, concerning the need for remand accommodation for women in the Midlands, a copy of which is in his possession, if he will consider the possibility of re-opening Brockhill Remand Centre to women.
  Mr. Danceasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department have yet received various documents from the honourable Member for Bromsgrove relating to the Brock hill Remand Centre and whether he will make a statement.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: I am reviewing this matter in the light of the representations received, the many other demands on an overstrained prison system and the need to ensure that where-ever women and girls are remanded in custody adequate nursing care is available.
  Mrs. Short: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that the Magistrates' Association has expressed great concern about the closure of this remand centre, and that it means that women now have to travel to Manchester or London, and that their relatives and legal advisers have to make the same journey? Will she therefore consider reopening the Brockhill Remand Centre—which would be the easiest way to deal with the problem?
  Mrs. Williams: All that my hon. Friend says is true, but I should add that a high proportion of women in custody and on remand are in need of psychiatric attention. We have had to balance the difficulties of getting nursing staff to go to Brockhill because of the difficulties to which my hon. Friend has referred. I have already promised to do my best and to look into the matter, but I cannot promise that Brockhill will necessarily be the place at which we try to meet the needs of the Midlands.
  Mrs. Knight: Will the Minister bear in mind—thinking of the remarks that the Minister made a moment or two ago—that although the magistrates are well aware of the problems that she outlined, their recommendation in this matter was quite unanimous?
  Mrs. Williams: I would hate to suggest that the recommendation was valueless, but the hon. Lady will realise that we cannot quickly bring about changes in matters which are causing great difficulty and are very complex. We are looking into this matter. Owing to the extreme legality and conformity of the female sex, we have so few female prisoners that we cannot have prisons situated within close reach of all their homes.
  Mr. Dance: Does the hon. Lady agree that Brockhill is a good place and that other alternative proposals have been put forward which could work, with the provision of a nursing staff? Will not

  1503
  she agree that someone in her Department has made a grave error in coming to the decision? Will not someone have the courage to say so, so that the decision can be reversed?
  Mrs. Williams: The hon. Member will recognise that I am most unlikely to follow him in his tempting remarks. It is not clear that Brockhill will be the answer, because there have been extreme difficulties in recruiting nursing staff. Nevertheless, I recognise the difficulties that now face the Midlands in this respect.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will invite the Heads of the Governments of the Common Market countries to a conference in London.
  Mr. Barnesasked the Prime Minister what communications he has received from the Heads of the European Economic Community Governments regarding Great Britain's application to join the European Economic Community following the summit meeting at The Hague.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson):I would refer to what I said in reply to Questions from several hon. Members last Tuesday.—[Vol. 791, c. 1106–12.]
  Mr. Marten: If the Prime Minister does have a meeting with the leaders of the Common Market will he take the opportunity of explaining to them—and will he explain to the House today—how far the Labour Government accept the safeguards in respect of negotiations on the Common Market so clearly set out in the Labour Party resolution passed at its conference in September of this year?
  The Prime Minister: I have heard this a number of times. The opening part of the hon. Member's supplementary question suggests that the rest must be hypothetical.
  Mr. Barnes: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that although the terms of British entry will be of great importance there is much more to our application than that? Is he fully satisfied that the Heads of Government are aware that des
  1504
  pite previous disappointments there is still a widespread desire in this country that we should now play a full part in the future political and economic development of Europe?
  The Prime Minister: I feel that there is full appreciation among the Heads of Government about the position of the British Government and this House on this matter, as regards the economic and technological aspects of joining the Community, and as regards the political value.
  Mrs. Short: Would it not be better if my right hon. Friend took no notice of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) but concentrated on hammering out a suitable alternative when he visits President Nixon next year?
  The Prime Minister: I dealt with the question of alternatives, including N.A.F.T.A., worldwide free trade areas, and a reprise of the Kennedy Round, but none of these activities so far as there is a short-term hope of their leading to anything is incompatible with our application to join the European Economic Community.

  FIREWORKS ACCIDENTS
  Mr. Fauldsasked the Prime Minister if he will recommend setting up a Royal Commission to investigate the problem of injuries sustained by children from fireworks and to propose the changes in legislation consequential upon its findings.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) on 6th November. —[Vol. 790, c. 166.]
  Mr. Faulds: I thank my right hon. Friend for that pretty imprecise answer. Does he not recognise that there is mounting concern throughout the country at the annual toll of fireworks casualities as evidenced by Members' postbags? Will he reconsider his answer and the other answer?
  The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend does not find enough precision there he may have found precision in the answers

  1505
  given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Home Office to Questions earlier this afternoon. The concern to which my hon. Friend has referred is shared by my hon. Friend at the Home Office. It is for that reason, as stated in my answer, that my hon. Friend's Department is calling a meeting of all those concerned with manufacturing and other aspects of the safety question as soon as it is possible to analyse the 1969 casualty figures.
  Dr. Winstanley: Is not a criticism of this House that so many people can still quietly set fire to their children and grandmothers on 5th November? Since Royal Commissions take time, and it is clear that the recommendations of commissioners, both royal and otherwise, are not invariably implemented, would it not be wiser to allow the House to come to its own conclusions?
  The Prime Minister: My experience of participating in family fireworks parties suggests that the hon. Member has missed out a generation. I do not think that a Royal Commission is the answer. I believe that all the facts that can be found will be found when the 1969 figures are analysed and added to the analysis for previous years, and that the right answer —in the first instance, at any rate—is for my right hon. Friend's proposal to be followed up and for us to have meetings of all the manufacturing and other interests concerned.

  RHODESIA
  Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Prime Minister if he will give details of the communications he has received from Mr. Pat Bashford about the Government's Rhodesia policy; and what reply he has sent.
  The Prime Minister: I have not received any such communication, Sir.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Has the Prime Minister studied what this leading liberal opponent of Mr. Smith—
  Mr. Thorpe: Oh, really!
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: —wrote in The Times: that sanctions are having precisely the opposite of the intended effect? This being so, could he not now make a
  1506
  reappraisal, however agonising, restore normal trade and allow British ideas to compete again in Rhodesia with those of South Africa?
  The Prime Minister: I saw the statement reported in The Times, of Mr. Bash-ford and also the replies to it by certain other people, including the Bishop of Matabeleland, whose attitude I would rather follow on Rhodesian questions. So far as British ideas are concerned, I have never noticed the hon. Member very active in seeing that British ideas of human rights are pushed in Rhodesia.
  Mr. Molloy: How many other nations have identified themselves with and recognised the illegal regime in Rhodesia, which is so often eulogised by some hon. Members opposite?
  The Prime Minister: Not one, Sir.
  Mr. Thorpe: In view of the premise of the question of the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), will the Prime Minister bear in mind that Mr. Bashford, whom he described as a liberal, is not so, and that most of the leading liberals in South Africa with any political experience are either in detention in their houses without trial or are in prison camps?
  The Prime Minister: It is certainly the case that some of those who have expressed liberal ideas there have shown singularly little effectiveness in pushing them in political terms—
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: It is your fault.
  The Prime Minister: It is the fault of the fact that they are living under a semi-Fascist regime. So far as the others are concerned, it is a fact that large numbers have been imprisoned without trial—that is true both of Europeans and of Africans who are opposed to the oppressive and repressive nature of the regime which the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) has supported.
  Mr. Paget: Leaving aside the question of Mr. Bashford's liberality, does my right hon. Friend feel that the continuation of sanctions has the smallest prospect of toppling Mr. Smith or restoring legality in Rhodesia? If the answer be "No", what is the continuing point?
  The Prime Minister: The answer is "Yes". Although I have a great respect for my hon. and learned Friend on many issues, I have never agreed with his continued pressure in this House for four years that we should have a sell-out to racialist policies in Rhodesia.

  BUILDING MATERIALS (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  Mr. Bryant Godman Irvineasked the Prime Minister what responsibilities regarding materials have recently been transferred from the Ministry of Transport to the Ministry of Public Building and Works.
  The Prime Minister: Since May 1969, the Ministry of Public Building and Works has been the sponsoring Department for all building materials and aggregates: this includes certain materials (i.e. building stone, stone used as aggregate, and slag) for which responsibility was transferred from the Ministry of Transport; no change in statutory responsibilities was involved.
  Mr. Godman Irvine: What has led to this decision, and what is the right hon. Gentleman hoping to achieve by it?
  The Prime Minister: This was explained at the time that the transfer was made. It was felt that, because of the common usage both between the building industry and also the constructional industry's responsibilities for roads, it would be better for the responsibility for all these building materials, which raise many other wider questions—planning permission and so on—to be under one Department.

  TYNEMOUTH AND SOUTH SHIELDS (PETITION)
  Dame Irene Wardasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his action following the presentation to him of the petition, asking him to save the Tyne River from decline, to preserve its ferries and to abolish selective employment tax, on 15th October by the Mayor and Councillors of Tyne-mouth on behalf of the county boroughs of Tynemouth and South Shields.
  The Prime Minister: I arranged for a deputation consisting of the hon. Lady,
  1508
  my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) and local authority representatives, to be seen by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning later that day.
  Dame Irene Ward: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having made that arrangement. Is he aware, however, that the petition was sent over from No. 10 to his right hon. Friend and that therefore the responsibility still rests with the right hon. Gentleman? What we on this North-East coast want to know is the answer to the questions contained in the Question which I have addressed to him today. May we have an answer please, because we will be dying if they do not get on with it?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady will be aware that these matters are best dealt with by the Ministers who have departmental responsibility. She was, I think, pleased with the courteous way in which my right hon. Friend received the deputation. He is visiting the North-East tomorrow—Tees-side, I think—and will be on Tyneside next month. I think that it is better to let him deal with these matters, some of which are important. On some of them, I do not think the hon. Lady will find that a proper study by my right hon. Friend will show the same validity in the petition as she thinks.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are very grateful for the great activity in our shipbuilding yards on the Tyne, but that, nevertheless, there is strong feeling on both sides of the Tyne about the danger of the disappearance of our major ferry and other activities in that area, and that people are very annoyed that nothing is being done to prevent that?
  The Prime Minister: I am aware of the position of the Market Place Ferry, referred to in the petition. This must be a matter for discussion with the Minister of Transport. Of course, it is somewhat unusual for a ferry to be part of a port authority's operation. Nevertheless, if a case can be made, loans and grants can be made available for harbour developments and it is possible to give capital expenditure, for example, for a new boat for the ferry.

  1509
  On the first part of my hon. Friend's qustion, in which he referred to shipbuilding, I would only say that both he and the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) will be delighted to know, and will probably already know, that in 1968 net new orders for shipbuilding in the country as a whole were nearly three times as great as in 1964 and that new orders for export were 13 times as great as in 1964—and that the Tyne has had a very full share of these new orders.

  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Prime Minister when he next expects to visit the United States of America for discussions with the President.
  The Prime Minister: It was announced simultaneously from 10 Downing Street and the White House last night that I have accepted President Nixon's invitation to visit Washington on 27th and 28th January for a further personal exchange of views on the international situation.
  Mr. Lewis: I thank my right hon. Friend for letting me know that it was announced last night, as I heard, and for his courtesy in dropping me a note to that effect. Has my right hon. Friend seen the Press reports that one of the subjects which will be discussed is, putting it in the Press report language, a "sellout" of Israel? May I be assured that my right hon. Friend will not in any way take part in any discussions which might have as their basis a sell-out of Israel?
  The Prime Minister: No agenda has yet been settled. I should be very surprised if the Middle East was not one of the questions discussed, but a sell-out of Israel is the policy neither of the United States Government nor of Her Majesty's Government.
  Sir R. Cary: In his discussions in January, would the Prime Minister tell the President that we should welcome a second visit from him to this country, perhaps next year?
  The Prime Minister: If the President felt able to get away for such a visit, it would he his third since he took office.
  Mr. John Mendelson: When my right hon. Friend meets the President, will he point out to him the very strong and deep feeling in this country about the wholesale assassination of ordinary village people in South Vietnam by members of the United States forces, which has been revealed, in the first place, to their great credit, in the American Press, which has upheld the tradition of the American Press in this matter? Would my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate in this House on Vietnam so that he may be fortified with the opinion of this House before he meets the President and discusses Vietnam with him?
  The Prime Minister: I have another Question to answer on Vietnam—the next one, indeed—and I am to answer Questions about Vietnam next week. The House has read the Press report of a number of very grave alleged incidents in Vietnam. Even if they proved to be only a quarter true, they would be regarded as very grave atrocities. In fact, there have been atrocities on both sides in this horrible and tragic war—
  Mr. Mendelson: Not on this scale.
  The Prime Minister: Even on this scale. I remember verified reports of 1,000 people being massacred by the Communists during their short period of occupation. But that does not excuse either of these kinds of atrocities. So far as the American alleged atrocities are concerned, these are a matter for very thorough investigation by the American Service authorities, and it would be for them to take any action. It is for us to express our horror, if these stories prove to be true. In America, free Senate, Congressional and Press discussion on these matters can lead to them being unearthed and brought into the light of day, which is not always the case in Communist countries.
  Dame Joan Vickers: When the right hon. Gentleman goes to see the President, will he have time to meet Mr. Dean Acheson to discuss his recently-expressed views on Rhodesia?
  The Prime Minister: I have read Press reports of Mr. Dean Acheson's statements, with which I totally disagree. Indeed, I would be surprised to think that many hon. Members here agreed with them. I recall, when on the benches

  1511
  opposite, expressing disagreement with other statements made by Mr. Acheson, and I also recall certain right hon. Gentlemen opposite, when speaking from this Dispatch Box, expressing their continued disagreement with some of his statements —statements of a distinguished figure who has lost a State Department and has not yet found himself a role.
  Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Since President Nixon intends to keep his air force in Vietnam and since he intends to withdraw only ground troops as Marshal Theu's troops can take over, does my right hon. Friend agree that it appears to be his policy to keep a corrupt military dictatorship indefinitely in power; and will my right hon. Friend explain to President Nixon that that policy is not acceptable to the British people?
  The Prime Minister: Before answering my right hon. Friend's supplementary question, I hope that I will not be out of order in mentioning that the whole House will have read with regret his statement that he will not be seeking re-election to this House at the next General Election.
  To answer his basic question, my right hon. Friend will, of course, be aware of the clear proposals put forward by President Nixon about a solution in Vietnam, including the withdrawal—the phased and then total withdrawal—of all ground troops, if, of course, there is a settlement—and a settlement requires two sides to agree.
  We have had several statements and assertions by the American Government that they are prepared to withdraw totally from any commitment inside Vietnam. I know that my right hon. Friend will continue to urge on both sides the need for a permanent and democratic settlement.
  Mr. Sandys: When he meets President Nixon, will the right hon. Gentleman explain that very large numbers of people in this country appreciate the efforts which the United States are making to prevent the spread of Communism throughout South-East Asia?
  The Prime Minister: I have already answered questions about the American role in Asia. What I believe all of us appreciate above all is the fact that President Nixon has made a very clear
  1512
  offer to withdraw his ground combat troops from Vietnam and to play his full part in ending the fighting there, if there can be a settlement. No hon. Member, whatever views he may hold about the present South Vietnamese Government, would wish to have a political solution imposed on Vietnam from anywhere which was contrary to the wishes of the people of that area.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Mr. Heath: Would the Leader of the House please state the business of the House for next week?
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
  MONDAY, 24TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Bill and of the Industrial Development (Ships) Bill.
  TUESDAY, 25TH NOVEMBER Remaining stages of the Police Bill and the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill.
  WEDNESDAY, 26TH NOVEMBER—Remaining stages of the Customs (Import Deposits) Bill and the Rent (Control of Increases) Bill.
  THURSDAY, 27TH NOVEMBER—Supply [2nd Allotted Day]: Until seven o'clock there will be a debate on the £50 Travel Allowance, which will arise on an Opposition Motion, and afterwards on Rural Bus Services, also on an Opposition Motion.
  FRIDAY, 28TH NOVEMBER—Private Members' Motions.
  MONDAY, 1ST DECEMBER—Private Members' Motions until seven o'clock.
  Afterwards, Motions on the Milk Marketing Amendment 1933 Scheme, the West Riding County Council Order, the Cumberland County Council Order, the Defence Powers (Continuance) Order and the British Overseas Airways Corporation (Borrowing Powers) Order.
  Mr. Heath: Can the right hon. Gentleman now say when the promised debate on the Government's White Paper on pensions is to take place?
  Mr. Peart: No, Sir, I cannot say. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am hopeful that there will be a White Paper. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I will look into the matter.
  Mr. Heath: Another White Paper?
  Mr. Peart: I was answering the right hon. Gentleman's question and was thinking of a separate matter, the social services, and so on. I will look into it. I cannot make a further statement on the subject today.
  Mr. Heath: Do I understand that we are to have yet another White Paper on the Government's pension plans?
  Mr. Peart: I understand that there have been discussions about the possibility of this. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am trying to be helpful. I will look into the matter carefully. In any event, there is always an opportunity of using a Supply day.
  Mr. Heath: I must again question the right hon. Gentleman in view of the alarming prospect which he has held out. The first White Paper was barely comprehensible. The second was incomprehensible. What will the third one be like?
  Mr. Peart: I am anxious that information should be given to hon. Members. I will have discussions about the matter. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Heath: The whole House is bewildered by the right hon. Gentleman's statement. We are prepared to accept that there may be a third White Paper. Could we at least debate the second White Paper before getting the third?
  Mr. Peart: I was thinking about the Bill and was trying to be helpful. This is an important matter, but I cannot promise a specific debate at this stage.
  Mrs. Renee Short: For three weeks in succession I have raised with my right hon. Friend the need for a debate at the earliest possible opportunity on the proposals to reorganise the broadcasting services, but he has not yet made a firm announcement. Instead of taking some of the odds and ends which he has announced for debate next week, would he consider substituting an urgently
  1514
  needed debate on this subject? Is he aware of the concern that is now spreading through the B.B.C. staff, particularly in the regions, and the urgent need for this House to have a say about what is to happen to the broadcasting services in the future?
  Mr. Peart: I am aware of the importance of this matter. I replied last week and the week before to questions about it from my hon. Friend. I have conveyed her views to my right hon. Friend and it may be that we will have a statement shortly. However, I cannot promise anything for next week.
  Lord Balniel: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that a fortnight ago my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, and the Prime Minister agreed, that a debate on the second White Paper on pensions would be desirable in view of the widespread concern that is felt about the Government's proposals? Is it not desirable that: we debate the matter at an early date?
  Mr. Peart: I said that I would look into the matter sympathetically. I repeat that I am trying to be helpful. I realise the importance of the subject—[Interruption.]—which, for some strange reason, hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to reject. I assure the noble Lord that I will convey all these views to my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Winnick: In view of the serious allegations of mass murder in Vietnamese villages, would my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to having a debate on the Vietnam war, particularly in view of these allegations of mass murder? Is he aware that a Motion on the subject is now being tabled?
  Mr. Peart: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered a number of questions on this specific matter earlier. I was pressed the other week by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) to have a general debate on Vietnam. I said that I would make representations to my right hon. Friend, and that has been done. However, on the specific point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick), I suggest that the Prime Minister gave satisfactory answers at Question Time.
  Mr. Jennings: Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to squeeze time out of next week's business as a matter of urgency for at least a half-day's debate on the present position of teachers and their salary claim?
  Mr. Peart: I appreciate that this is an important matter. Indeed, the teachers are at present involved in a dispute. However, I cannot find time for a debate next week.
  Mr. Maclennan: Would my right hon. Friend consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland about the possibility of initiating a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee on the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland?
  Mr. Peart: I will convey that suggestion to my right hon. Friend.
  Dame Irene Ward: Has the leader of the House seem the Motion standing in my name asking for a statement to be made about the strike of maintenance men on the Underground?
  [That, in the opinion of this House, a statement should be made on the continued strike by the Underground maintenance men which is causing inconvenience to the travelling public owing to the withdrawal of trains owing to lack of essential maintenance and the stoppage of escalators through lack of repair and on why this strike has caused less attention from the authorities than the unofficial strikes of the guards now settled to their advantage.]
  Since quite a lot of information has been given about the guards' dispute, which seems to have been satisfactorily settled, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the need for a statement to be made about this strike? Is he aware of the difficulties that face people travelling on the Underground when some escalators are out of action? Is he aware that some trains must be taken out of service because there is nobody to fit the necessary spare parts? Can the House be told what is happening in this dispute?
  Mr. Peart: I have seen the hon. Lady's Motion. My right hon. Friend has been in touch with the bodies concerned and has been trying to reach a solution. I
  1516
  do not think that it would be helpful for us to debate the matter at this stage.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that on Tuesday it may not be possible to conclude the business on the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill at a mutually agreeable time for us all'? Will he take into account that we may need further time to complete proper discussion of that Bill?
  Mr. Peart: I am aware of that possibility, and I will note what my hon. Friend says.
  Mr. Crouch: Is the Leader of the House aware of the growing concern in the country and the House at the Government's lack of a proper policy on the Nigerian war? Will he give us an opportunity to debate the question next week?
  Mr. Peart: I appreciate that this is a vital matter, and that hon. Members feel very passionately about it. The Government have stated their position time and again in debate and in reply to Questions, but I will keep my right hon. Friend advised of the feeling of the House on the matter.
  Mr. Faulds: May I emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renee Short) about the need for a debate on the B.B.C.s plans to reorganise both its regions and its services, in view of the increasing concern of the staff, who have not been consulted, and the need for a public inquiry into the responsibility of the B.B.C. in the 'seventies?
  Mr. Pearl: I have replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renee Short) on that subject.
  Mr. Mawby: Can we look forward next week to either the Prime Minister or the First Secretary giving a progress report on the solemn and binding undertaking given by the T.U.C. in June this year on unconstitutional strikes?
  Mr. Peart: It is an important matter. I cannot promise, but I note the hon. Member's view.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for Motion No. 17, for two reasons: it is

  1517
  topical in relation to the inter-denominational schools in Northern Ireland; and it shows a remarkable change of policy on the part of some Tories—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot now debate the subject for which he seeks to ask time to debate.
  Mr. Hughes:—and my amendments to it rationalise it.
  [That this House, recognising the special problems created by a divided community in Northern Ireland, and without prejudice to the rights of parents to decide their children's place of education and form of religious instruction, urges education authorities, voluntary agencies, and the churches, in Northern Ireland to give immediate consideration to the creation of truly inter-denominational secondary schools and teacher training colleges, which will be attended by pupils of all religious persuasions, as a first step towards a more united community.]
  [As Amendments to Mr. Henry Clark's proposed Motion (Inter-Denominational Schools in Northern Ireland):
  Line 1, after recognising', insert and deploring'.
  Line 7, at end add ' and United Ireland '.]
  Mr. Peart: I have carefully looked at my hon. and learned Friend's proposed Amendments in lines 1 and 7 of the Motion. This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Government. Her Majesty's Government always welcome any steps which will promote mutual respect and tolerance in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: In view of the facts about arms supply given by the Front Bench opposite and the failure, or success, of the Foreign Secretary in misleading the House, will the Leader of the House now urgently consider a debate on the Nigerian war before Christmas?
  Mr. Peart: I think that to use the word "misleading" is unfair. The matter was dealt with. I have given a promise that it will be noted carefully.
  Mr. James Johnson: We have waited a long time for the Merchant Shipping Bill. Can we be told when we can debate it—perhaps before Christmas?
  Mr. Peart: We have only just started the new Session. I hope that my hon. Friend will be patient.
  Mr. Worsley: Will the Leader of the House reconsider what he said about a debate on broadcasting, and give an assurance that no action will be taken until there has been a debate?
  Mr. Peart: I said that I would look at this carefully. I cannot give a promise. It may be necessary also to have a statement before a debate.
  Mr. Rose: Now that the latest decision under the Road Safety Act is an open incitement to drivers to take a drink of whisky when stopped by policemen, will my right hon. Friend now consult the Cabinet and, even if it means sacrificing some parliamentary time, initiate a short amending Bill to save a potential 1,000 lives during the next year?
  Mr. Peart: I know that this is an important matter and that obviously needs to be considered, but not next week.
  Sir D. Renton: Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that no legislation based upon the Beeching Report on the size of quarter sessions will be introduced in either House until we have had an opportunity of debating the report itself?
  Mr. Peart: I should like to look at this subject carefully before giving a complete assurance. But it is an important matter, I know.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will not my right hon. Friend recognise that there have been far too many statements on broadcasting without debate, and will he now arrange a debate before any further statements are made?
  Mr. Peart: I can only repeat what I have already said.
  Mr. Awdry: There are rumours in the Press today that hon. Members may get an allowance to pay their secretaries a little more. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to make a statement?
  Mr. Peart: I am to make a statement, but one must not always believe statements in the Press—
  Hon. Members: When?
  Mr. Peart: I hope, probably next week.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Does the Leader of the House recall that when pressed last week on the urgent need for a debate on Vietnam he said that he would consult his right hon. Friend, and look into it? Does he not accept that this matter has become more urgent because of the announced date of the Prime Minister's visit to Washington? As the House needs an opportunity to express its view on Vietnam, will make haste to make an announcement next week about a debate before Christmas?
  Mr. Peart: I cannot be committed to making an announcement next week, but I recognise that the whole question of Vietnam is important; and the force of my hon. Friend's argument. I have made representations on this matter.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: Has the Leader of the House gathered from the large number of questions addressed to him about broadcasting that to have the statement he has threatened next week without a debate will be quite unacceptable to the House?
  Mr. Peart: I did not say that a state-would be made next week. I think that a statement may well have to be made by the Minister concerned, but I said that I would look into the matter carefully.
  Mr. Barnes: As a misleading statement was given to the House earlier in the week about an American guarantee for Biafra, and as this is not the first instance of this kind, can we not have a debate next week so that the Government can make a clear statement on their policy with regard to the Nigerian war?
  Mr. Peart: I cannot give an assurance about that. This matter has been debated, statements have been made, and Questions have been put to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I have made representations to my right hon. Friend. I must make representations, even though I may disagree with views expressed by colleagues in the House.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Select Committee on Science and Technology published its report on Defence Research Establishments six months ago? In view
  1520
  of the importance of the matter, ought we not to have a debate before the Defence Estimates debates season starts?
  Mr. Peart: It is a very important report. It is very long, and the members of the Committee must have worked very hard on it. But I cannot promise a debate before Christmas.
  Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: May I press my right hon. Friend that it is quite essential that the House should have a debate on Vietnam before the Prime Minister goes to Washington, which means that we must have it before Christmas?
  Mr. Peart: I cannot add to what I have said. I have said that I will make representations.
  Mr. Bryan: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny a report that the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications will be making a statement on Monday?
  Mr. Peart: I cannot give a specific answer. I said that I thought that there should be a statement on broadcasting matters, and I hope that the House will accept this.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Leader of the House has said that he will make a statement next week on salaries for secretaries, or some secretarial assistance—a matter which, incidentally, is reported in the Press—but is he aware that hon. Members rather resent the fact about the way the Committee is selected, and put into operation? No one knows how it operates, and then my right hon. Friend comes along and says that he will make a statement. Is he aware that a lot more is needed than just this method of dealing with hon. Members' salaries and conditions?
  Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend should not denigrate the Services Committee. The Committee's policy was approved by the House, and if my hon. Friend felt so strongly about it he should have had the courage to oppose it.
  Mr. Palmer: My right hon. Friend has just said that he cannot promise a debate before Christmas on the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Defence Research Establishments. Can he promise a debate very soon after Christmas?
  Mr. Peart: I cannot give a specific assurance. It was an important report, and I know that my hon. Friend, as Chairman of the Committee, feels strongly about it.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the Leader of the House aware that as a result of what has been shown on television in recent weeks about starving children in Biafra, it is now the clear duty of the House to debate the matter in order to see whether Britain can give a lead? The right hon. Gentleman must not under-estimate the feeling of people in the country as well as in the House.
  Mr. Peart: I am not under-estimating the feeling on this matter at all, either inside or outside the House. I have given a promise.
  Mr. Heath: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that so far in reply to hon. Members, according to my count, he has spoken of 11 important matters, on four of which he promised to be helpful, five he promised to watch carefully, and the remainder he was vaguely ambiguous about? Can he go away and arrange for the remaining four weeks before Christmas to be used to deal with important matters which the House wants to discuss and statements by Ministers which the House wants to hear, instead of putting forward some of the business in which the House has very little interest?
  Mr. Peart: I cannot accept that. I believe that the Police Bill and the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill, to be debated next week, are very important. If hon. Members opposite believe that the £50 allowance is a bad subject for their Supply day, why did they not choose a different one?
  Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware, in view of what the Leader of the Opposition is demanding, that the Merchant Shipping Bill relates to matters which have been discussed for the last 50 or 60 years and that the industry has been neglected by the Tories? Is it not about time that we dealt with this important matter?
  Mr. Peart: I agree. That is why I resent the accusation made by the Leader of the Opposition. I think that next week's business is important. If the right hon. Gentleman had wished, we could have debated Biafra on the Supply day.
  Mr. Heath: If the Leader of the House wished to give us Supply days until Christmas, he could provide for what the House wants.
  Mr. Peart: Why did the right hon. Gentleman not choose that subject when he had the opportunity?
  Mr. Rippon rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman wish to ask a business question'? It is rather late.
  Mr. Rippon: Is the Leader of the House suggesting that the question of rural buses is not important?
  Mr. Peart: No I did not suggest that, but your Leader suggested that it was not important.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House must not bring me into it.

  FALKLAND ISLANDS
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on the Falkland Islands.
  As I informed the House on the 11th of December, 1968, discussions with the Argentine Government have continued. In accordance with the practice for several years past, letters will be sent by the Argentine Government and ourselves to the Secretary General of the United Nations describing these discussions.
  The text of these letters will be made public tomorrow at 7.30 p.m. Falkland Islands time, a time agreed by all parties and convenient to the Falkland Islanders.
  With the permission of the House, I will make a fuller statement on Monday. Meanwhile, I can assure the House that the undertakings which Her Majesty's Government have repeatedly given both to Parliament and to the islanders remain unchanged, namely, that the Governor and his Executive Council have been kept informed and that there can be no transfer of sovereignty against the wishes of the islanders.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that his unqualified words that there will be no transfer of sovereignty against the wishes of the islanders will meet with general approval in all parts of the House? But as the letters to the United Nations apparently amount to nothing, could he not have said that today?
  Mr. Stewart: On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I am sure that what I said about no transfer of sovereignty against the wishes of the islanders will be welcome to the House, but it is by no means the first time that it has been said. The Government have made this clear throughout. On the second point, it will be for hon. Members to judge when the text of the letters is published what significance they wish to give to them. I made this statement today because I gathered that a report from Buenos Aires alarmed some hon. Members.
  Mr. James Johnson: Despite all the blether by hon. Members opposite, is it not obvious that the announcement will be made to suit the wishes of the Falkland islanders themselves? Is this not so?
  Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is correct about that. The Falkland islanders, not having newspapers and relying on the broadcast for their daily news, wanted this to be at a time convenient for their evening broadcast.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: While I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, what I find very difficult to understand is why there are continual assurances yet, at the same time, the Government's assurances seem to be continually undermined, whether intentionally or not, by rumours which seem to circulate—perhaps coming from the Opposition or the Argentine Government—which inevitably cause disturbance and distress to the Falkland islanders. This seems to be not only undesirable but unnecessary.
  Mr. Stewart: I quite agree that it is unnecessary. There is no excuse for anyone, as some hon. Members opposite have done, to try to undermine these assurances. Fortunately, it was made clear some time ago by the Executive Council of the Falkland Islands, as I
  1524
  told the House last year, that it accepted that the British Government had been acting in good faith and that an understanding with Argentina, if it is to be reached, will be fully in keeping with Her Majesty's Government's promise that there will be no transfer of sovereignty against the wishes of the islanders. I deprecate attempts to disturb the islanders by questioning this.
  Mr. Molloy: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that notwithstanding the fact that on a number of occasions he has made transparently clear that the Government stand fully with the Falkland islanders there are those who, apparently for purely political purposes, desire to find some false arguments? They are not helping the islanders at all with this sort of manoeuvring.
  Mr. Stewart: I must agree that any attempt to suggest that the undertaking given in this House will not be honoured can only do damage. Fortunately, I think that the Falkland islanders have begun to take the measure of these manoeuvres by now.
  Sir F. Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to letters being sent to the United Nations by the two Powers. Can he confirm a matter which may be disturbing? Are they to be in an agreed text, or will they be each country's separate interpretation?
  Secondly, since the Argentinians made clear that the only matter in which they are interested is a transfer of sovereignty, which the Foreign Secretary has said is not on the cards if it is against the wishes of the Falkland islanders, can the right hon. Gentleman remind us what all these discussions are about?
  Mr. Stewart: The letters will be, as in the past, an agreed text and will not be in the least anything inconsistent with the pledge that has been given.
  The hon. Gentleman is incorrect in saying that the only thing in which the Argentinians are interested is a transfer of sovereignty. Both they and emphatically we are interested in trying to improve communications between the Argentinians and the islanders and the islanders are interested in that.
  Mr. George Jeger: My right hon. Friend has said that the timing has been

  1525
  agreed between the three parties concerned. Can he confirm that the Falkland islanders are in agreement with the text of the communiqué as well as the timing?
  Mr. Stewart: I should be glad to answer that question on Monday, when I shall make a fuller statement. The only reason I cannot answer it now is that the discussions through the Governor with the Executive Council have been confidential. I do not think that I could go further until the agreed time when the letters are published.
  Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Argentine Foreign Minister was reported early yesterday morning to have said that the joint statement would be a positive step towards a solution of the conflict over possession of the islands? Is it not most regrettable that on a matter affecting the interests of British subjects in a British territory this House should learn about the matter first from a spokesman of a foreign Government and not from the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Stewart: I think it regrettable that this report came out, but I still think that, having agreed to a particular time for the publication of the letters, I ought to stick to that time.

  USE OF ANTIBIOTICS IN ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY MEDICINE (SWANN REPORT)
  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.
  The Report of the Joint Committee on the Use of Antibiotics in Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine has been laid before Parliament and published today. My right hon. Friends and I would like to thank the committee for its detailed and precise analysis of a most complex matter and for its clear findings and recommendations.
  The Committee found that the administration of antibiotics to farm livestock poses certain hazards to human and animal health since it has led to the
  1526
  emergence of strains of bacteria which are resistant to antibiotics. The committee was satisfied that these hazards can largely be avoided and has put forward a number of recommendations to that end.
  We accept, in general, the committee's proposals for the control of antibiotics.
  The committee's principal recommendation is that antibiotics should be classified as either "feed" or "therapeutic" and that in future only "feed" antibiotics should be available without prescription for use in feedingstuffs. The committee also defines "feed" antibiotics in a way which will enable us to ensure that hazards to human health cannot arise from their use in feedingstuffs. The use of antibiotics on prescription by the veterinary profession would not be limited. We accept these recommendations.
  As a consequence of its main proposal, the committee recommends that the use of penicillin and the tetracyclines in feedingstuffs should be prohibited; and that certain other drugs which are now freely available should also be available only on prescription. We also accept these recommendations.
  Some of the committee's more detailed recommendations and longer-term proposals on research and veterinary epidemiology will need further study.
  The implementation of these recommendations will require consultations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and the other health Ministers will, therefore, be consulting medical and pharmaceutical interests. I and the other agricultural Ministers will be consulting veterinary, agricultural and animal feedingstuffs interests. We are proceeding to these consultations immediately.
  Mr. Stodart: I echo the thanks the right hon. Gentleman has expressed to the committee, with perhaps a particular emphasis as the Chairman, Professor Swann, is a constituent of mine.
  The right hon. Gentleman will understand that this is an extremely complicated matter for a layman to understand, and I would wish to read and study the report before commenting on it.
  When will the recommendations about the "feed" antibiotics operate? What

  1527
  about existing stocks? Are they large in number? Whilst the economic advantages of using antibiotics must, of course, take second place to the health aspect, has the right hon. Gentleman made any calculation of the cost that will be involved?
  Will the right hon. Gentleman keep the House informed of the progress of his consultations, as it is possible that we might wish to ask him to ask his right hon. Friend for a debate on the matter?
  Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said.
  On the question of cost, he will know that the committee says that it believes its recommendations could be implemented without adverse effects on animal husbandry or veterinary medicine.
  I cannot give a reply on the volume of stocks in the country, because this will be the subject of consultations. The question of "feed" antibiotics is another matter which will have to be discussed with manufacturers, because they will have to let us know how long it will take to build up stocks of the alternative antibiotics. I hope that this can be done promptly and speedily.
  Mrs. Joyce Butler: Whilst welcoming the report, I am somewhat disturbed by the complexities of the methods of carrying out the recommendations. Will my right hon. Friend look very seriously at the possibility of at least implementing the recommendations about preventing the use of certain therapeutic antibiotics without prescription, and of adding new Clauses to the Agriculture Bill now going through the House, or making some other Amendment to the Bill, so that this can be carried out very quickly, bearing in mind the important consequences for human health?
  Mr. Hughes: This will be done as quickly as possible. The action to which my hon. Friend refers will have to be carried out by Orders which would be initiated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. But I can assure her that we are fully seized of the importance and urgency of the matter.
  At the same time, there is no cause for immediate alarm in this matter. We shall act urgently, because we believe this
  1528
  to be necessary, but we must not allow ourselves to become a nation of hypochondriacs.
  Mr. Kitson: Will the right hon. Gentleman have consultations with the Secretary of State for Social Services, bearing in mind that paragraph 7.18 of the report says that doctors are also unwisely using antibiotics? Will he give an assurance that legislation will be brought before the House at the earliest possible moment?
  Mr. Hughes: My right hon. Friend and I are working in close co-operation in this matter, and my right hon. Friend will have heard what the hon. Gentleman says.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his very prompt action in this important matter. Can he confirm that there is no reason for immediate anxiety over the hazards disclosed in the report?
  Mr. Hughes: I believe that to be right. When hon. Members read the report I think that they will appreciate that while there is a need for urgent action we are taking preventive rather than curative measures in tackling the problem I think that I can also say that we are the first country in the world to tackle the matter in this way.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I shall always have a considerable respect for the scientists who advise the Minister and the Agricultural Research Council, but, whilst I am sure that it is right to take immediate action in the light of the report, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the continuing anxiety that when new therapeutic substances come on the market something has to get out of control before anything is done? May we have an assurance that as a result of the report there will be a further tightening up of the anticipatory machinery as well as the post hoc machinery?
  Mr. Hughes: It is precisely the kind of action the hon. Gentleman describes that we are taking now. We are acting in advance of any injurious effect of antibiotics. I think that our action is right.
  Mr. Dalyell: On the narrow issue in paragraph 10.17, will my right hon. Friend, without further consultation, go

  1529
  ahead with the proposal to interest universities in setting up departments of veterinary epidemiology as a distinct discipline? Could the Government also go ahead with a directive to the Medical Research Council and the Agricultural Research Council to carry out the proposal in paragraph 12.38 without further consultation, as it is urgent? Could some system of permanent monitoring be set up to study the effect of the prevalence of antibiotic resistances?
  Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's suggestions. My right hon. Friend and I have it in mind to have the type of discussion my hon. Friend describes. On the question of monitoring, we shall go a little further than the report's recommendation. We are considering the desirability of examining feedingstuffs, including imported feeding-stuffs, for antibiotic residues and their possible effect in producing resistant organisms.
  Mr. Maude: With reference to the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), is he not aware that this is by no means the first time that the Government have been forced to take what he described today as urgent action in respect of drugs and pesticides used in agriculture and food production, which scientific experts have continually advised the Government and claimed were harmless? He must not be surprised if people are a little worried about the steps taken to prevent these things.
  Mr. Hughes: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's anxiety, but I am rather surprised at his criticism. After all, it was the present Government that set up the Swann Committee, as a result of anxieties that members of the Government felt about the matter. Already, following the announcement that the report was to be published, many countries, including the United States and countries in Europe, are asking for a copy of it.
  Mr. Pardoe: Whilst I welcome the report, and particularly the Government's acceptance of the need to control penicillin and tetracyclines, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reassure the House that there will be a public and continuing method whereby the whole system can be reviewed over the years,
  1530
  in view of the public's feeling that scientists, like the rest of us, can change their minds on these matters?
  Mr. Hughes: There is a proposal in the report for an antibiotics committee. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Medicines Commission has to advise on expert advisory committees required under the Medicines Act. This recommendation will be brought to the Commission's attention forthwith. The action the hon. Gentleman suggests is being taken.
  Mr. Oakes: In view of the very specific recommendations in the report, particularly about feedingstuffs, is there any likelihood that the industry itself will voluntarily stop adding antibiotics to feedingstuffs forthwith before legislation needs to be introduced?
  Mr. Hughes: As I said in my statement, we shall be entering into consultations, not only with feedingstuffs manufacturers, but also with the industry itself. This poses a problem. We shall need a reasonable phasing out period. There are stocks in existence now. Therefore, the House will appreciate that my right hon. Friend and I will have to have the most detailed consultations with all the interests concerned. I assure the House that we shall take the action as quickly as we can.
  Sir J. Langford-Holt: Will the Minister bear in mind that what is wanted from him primarily is an early decision so that the phasing out and the action can follow each other in quick succession?
  Mr. Hughes: My right hon. Friends and I have taken the most important decisions in the acceptance of all the major recommendations of the report. We must now proceed to consultation, because, after all, the interested parties have not yet had an opportunity to study the Report. This is not unreasonable.
  Mr. Jopling: Is the Minister aware that virtually all farmers will accept the need to control antibiotics where human and animal health is at risk? I accept his statement that this proposal will have no adverse effect on animal husbandry, but will he accept that it will have a quite considerable effect in increasing the cost of food production? Will he give

  1531
  an undertaking that it will be taken into consideration at the next Price Review?
  Mr. Hughes: There is no indication in the report that there will be any cost increase. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I hope, as he has said, that the farmers will co-operate, and I am sure they will.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House.

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

  SUPPLY
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY], considered.

  COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS (REPORTS)
  4.12p.m.
  Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of the First, Second and Third Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts in the last Session of Parliament and of the Treasury Minute on those Reports (Command Paper No. 4191).
  This is the annual occasion on which the Committee of Public Accounts submits its report to the House and we ask our colleagues for their judgment on it. Paradoxically, perhaps, the fact that this is not one of the more congested of parliamentary occasions is a matter of sober satisfaction to the Committee. Those who are familiar with commercial practice will know that a scant attendance at the annual meeting of a company generally indicates happy contentment with the way it is being conducted, whereas a crowded attendance on such an occasion generally bodes ill, particularly perhaps for the chairman. I hope that I may assume that it is in that spirit that the attendance this afternoon is comprised mainly of those who are particularly concerned with our committee's work, including many of my colleagues.
  I begin by expressing my own very sincere thanks to my colleagues on the Committee for the very large amount of work that they have done and the concentration of effort which they have provided, the results of which are embodied in the substantial volume which is on the Table. With the very heavy commitments which we all know all hon. Members have in these days, it is very creditable to the Committee, not only that its members have got through all this amount of work, but that it has been possible to carry through a very extended programme of sittings without ever having to cancel one by reason of the absence of a quorum. I want very sincerely to thank my colleagues for the great assistance they have given in this way, and in other ways.

  1533
  In mentioning the members of the Committee, I know that they would all wish me to express the feelings we have on the death of our late colleague, Sir Gerald Wills. Sir Gerald was appointed to the Committee whose report is before is. Failing health compelled him to withdraw from it later in the year. All of us remember affectionately his bearing and conduct in the Committee and the quiet perspicacity of his questioning of witnesses. In the fine words which Mr. Speaker uses on these sad occasions, we are very conscious indeed of the loss which we have sustained.
  I would also like at this stage to express our immense indebtedness to the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff. Parliament and the nation are very lucky to be served by an official of the high intellectual quality and capacity of Sir Bruce Fraser. The fact that our reports appear to have a considerable impact upon the conduct of government is due in very considerable measure to the work which he and his able and devoted staff put in.
  We are also greatly indebted to our new Clerk, Mr. C. J. Boulton. He has moved so effectively into the Clerk's seat that it is almost an effort of will to remember that this was, in fact, his first Session. He fully embodies the high standard of service to the House and ability which are characteristic of the Department headed by the Clerk at the Table.
  I turn to our general functions before proceeding to deal with specific items. It is a very long-established Committee. It celebrated its centenary several years ago. By way of preparation for the debate. I turned up the reports of the Committee of precisely 100 years ago Except that they are far better printed, if I may touch on perhaps a delicate subject, than our contemporary reports, they provide an astonishing example of continuity.
  There is a complaint 100 years ago of excessive spending by the Inland Revenue and by the General Post Office. Also—this perhaps marks the time that has passed since then—there is a sad little account of additional expenditure on the wars in New Zealand and Ethiopia, both of them east of Suez—just east of Suez at that moment, because it was in that year that the Suez Canal, now closed,
  1534
  had been opened. This is an example of the continuity of the Committee's work and its link with the Treasury.
  I am very glad to see present the Minister of State, Treasury, who, I understand, is to reply. As he and the House know, his colleague the Financial Secretary is an ex-officio member of the Committee. I would like, on behalf of the Committee, through the Minister of State, to welcome the Financial Secretary to our midst. It is, as my colleagues at any rate know, the longstanding custom that the Financial Secretary attends as a matter of courtesy, when he can, the first sitting of the Committee and only subsequently if the Treasury is in trouble with the Committee.
  I therefore imagine that the Minister of State will share my hope that, though we shall hope to see the Financial Secretary at our first sitting, we shall not see very much of him thereafter—but only, of course, for that reason. He and his Department are our close link with the Government. We are greatly indebted for the assistance we receive from the Treasury, particularly from Mr. A. J. Phelps, the Treasury Officer of Accounts, who is a regular witness. I should be grateful if the Minister of State would convey that expression of gratitude and appreciation to his Department.
  The continuity of the Committee's work, as also its strength—which is that its recommendations do seem, sooner, on the whole, rather than later, to be accepted by the Government—is evidenced by another volume to which I invite the House's attention, because I understand that a new edition is in preparation. This is the epitome of the reports from the Committee which has been periodically published and laid on the Table. It has been described as the "accounting officers' Erskine May". The original volume covered the period from the 1850s to 1938; this was carried further by a volume laid in 1952, summarising the Committee's conclusions between 1938 and 1950.
  I observe at this moment that the volume I hold in my hand was laid in 1952 by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, a holder of that office of whose limitations I have an unrivalled knowledge. I understand that a new volume is in preparation, bringing the story down

  1535
  from 1952. We shall welcome it, as, I imagine, will the officials concerned in Whitehall.
  The Motion asks the House to take note of the three reports but I shall not say anything myself about the first two, which deal with excess votes and virement. As the Committee points out, the old doctrine that an excess Vote is a terrible thing is not now so strongly held by the Committee. It is accepted that, in certain areas, particularly, perhaps, those involving research and development, where it is quite impossible to foresee the complete position and what expenditure will arise in a particular year, it is contrary to good and taut estimating to be obsessed with fear of an excess Vote. It is better to risk an excess Vote occasionally than persistently to overestimate because the Department concerned is scared of having to come before the Committee about the excess Vote. The Committee expresses this view in its First Report, but the matter has certain public importance and, therefore, I thought it well to mention it today.
  I come now to the contents of the Third Report, which covers a very wide scope. Obviously I should talk this Motion out if I tried to deal with all of the matters contained in it, and that is not my purpose. But I shall pick out one or two matters which may help the debate and about some of which the Minister of State may be able to say something in reply.
  We refer, as our predecessors have done for the last four or five years, in paragraphs 39 to 42, to the development costs of the Concorde project. It will be a happy day for the Committee when the Concorde comes off its menu. We point out some serious defects in the system of control of expenditure and in particular make a point of some general parliamentary importance. We take the point, as the Minister of State will recall, that the escalation of costs from the £500 million figure given to us in 1966 to the figure of £730 million, with an intimation of possible further escalation, is very substantial and that it would have been better if Parliament had been kept informed in the interval of the degree to which the costs were escalating.
  I am not seeking now to give a view one way or another as to whether the
  1536
  Concorde project is one which the Government would be wise to continue, but the House cannot form a sensible view, still less impress it on the Government, if it does not know the facts, and I ask the Minister of State to say that, in future, with other projects which may suffer similar experience, greater efforts will be made to keep the House informed of the way the costs are going.
  I am not ignoring what is said in the Treasury Minute, and I appreciate that, in an international project tied up with a foreign country, there are greater difficulties than in a domestic project. But we are spending large sums of public money here, and if the House is to be effective in the control of public expenditure, knowledge of the way expenditure of this magnitude is going is an essential pre-condition of its effective work.
  Mr.Joel Barnett>: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to reinforce that point and join him in the hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will expand on the somewhat short answer contained in the Treasury Minute, which says:
  " The Treasury and the Ministry of Technology accept that Parliament should be informed at the earliest practicable opportunity should there be any further substantial increases in development cost estimates."
  We would like to know from my hon. Friend what the Treasury means by the words
  " … earliest practicable opportunity …"
  because, in questioning, we learnt that although the Treasury had known seven or eight months about substantial increases in costs, the House was still not informed.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett)—I nearly said "honourable Friend", because upstairs I so regard him. I am obliged to him for reinforcing that point. No doubt the Minister of State has taken note of it.
  The Committee is bound to spend a good deal of time on aviation matters and in our Third Report we also draw attention, particularly in paragraph 52, to what seems to me the somewhat amateur system which has been adopted for a good many years for the pricing of aircraft engine spares. The system consisted of taking a price list for these

  1537
  spares compiled in 1960—not even then of the actual costs but of estimated costs for 1960–61—and simply making an arbitrarily determined percentage pricing-up of that price list each subsequent year.
  There was no evidence, as I must say in all fairness, that this system resulted in any appreciable loss to public funds, but 1 am bound to say that it struck the Committee, as I think it will strike the House, as a somewhat amateur way in which to lay out considerable sums of public money. And the argument adduced before us in favour of it, to the effect that, if a company has overall not made an unreasonable profit, it can therefore be assumed that the prices quoted for particular items are reasonable, is not, frankly, an argument that anyone who has sat on the Public Accounts Committee in previous years would be prepared to accept.
  It seems to me that the worst example of failure of financial control and, I am sorry to have to say, personal failure of individuals, occurred in respect of the multiple hiring of married quarters in Germany, which is dealt with at some length in paragraphs 89 to 102. The matter is complicated and I shall not weary the House with the background. But, briefly, to deal with the- real need to provide married quarters for the Army in Germany, a complicated system was worked out under which the German Government arranged for the construction of blocks of flats on a leasing system and then leased them to the British Government for this purpose.
  One of the most serious aspects of this matter is set out in detail in paragraph 92 of our report and we there specify three separate ways in which there was a direct violation of the Treasury authority given in three specific cases which are quoted. In two of them, some hundreds of thousands of pounds were involved, and perfectly clear and specific Treasury authority was violated and the limits laid down therein transgressed. As the witness for the Ministry of Defence fairly said, this was an example of serious financial laxity.
  As he also admitted, it goes to the root of the system of Treasury control. I hope that I am not influenced by the fact that I have had two tours of duty at the Treasury, but any system of
  1538
  handling public expenditure is rendered nugatory when departments spend public money contrary to the conditions on which they have been authorised by the Treasury to do it.
  What makes the situation the more unhappy is that the senior civil official in Germany concerned., the Command Secretary, who is an officer of the senior rank of assistant secretary, knew nothing about it, and it is clear that no proper prior instructions were given to those carrying out the negotiations. It is further the unhappy fact that the accounting officer before us claimed that it was impossible to bring home personal responsibility to any individual for a state of affairs which had been continuing for a number of years. This seems to raise not only questions of the efficiency of the Army Department, but perhaps broader questions affecting the personal responsibility of civil servants.
  Since the Fulton Report, we have had discussions about the doctrine of accountable management. The Report of the Select Committee on Procedure is full of such references. I sometimes suspect that "accountable management" means unaccountable management. It is an extraordinary state of affairs that we should be assured by the accountingofficer that it has proved impossible to bring home to any individual responsibility for a prolonged breach of Treasury authority in matters involving many hundreds of thousands of pounds.
  I want to read the relevant questions and answers on this issue. I begin at Question No. 5281:
  "So the Ministry's policy and finance divisions did not know what was happening at the time that the commitments were made? —Unfortunately not.
  Is that not again an example of serious laxity of financial administration?—It is.
  You have a Command Secretary in Germany?—Yes.
  Is he not supposed to deal with precisely this sort of issue?—I have questioned such of the Command Secretaries and their Deputies mainly concerned, and they are very astonished that this happened. I have not been able to see all the individuals of course, because there have been such shifts of staff and people have retired. But everybody who was in Germany that I have spoken to considered that they were within their authority. They did not knowingly exceed it.
  It is in fact quite plain that they were outside it?—It is certainly.

  1539
  What rank does the Command Secretary in Germany have?—An Assistant Secretary.
  Is there any disciplinary action being taken in respect of this?—The man to blame, I think, would be the man who actually had the instructions and carried out the projects. There is no evidence that the Command Secretary knew what was going on and failed to do anything about it.
  But is not the point of having a Command Secretary on the spot that he should know what is going on?—Yes.
  And he did not do so?—The individuals thought they were doing so. They thought they were being fully informed.
  Has any disciplinary action been taken against any single individual or individuals in respect of this?—No.
  Has this been considered?—It has been considered, but, if I may say so, unfortunately there are so many people involved and over such a long period of time that I think if one wanted to allocate individual blame one would have to have something like an inquiry, a judicial inquiry, and it would involve people who had now retired and some who are living abroad."
  I do not think that the House will regard that as a satisfactory state of affairs, any more than the Committee did. It seems to suggest a failure of organisation in the Ministry at the relevant time. Incidentally, it is the kind of occurrence which supports very much the modern thinking that we have perhaps carried the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility too far. None of the Ministers at the relevant time can possibly have known or be reasonably expected to have known about it. It was the failure of individuals inside the system.
  When there are failures of this kind in a system it cannot be healthy that there is no person who can be held to have individual responsibility. I appreciate that, owing to changes which have taken place, the Minister of State is no longer in the Department responsible for the organisation of the Civil Service, but I hope that those who are responsible for organisation in the new Civil Service Department will treat this as an example not of a matter in which no one wants to indulge in criticism of individuals, but as an indication that real improvements can and should be made in the organisation of what I regard as the finest Civil Service in the world.
  I turn now to one or two other matters to which I wish to refer briefly. One has a lighter touch, and it concerns the purchase of upholstery cloth for furniture
  1540
  in military quarters. Here we see a good example of the extraordinary situation which can grow up in Departments if they are not firmly administered from the top by senior officers.
  The task was to choose upholstery cloth for furniture used in the quarters of officers and other ranks in the Army. It was laid down, rightly or wrongly, that there should be a superior specification for officers' cloth and an inferior one for the cloth to be used for the furniture in the quarters of other ranks. Solemnly assembled were 20 individuals round a table to look at various specimens of cloth, and they were expressly excluded from knowing the prices of the cloths concerned. Those 20 distinguished persons doing the job selected two cloths. The one to the inferior specification designed for the quarters of other ranks turned out to be appreciably more expensive than that of the cloth to the superior specification designed for officers' quarters.
  That is perhaps an illustration of the situation which can develop in Departments if there is not a ruthless determination from the top to maintain modern and efficient systems of management and administration. The principle of allowing such a* committee to make choices of this kind without the information which we would all ensure that we had if we were purchasing goods for our own houses—the price—is quite extraordinary. It is fair to add that we have been told that the situation has now been put right and that this considerable committee has been disbanded. No doubt the members of it have been "redeployed" to other useful occupations. We understand that those who will now take similar decisions will be told the price of what they choose.
  Another matter to which I would refer is the fact that, for the first time, we dealt with the report and accounts of the Land Commission and, for the penultimate time, with those of the General Post Office.
  I know that my colleagues felt that the lack of experience in the administration of the Land Commission naturally meant that we could not apply the same rigorousness as we might have been disposed to apply to more experienced Departments. The fact remains that there

  1541
  was serious over-estimating of the workload which resulted in the recruitment of excessive staff running into hundreds. This has now been corrected, but there was some waste of money and manpower due to the failure at the beginning to understand the quantity of work involved.
  I have no doubt that the Land Commission has taken to heart what the Committee said, and that it was probably a useful experience for its officers to come before us on this matter, even if they may not have enjoyed it as much as they might have enjoyed other ways of spending an afternoon.
  We had the General Post Office before us for the last time but one. Subject to my colleagues' wisdom and decision, we shall have an opportunity to give it its final examination before the Public Accounts Committee in the present Session. As the House knows, under the Post Office Act, the functions of the Post Office are being transferred to the new corporation which, being a nationalised industry, although still formally within the ambit of the P.A.C., does not have the advantage of the examination of its accounts by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I express an an individual the feeling that, whatever advantages the new system may have in other directions, this is a disadvantage.
  My colleagues, with the aid of the Comptroller and Auditor General, have examined the Post Office's affairs in most recent years. There have been very large purchases of equipment by the Post Office involving considerable sums of public money and at one time the system of purchasing called "the ring" excited considerable criticism. The steady pressure of this criticism has, I believe, resulted in considerable improvement.
  There are, however, very large sums involved in the operation of the Post Office and I very much hope that those concerned with its administration and those in the Treasury concerned with the normal overseeing of the system of administration will seek to devise an alternative method of securing supervision of its expenditure and financial management to replace that of which it will be deprived after the coming year.
  The strength of the Committee, if I may be so presumptuous as to assume that it has strength, is based on two
  1542
  things. First, it is wholly non-party and non-partisan in its operation. During my years on the Committee I do not recall a Division on party lines. Indeed, I think that in the Session to which the report we are discussing relates we did not have a Division at all. Our reports, therefore, come forward as objectively framed as they can be by fallible human beings.
  It is perhaps as a consequence of this that our second strength arises. There is an acceptable and agreeable willingness in general on the part of Whitehall to accept the recommendations. This Session we shall be discussing in the Committee what is said in the Treasury Minute replying to the report which we are discussing. I do not want to foreshadow what will arise, but, in general, the Treasury Minute complies with the tradition that the Government take a good deal of trouble to try to meet the recommendations of the Committee, and I should like, on behalf of my colleagues, to express our appreciation of that.
  This is a job of work which has been done now for over 100 years by a Committee with a wide range of membership and an even wider variety of chairmen. But it is work of some importance in supervising financial management and financial control. It is perhaps interesting to reflect that the Select Committee on Procedure, which has proposed wide and radical changes in other directions affecting Committees dealing with financial matters, has left us severely alone. I express my gratitude for that.
  The Motion is simply one to take note. I do not suppose that every hon. Member will agree with everything that we have said or done. However, we feel that they should be asked to take note of the report.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. A. H. Macdonald: It is very flattering to be called to speak so early in this important debate. I have never had the good fortune to take part in a debate on a Report of the Public Accounts Committee before. I am glad to be called early because it gives me an opportunity to echo the remarks generally made on these occasions in expressing appreciation to the Chairman and members of the Committee for the work which they do. I see that I am one of the few Members present who is not a member

  1543
  of the Committee. None the less, I pay tribute to the Committee with some feeling.
  I wish that the work of the Committee received not just more but better publicity. Only a month or two ago I was greatly taken by a letter in the Financial Times from which it was evident that the writer was under the extraordinary delusion that the Committee was a creature of the Government. I wish that the Committee's work were more widely publicised and better understood.
  I hope that my remarks are not taken as a load of preliminary "flannel", because they are meant sincerely. Nonetheless, I wish to make a criticism of one of the recommendations in the report. I should like to refer to paragraphs 187 to 193 dealing with a case in which £3 million in public money was advanced to a concern which soon afterwards folded up and went into liquidation. I understand that the liquidator is declaring a dividend of only 4s. 6d. in the £ and that £2½million of that public money will have to be written off. Clearly, this is a serious matter, and, equally clearly, it was entirely right for the Committee to make a close and careful examination of it.
  I notice that in its report the Committee endeavours to draw some lessons from this case. With due respect, I wish to differ from those lessons. In its examination of this case, the Committee noted that the equity capital provided by the promoters of the scheme amounted to only 16 per cent. of the total capital involved. It further notes that the present practice of the Board of Trade when making loans of this nature is to look for equity participation of 33⅓per cent. or even more. In paragraph 193 of the report it suggests that even 33⅓per cent. equity participation is too low for wisdom and safety and implies, though does not actually say, that equity capital of 50 per cent. would have been more reasonable. It is with this recommendation that I wish to disagree.
  I think that the Committee is arguing from the particular to the general. For a soundly based and wise lesson to be drawn from this case, if that were possible, it would have been desirable to examine all the loans made by D.A.T.A.C.
  1544
  to determine how many of them had ended in failure and how many had involved equity participation of less than, say, 20 per cent. In that way it would have been possible to determine what co-relation, if any, exists between low equity participation and high failure rate. All we know is that this one case with an equity capital of only 16 per cent. has failed. I am not sure whether this loan, although large, was unusually large, but it does not appear from the report, the supporting evidence or the appendix that this is a typical case and I do not know, therefore, how far this can be taken as a pattern.
  Secondly, it appears from the report and the evidence that this was a particularly bad case because, even if equity capital at 50 per cent. had been provided, and even if, as the Committee recommends in another place, it had been secured—may I say, in parenthesis, how much I agree with the recommendation that security should be taken in every case—if the promoters had put up, say, £3½million out of the £5½million and B.O.T.A.C. had provided £2 million, there would still have been a loss incurred because the liquidator was able to raise only £1 million from the sale of the assets.
  Mr. Barnett: Is not my hon. Friend missing precisely the point which applies in industry generally, that there might have been no loss, because the organisation might not have been able to put up 50 per cent. and, therefore, there would have been no abortive project?
  Mr. Macdonald: My hon. Friend has anticipated the point I was coming to by perhaps rather laborious stages.
  I was about to say that this had been a poor proposal. It might have been more realistic not to suggest that it could have been accepted with different or tighter terms, but that it should not have been accepted at all. If we imagine coming before B.O.T.A.C., or D.A.T.A.C. as it then was, a scale of proposals becoming poorer and poorer, it is possible within certain limits to make those proposals acceptable on tighter terms, but, inevitably, the point comes when no amount of tightening of the terms can make them satisfactory, and the correct decision to

  1545
  make is that the proposal must be rejected. At some time that point must have come, and I would have thought that it had been passed in this proposal.
  Thirdly, I gather from the Committee's report that other considerations were taken into account. The Government took a particular interest in this proposal possibly because of the amount of employment which it might have been likely to generate. This appears in question 2684 and the answer thereto. Also, the loan was negotiated by D.A.T.A.C. which was expressly the lender of last resort, whereas these matters now come under the auspices of B.O.T.A.C., which is not necessarily the lender of last resort. With due respect, therefore, I doubt whether that case can be considered as typical or whether lessons can be drawn from it.
  If I may briefly sum up the first leg of my argument, I doubt whether it is possible to take this case as one from which we can draw lessons. It must be admitted that it was a poor case. It was accepted by the lender of last resort and considerations other than commercial ones were present when it was being considered.
  I now want to argue about the desirability of drawing lessons at all in this way. First, if we take it that B.O.T.A.C. now is not the lender of last resort and operates in some measure on commercial principles, the optimum failure rate is not nil. I do not know whether I am capable of determining what the optimum failure rate would properly be, as this must depend on a number of variables but, if there were no failures, it could be argued that this was a sign that B.O.T.A.C. was being far too cautious.
  If we assume, as we must in the context of this debate, that it is proper to put public money into projects of this kind, we must also recognise that every loan involves a risk of some magnitude, and it would be unrealistic to expect there to be no failures. It is proper to make every effort to minimise the number of failures but, if we were to insist that there should be no failures, we should be saying that B.O.T.A.C. should not do any business.
  Secondly, even if the close analysis to which I referred earlier were carried out, it is a mistake for the Public Accounts
  1546
  Committee to advance from that and suggest too rigid guide lines for B.O.T.A.C. The Committee's implied suggestion of 50 per cent. equity capital being desirable is, in my view, far too high. I would regard 331 per cent. as entirely normal —not that I am saying that such proposals should automatically be accepted, or rejected, because other factors would be taken into account. I would go further and say that a proposal with only 25 per cent. equity capital is not necessarily to be damned on that account. If other factors are good, it might be perfectly legitimately considered.
  The business of making loans in which B.O.T.A.C. is engaged is more of an art than a science. It is useful to draw lessons from past failures; it is also useful to draw lessons from past successes. There is nothing about past successes in the Report—naturally, that is not a subject of complaint. Even when lessons have been drawn from past failures and past successes, ultimately a wise loan is a matter of judgment, and I respectfully suggest that it may be a little unwise to advance too rigid rules in this matter.
  I may be misjudging the Committee, but I fear that this is what it has tried to do. It is possible that the judgment may have been wrong in the case considered by the Committee. We do not know that it was wrong, but it is possible. Even if it were wrong, I have argued that this was a special case which should not be taken as a pattern from which lessons can be drawn. Even if it were not a special case, but a pattern, I respectfully deprecate any attempt to draw rigid guide lines from the consideration of one case.
  My first intervention in a debate of this kind has been rather critical, I hope not too critical. As I have said, it is proper for these bad cases to be examined. All I am anxious to ensure is that, once they have been examined, we shall not be quite so positive, as I think the Committee was, about guide lines on this difficult matter of making loans.
  5.0 p.m.
  Sir Douglas Glover: Despite what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), I find it disappointing that so few members of the Opposition are present for this debate on

  1547
  the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee. I should like to take the opportunity of congratulating the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) who appears to be the only person interested in our Report, or the one dissatisfied shareholder. I do not propose to detain the House long. Hon. Members who have obtained the evidence and produced these Reports should not take up too much time in talking about their own conclusions. They produce these Reports for their colleagues to read.
  I agree with all that was said by my right hon. Friend about the Comptroller and Auditor-General and his staff and Mr. Boulton. I believe that the Public Accounts Committee is a successful Committee. In saying that as a member of the Committee, I admit that I must disclose an interest. One of the reasons for the success of the Committee is its chairman to whom we must be grateful. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames is adept at asking the right questions, and insisting that witnesses, however much they wriggle, finish up by coming clean with the truth. It means that we get much more value from our deliberations. He is held in high regard and the Reports owe much to his efforts.
  As my right hon. Friend said, it is over a hundred years since the Public Accounts Committee was formed. I agree with the hon. Member of Chislehurst that it deals only with the disasters and failures and not with the triumphs. There is sufficient evidence in the report to show that the administrative machine can run off the rails unless a watchdog exists to see that it stays on the rails.
  I have been a member of the Committee as long as anybody, and it is fascinating to see the progress we have made in the matter of Customs and Excise. Some five years ago there were nothing but extra-statutory concessions by the Customs and Excise Department. It will be seen that we have got the number of items down from 94 to 38 and are establishing a system of Statutory Instruments. This shows that the Committee has done a useful job.
  Reference was made to the occasion when 20 wise men sat round a table discussing a piece of cloth. I used to be in the clothing business, and it is the sort of
  1548
  cloth I would have chosen. It cost 22s. 9d. a yard originally, but when a further contract was to be placed there was found to be an error and it was a better piece of cloth than was thought originally. That is what I was always looking for when I was in business. Eventually the State paid 28s. id. a yard for that cloth. Criticism must obviously be made of a Department which solemnly brings together round a table 20 men to pick out a piece of cloth, with no specifications or costings to go by, and when all the firms involved were asked to submit cloths of a similar texture and identity. It is beyond my comprehension that those wise men could discuss the matter when they were completely in the dark about what was required. I hope that as a result of our somewhat amusing remarks to the Department it will reorganise the whole system of cloth procurement. It is a disgrace that the system should be run on those lines.
  It can be seen that we dealt with many matters and kept an eye on many things which otherwise would have gone wrong. I refer particularly to the lettings in Germany. I personally finished that discussion in a rage that something so appallingly bad could have happened. Yet, after great research and questioning, not a single person has been held responsible for an outrageously bad set of circumstances.
  I make it clear on the Floor of the House, so that it might receive some publicity, that if the sort of circumstances disclosed in the Report exist, then somebody's head ought to roll because of a flagrant breach of Treasury instructions. If a Department that is spending vast sums of money is allowed to spend sums without any control at all, then it should be stamped on hard. Otherwise, in two or three years' time there could be absolute chaos in Departments. Therefore, I hope that the Treasury has issued a firm directive to the Department concerned, and I hope that other Departments have read the Report. I hope they have been told that if this ever happens again, the person nominally responsible will be held physically responsible and, if necessary, lose his job. The matter is serious enough for that sort of directive to be issued.
  I do not agree with the hon. Member for Chislehurst in his criticisms of the

  1549
  Committee, but I must admit that as a member of the Committee I am prejudiced. It strikes me as a little nonsensical that when the House discusses Reports of the Public Accounts Committee as well as Reports by Select Committees the only people who take part in the debates are the members of the Committees. Other hon. Members of the House not members of the Committees should be getting un and criticising our Reports. The investigations are a continuing process, and in the light of criticisms by hon. Members the Committee may well take a different view the next time it is faced with a similar problem.
  We do not get that sort of advice from our colleagues in the House because the Reports are debated only by the people who have produced them. This is not a sensible way to run our affairs. There is a great deal of material in the Reports for hon. Members to delve into, and if they were to take part in this debate they could elicit much more than is disclosed in the published document. I am surprised that some of my colleagues do not smell a better story behind the documents and come to the House to use their debating powers to discover whether they can pin it down.
  I and other hon. Members on the Committee have gone through all the proceedings and elicited information by our questions, and then produced the Reports and agreed to them, so there will not be much that we can criticise. My right hon. Friend said that we did not have a Division in the Committee during the whole of the last Session, so there is not even a minority report. We are in favour of the Reports, which make a first-class document that hon. Members should study. It gives not only a great deal of guidance on the problems with which we dealt but general guidance on how some of those faults could be eradicated. I thank my right hon. Friend. It was a pleasure to serve under his chairmanship, and I commend the Reports to the House.
  5.11 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Hooley: I endorse what the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), said about the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) as Chairman of the Committee. All members of
  1550
  the Committee will agree that his chairmanship has been incisive in the extreme, without ever departing from the standard of courtesy and reasonableness which must always be shown to those who appear before us. I have been greatly impressed by his conduct of our proceedings, and I hope that he will go on for many years in that office, if he is willing to do so.
  By a kind of uncanny telepathy the right hon. Gentleman seems to have chosen to mention those aspects of our reports about which I wanted to say something, as has the hon. Member for Ormskirk. I made no apology for going over some of those points again, because they are extremely important. We should write into the record of the proceedings of the House some points which the public at large, or Members, might not have the time or energy to pick up for themselves from the original texts.
  I was especially concerned about the estimating failure of the Ministry of Technology with regard to expenditure on research and development of moneys made available by the House to private industry. Over the year; there has been a fantastic error of estimating under the sub-head relating to expenditure on research and development. The House should be aware of these figures, not merely in terms of cash but as a percentage of the money requested by the Department and granted by Parliament for the purpose.
  In the year under study, the error was £19½million; the Ministry of Technology asked for £19½million more than it required on the outturn of the account. This was an error of estimating of 11·5 per cent. The previous year, the error was £12 million, 6·6 per cent.; the year before it was £15 million, 7·4 per cent.; the year before that, £24¼million, 12·3 per cent.; and way back in 1963–64 there was an error of £18¼million, 9·3 per cent.
  I gather from hints in the Committee that in the current year there will be something of a bonanza, and that there may be an over-estimate of £24 million, though I cannot say what percentage that would represent.
  This seems to me so reckless as to make a nonsense of any pretence that those are sensible estimates. It is true that in other Departments and under other Votes and sub-heads there are

  1551
  errors of estimating, but they are usually in the range of 1 to 2 per cent., or perhaps occasionally 5 per cent. Errors of estimating ranging from 6.6 to 12.3 per cent., repeated year after year, seem to make a nonsense of any argument that proper financial control is being exercised. The Treasury virtually accepts that in its Minute, because it says on page 4:
  "…the Treasury and the Ministry of Technology accept that persistent over-provision in annual Estimates must necessarily adversely affect both the control of public expenditure generally and the efficient management of the economy ".
  I am glad that that is explicitly accepted by the Treasury, and I hope that the Department will do something about it.
  It may seem a little odd on the face of it to worry about under-spending. It might be thought that if over-spending had occurred we should become anxious, but that if there is under-spending the money comes back, or is not expended, and that is all. But what I am concerned about—and I am reinforced in this view by the Treasury Minute—is that errors of this kind on Estimates, as compared with the outturn of the Vote, indicate lack of proper control over the finances and public money made available by the House.
  There is another serious point. It is clear that in working out annually what he can permit different Departments to spend the Chancellor of the Exchequer must set the claims of one Department against those of another. If a Department demands, and succeeds in obtaining, substantial sums running into £10 million or £20 million which it does not need and cannot spend, that is clearly to the detriment of Departments which might very well have found a perfectly good use for such large sums of public money had they been allowed to have them. One cannot accept with complacency one Department making errors of that magnitude year after year after year. I have quoted six years in succession without the matter being probed into and a remedy being found.
  Sir D. Glover: If I understood him correctly when we were arguing this matter, the accounting officer's view was that the money concerned is the same rolling 10 per cent. In other words, the
  1552
  research programme is perpetually six weeks behind. I thought that the total was about £150 million, and tried to find that out, but it is not. It is the same £10 million rolling on each year.
  Mr. Hooley: With respect, the accounting officer produced a number of intriguing arguments as to why he could not marry up his estimates with the appropriations. I do not want to go into the whole matter. Anyone who is sufficiently interested to probe in detail will find all the evidence annexed to the reports. This is a serious matter, and I hope that it will be brought under control in future.
  The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames touched on an important consequence of this argument, namely, that the Department should not be terrified of an excess Vote, but that it is much more important to make Estimates sensibly and correctly, and within the normal range of probabilities. In other words, they should do what I think is called "taut estimating", and not be terrified by what I think in the past has been Treasury mythology, that somehow an excess Vote is a terrible thing that must be avoided at all costs.
  The Committee and the House will accept that we want close estimating, plus or minus a reasonable amount, but certainly I do not want to see, and hope that the House would not want to see, a continuation of extravagant estimating which in effect is not estimating at all.
  I want to make one or two remarks about the Concorde aircraft. The general problem of the escalation of the project's cost has been ventilated enough in public, and the facts are pretty well known. The original estimate seven years ago was £170 million, and the latest estimate is £730 million, but most of us believe that we are nowhere near the end of the road. What has disturbed me is not so much a blatant lack of control over expenditure, or a lack of sensible estimation of costs, by the Ministry as by the aircraft manufacturers.
  From the evidence before the Committee there seems to have been a vigorous effort on the part of the professional officers of the Ministry of Technology and, previous to that, the Ministry of Aviation to keep proper surveillance

  1553
  over the rise in the cost of this project, but they have been defeated by a total lack of control by the aircraft manufacturers.
  This Session we were presented with two studies in depth of two aspects of this project. One concerned the estimates for the manufacture of the prototype and pre-production aircraft. The other concerned estimates of the cost of the fuel rig.
  On the first point, it appeared that the British Aircraft Corporation's top management told the Ministry that they had not known the real extent of the cost increase. In other words, the top level management of the firm concerned did not know the figures and had to be pressurised by Ministry officials to produce exact figures about what was happening in terms of the cost of this important and complicated project.
  Investigation into the fuel rig showed that there had apparently been an escalation in cost of 200 per cent. in three years. I gather that the fuel rig is a complicated piece of apparatus—it involves all kinds of complicated integration with the general design of the aircraft—and it is reasonable that the first estimate of its design and so forth would need to be revised considerably.
  Extremely alarming is the evidence provided by the Comptroller and Auditor General, that control of costs on this particular task had been inoperative for a considerable time. In other words, manufacturers were merrily going ahead dealing with this section of the aircraft without any control or real knowledge of the cost. This is an incredible reflection on the British aircraft industry. I should not cast any reflection on the technical skill of that industry, but technical skill in this modern world is not enough. We must produce things with sufficient technical skill at a price that people can afford. It appears that in this important project the control of costs, so far as the manufacturers are concerned, has been thrown out of the window. They have concentrated on going ahead with solving the technical problems irrespective of the money they were spending. The point is that this is public money, voted by Parliament, which the manufacturers are using on this project. There seems to be an impression in the aero-space
  1554
  industry that when it is spending public money it can spend it ad lib.
  Comments were also made in the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report on other aspects of aircraft production. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames has already commented on the theory that if the profitability overall of a firm is all right, then it is assumed that the profitability on particular contracts is not out of order. That is a theory which a study of the Public Accounts Committee's Reports will not substantiate.
  There was also a disquieting comment by the Comptroller and Auditor General that, when a study was made to find out whether overheads on Government contracts were correctly calculated, there was evidence of considerable over-manning in the firms carrying out such contracts. All these things give cause for disquiet. They may also lead us to examine at some future date whether our techniques for control and surveillance of the expenditure of public money in commercial or quasi-commercial operations, especially in the sphere of advanced technology, are right.
  I have referred to Concorde and aircraft procurement generally. It might also apply to other technological spheres such as the purchase of, or research on, pharmaceutical projects. As the Government become more involved in the industrial and commercial world, we need to reinforce our technique of scrutiny over the expenditure of public funds. The Committee has scored important victories on equality of information and post-costing, but we may have to look at the problem in more depth.
  Traditionally, the Public Accounts Committee has examined the men directly responsible for spending public money—accounting officers. But the senior civil servants do not really spend money on projects like Concorde. They try to exercise control and surveillance over the firms spending the money. MINTECH is making available large sums of public money to private corporations, which are the real spending agencies. This kind of spending on advanced technological hardware seems to throw up new problems of control and examination.
  It might be argued that the Public Accounts Committee ought to detail

  1555
  smaller sub-committees to look at these complicated technological spheres of expenditure. It may be that the Committee should have the right to examine not merely the accounting officers, but also some of the senior management of the firms spending the money. This has occurred in practice where grave public scandals were suspected. But it would be unfortunate if the idea grew that we were concerned only to call to account the management of aircraft firms if an obvious scandal was suspected.
  I do not see why, in principle, the Committee should not have the right, expressly through Statute or by Order of the House or by a convention, from time to time to summon senior management to give evidence and to examine them specifically on what they are doing to see that public money made available to their firms in huge quantities—hundreds of millions of pounds—is being dispersed and used with due care.
  These suggestions are not conceived essentially in any spirit of hostility to the private corporations. There may be problems concerning the control of research and development expenditure with which the Public Accounts Committee is not fully conversant. It may be that we have gone as far as we can with the proper control of this kind of spending, but I suspect that rather more could be done and that it would not merely be in the interests of the taxpayer, but also in the interests of industry.
  I should like now to make some comments on the hiring of married quarters in Germany, to which the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames referred. This was an outrageous scandal. There was a flagrant and blatant disregard of conditions specifically laid down by the Treasury. I endorse entirely what has been said from the other side of the House about nobody being responsible. It is a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs and there should be a rigorous probe to make sure that it does not recur. It is the more unfortunate because the expenditure has been incurred across the exchanges at a time when the balance of payments has preoccupied this House and the whole country and where any laxity in spending Government funds in terms of foreign currency is the more reprehensible. I have suspected for a
  1556
  long time that there is considerable waste in our expenditure on maintenance of the British Army of the Rhine. I shall be surprised if that was the only example of failure to control expenditure in respect of that operation.
  I hope that as a result of this investigation the Treasury will institute a rigorous inquiry into all aspects of the control by the Ministry of Defence of the expenditure being incurred, day in day out, month in month out, in maintaining the Rhine Army. I do not say that because I am inherently hostile to the idea of keeping that Army there, I am not, but because for a long time I have believed that the costs are grossly excessive in relation to the role which that Army is expected to play.
  I have only one more comment to make, and that is on what appears to be a rather curious situation in the National Health Service. There does not appear to be any knowledge of, or any clear guidance on, the right level of nursing staffs in hospitals. The Committee accepts that different hospitals need different levels of staffing, but there are many hospitals of the same type and there does not seem to be any recognised norm or establishment for nurses in hospitals under the control of the Health Service.
  In universities and schools it is accepted that, within certain ratios and limits, staffing is laid down. We take great care, or should do, to see that the deployment of expensive and highly skilled staff is made in accordance with certain broad principles. We do not decide that universities must have an absolute ratio of staffs to students, or that schools must have an absolute ratio of teachers to pupils, but there are some broadly accepted principles on which the staffing of these institutions is carried out.
  No such rules appear to exist in respect of nurses in hospitals under the control of the Health Service. I think that some research has been done on the subject, but it is by no means adequate, and in view of the cost of training these important and skilled people, and the importance of seeing that our hospitals are properly served in terms of staff, I think that further investigation is needed into this matter.

  1557
  I suppose that it could be construed as a compliment to the Committee that so few Members are interested in its report, in the sense that they take it for granted that we have done our job properly, and that any further comment is superficial. On the other hand, it may be that the House thinks that our whole proceedings and technique are antiquated and out of date. If that were felt in any quarter, I should be interested to hear the arguments advanced for it. I think that it is somewhat regrettable that the House should not be prepared to take rather more seriously a Report of this kind, which surveys the whole field of public expenditure, and does from time to time make recommendations which are not only important in detail, but which involve important questions of principle.
  Sir D. Glover: What I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree with me is so tragic about this is that the Report is so wide that all hon. Members, if they wanted to, could speak on almost every subject, but they are in the Smoking Room and cannot be called to take part in the debate.
  Mr. Hooley: I should not care to pursue that argument too far, because I think that there are some hon. Members who are prepared to speak on every subject already. It is unfortunate that we do not have a better attendance. I hope that our future debates on the Committee's Reports will attract rather more interest.
  5.34 p.m.
  Mr. Edwin Brooks: I do not dissent from the concluding remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), for, like him, and like the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), I feel that it is a pity that on this occasion the House should be so thinly attended. Nor do I dissent from my hon. Friend's opening remarks when he paid generous and only too well-deserved testimony to the skill and patience, and often forbearance, of the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts in the immense labours that he undertakes on behalf of the House during the course of the year.
  This is a time of some importance in our discussion of accountability and parliamentary control of expenditure.
  1558
  Hon. Members have referred to the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, which, I understand, is soon to be debated in the House. This is a time when the House needs to re-establish what has been termed. the "circle of control". It is perhaps therefore a sign of the frivolity of members of the P.A.C. if, after a year's intensive effort, I seem to depart from the general and fundamental, and turn to a matter of apparent insignificance, but I am fortified in this choice of opening theme by the attention which has been lavished on it by earlier speakers.
  I am, of course, referring to the curious and almost bizarre circumstances which surrounded the purchase of upholstery cloth. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), the Chairman of the Committee, gave the House the basic facts, and I shall not repeat them, except to emphasise the obvious and extraordinary phenomenon that six types of upholstery were being ordered, three for officers, and three for other ranks, and at the end of the day, as we now often say, the officers' cloth turned out to he cheaper, despite the higher specification, for it, than did that purchased for the other ranks.
  It is true that the Public Accounts Committee, during the course of its interrogations, was to learn that specifications cannot apparently be written with any high degree of accuracy, but this knowledge appears to have been unrecognised at the time of the original tendering and selection of materials. Indeed, the joint committee which finally selected six brands, ranging from two-tone tan to lacquer red, appears to have been lacking a great deal of other information, also. As has been said, only its chairman seems to have known the prices of the tenders, and as he was only 5 per cent. of the total committee, it seems that aesthetic rather than price considerations must have dominated their deliberations.
  The P.A.C. was told, in what I think was rather a splendid simile, by the accounting officer:
  "Just as in a club, Sir, your guest is given a menu with no prices so that his choice will be uninhibited by worries about his host's expense, there is something to be said for saying, 'Look, all these fabrics are acceptable. Your job is to choose the best '."

  1559
  I think that that is splendid, but it is not usual—and the House need not be reminded of this—for the taxpayer to be regarded as such an open-handed entertainer.
  Another peculiar aspect of the whole matter is that the teal blue material was originally accepted, as the hon. Member for Ormskirk said, at a price of 22s. 9d. but subsequently it was found that the firm had made a mistake and that the real price should have been 28s. I d. But that price was, nevertheless, endorsed by the joint committee, and the P.A.C. was told that subsequent investigations revealed that the firm was making no profit on the deal.
  Why the firm bothered to seek such a contract in those circumstances escapes me, but the joint committee apparently was satisfied that all the materials represented in the 90 samples examined were "good value for money". Although they may have been satisfied in principle that anything they were looking at would be good value for money, it appears strange that there should be such a range of prices—from 13s. to 34s.—for these materials, and yet, apparently, all 90 samples were good value for money.
  As I meditated over this strange story I felt that somehow I had to find an explanation or philosophy behind what appeared to be happening. I turned, as I often do to rejuvenate myself, to Parkinson's splendid law and I found that it held the key to what happened. I wish to develop this point in relation to some other episodes described by the Public Accounts Committee. During the course of Parkinson's work, which was based upon the most erudite and fundamental statistical analyses, he discussed the coefficient of inefficiency of committees. He discovered that the coefficient of inefficiency must lie between 19 and 22.
  This is based upon the formula—
  X = mº (a — d)/y+pb
  —where a represented the average age of the members; d the distance in centimetres between the two members sitting furthest from each other, and v the number of years since the committee
  1560
  was first formed. As a result of this scientific assessment one discovers that the coefficient of inefficiency is always found to lie between 19·9 and 22·4. The joint committee numbered exactly 20 and, therefore, lay clearly within the coefficient of inefficiency. But we were told that the committee has now been reduced in size.
  We were curious why it should have been reduced to a certain size. Again, Professor Parkinson provides part of the key. To him, the golden number for a committee is about eight. He says:
  " The interesting theory has been propounded that this number"—
  the golden number—
  " must be eight"
  That may be the case, or it may be six, but if it were a case merely of looking at one example and finding some apparent proof of what many regard as no more than a witty summary of our present ailments in committee structure there would be little point in pursuing it. But we find that there is throughout the whole of our report a constant reiteration of some of the more fundamental points which Parkinson's Law tried to illustrate.
  We found that—and we were told this, again, on the upholstery matter—that
  "every number you thought of got multiplied by three".
  This was because the various rationalisation procedures for the Services had not been completed at the time that this joint committee was sitting. This multiplication by three is also relevant to the examination of the work of the Land Commission because, as paragraph 167 of the Public Accounts Committee indicates,
  "the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources, for the purpose of determining the office accommodation and number of staff the Land Commission would require, had estimated that the work load in four or five years' time would be 300,000 cases annually. The Commission were unable to explain how the Ministry had arrived at this figure, but the Commission's comparable estimate of the work load in four or five years' time was between 100,000, and 150,000 cases"—"
  a ratio of between two and three times the original.
  However, not only was there ambiguity and uncertainty as to how the original estimate of 300,000 had been made—a

  1561
  figure which was seriously over estimating the work load—but there was considerable under estimation, or so we were told, by the Ministry of the complexity of the levy work and, therefore, to some extent these two together would cancel out. This is simply a cancellation of errors and we should not be too sanguine or complacent about the situation which these errors revealed.
  The Public Accounts Committee went on—as the chairman had emphasised—to draw attention to the difficulties of estimating the staff requirements for work of a novel kind. I was certainly concerned that the likely load of levy work should have been so greatly overestimated, with the result that excessive numbers of staff were recruited.
  It is rather difficult for those of us, even on the Committee, who have access to accounting officers for interrogation to be altogether satisfied with the explanations that we are given about the problems brought before us. One of the surprising statistics that we were given in relation to the Land Commission was that by December, 1968—the date on which we took evidence—only 46·2 acres of the whole country had been handled by the Commission under its land dealing functions. Indeed, by March, 1969 about two years after vesting date—only about one square mile of the whole country would have been so acquired by it for its various purposes.
  It may be argued that this is quite understandable—that it is complex and difficult work, and uncharted. Nevertheless, in my view it might have been wiser for staff to have been built up more slowly rather than excessively quickly, and to have avoided the inevitable problems which were subsequently brought out by our Committee.
  I want to quote the good Professor Parkinson again. He refers to
  " organisation strangling itself at birth. Examples abound of new institutions coming into existence with a full establishment of deputy directors, consultants and executives, all these coming together in a building specially designed for their purpose. And experience proves that such an institution will die. It is choked by its own perfection. It cannot take root for lack of soil. It cannot grow naturally, for it is already grown."
  When I think of the institutions which, during the course of the year, we were
  1562
  to examine and which come under this general criticism, my mind turns to the Board of Trade. We referred to the Board of Trade in our Report, and in some strong language. Professor Parkinson has an account of a building where an institution such as that which he was discussing, which has overgrown functions
  " The outer door, in bronze and glass, is placed centrally in a symmetrical façade. Polished shoes glide quietly over shining rubber to the glittering and silent lift. The overpoweringly cultured receptionist will murmur with carmine lips into an ice-blue receiver."
  So it goes on. The impression given is that this is an organisation of vast efficiency.
  Professor Parkinson says:
  " In point of fact, you will have discovered that this is nothing of the kind. It is now known that a perfection of planned layout is achieved only by institutions on the point of collapse."
  We have to bear in mind that many functions of the Board of Trade—that splendid building in Victoria Street—have now been absorbed elsewhere.
  But we were not concerned with the fundamental problems of the structure of Government. We were concerned with the problems of the canteens, especially in Scotland. There is a section in paragraph 201 of our report in which we point out that
  " The Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1952–53 were informed that, although some of these canteens were being run at a loss which fell on the taxpayer, it was not the Board's policy to subsidise them; but losses continued and the Committee of 1961–62 were told that the Board were still making enquiries into how to deal with them. The Estimates Committee of Session 1962–63. recommended that intensified efforts should be made to transfer the responsibility for running the canteens to the tenants who use them."
  But although the years roll by and committees go on making the same point, and the Department apparently accepts it, this year we still have the same problem brought before us. As we say in paragraph 204:
  " Your Committee notes with concern that it is 16 years since a previous Committee of Public Accounts were informed that it is not the Board's policy to subsidise canteens on industrial estates."
  This is splendid progress. After 16 years, we are now getting somewhere apparently on this one.

  1563
  I feel that Professor Parkinson can be quoted here on canteens:
  " Just as for a quick verdict we judge a private house by inspection of the W.C. (to find out whether there is a spare toilet roll), just as we judge a hotel by the state of the cruet, so we judge a larger institution by the appearance of the canteen."
  There is a truth here about the Board of Trade's functions. The point is a serious one.
  There was also criticism of the Board of Trade over the leases for factory rentals. This is certainly a much more serious point, in that it involves substantial sums of public money. Indeed, in paragraph 197, we find the following:
  " The Board informed your Committee that a study of a sample of cases showed that the deficit of f-6 million on Income and Expenditure account in 1967–68 would have been substantially reduced, if not eliminated, if rent revision clauses had been included in leases since 1953."
  The Board of Trade had explanations for the delay since 1964 in introducing such clauses, as had been suggested by the Treasury at that time, but, for the reasons which are given in detail in the Report and which I will not read, the Committee did not accept those excuses. The House will be able to study this in detail and judge where our critique of the Board was justified or not. I certainly think that it was.
  We say in paragraph 205 that there is a lack of vigour in dealing with financial questions by the Board of Trade, but on the costs of Concorde there was not only a lack of vigour but, I think, a lack of candour towards the House. Parkinson made the point long ago. He called it the "Law of Triviality", which means that the time spent on any item of the agenda will be in inverse proportion to the sum involved. This has been repeated so often that we regard it as an obvious truism and no longer even bother to smile, but it is a fundamental point when considering the saga of Concorde.
  I have spoken in the House perhaps a dozen times on the Concorde and I suppose that there seems little left to say. Yet there is surely much left to say about a situation such as now faces us.
  When I entered the House, and was on the Public Accounts Committee in May of 1966, we were told that there was an escalation in costs to upwards of £500
  1564
  million for total research and development. This in itself was a staggering increase in the figures which, until then, had been before this Parliament. It also included £50 million for contingencies. So at least there was an assumption that this calculation of £500 million was based upon some sensible forecasting of the costs which were likely to be incurred for following years. In fact, nothing of the sort has happened.
  I know that we are now punch drunk with statistics, and that an extra £230 million on top of £500 million leaves us befuddled: it does not matter any longer. I find, talking to hon. Members and particularly to members of the public, that we have now lost all sense of what this means. But what the escalation means is that, for every week during the last seven or eight years, an extra £1 million and more has been added to the research and development bill of Concorde—an average annual escalation of costs of well over £50 million.
  This is surely serious. We are spending a great deal of time on the problems of upholstery and all sorts of other no doubt worthy causes, but when we get on to these huge sums, it then seems that perhaps two or three minutes is all that we can devote to them, bewailing the fact that we have no control over the Executive and also, I suspect, the fact that the Executive now has little control over the project.
  But there are serious matters in our report this year which the House should have brought to its attention and which have not yet been mentioned. Until this year, we were under the impression that upwards of a third of the total research and development expenditure would be reclaimed by the British and French taxpayers via a levy on sales, so that, of the £500 million, we could have expected perhaps £160 million back. I am talking now of the two countries, of course.
  Now, however, not only has the research and development cost gone up by about 50 per cent., but the estimated one-third recoupment is not nearly likely to be realised.
  Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Would the hon. Gentleman clarify that for me? Is that because of the increase in costs or because there is expected to be no fully realised revenue so far as sales are concerned?
  Mr. Brook: I could put my dilemma in trying to answer that simply in this way: we have not yet—perhaps my hon. Friend can clarify this—been given any precise figures about the actual cost at which Concorde will be sold. We have no idea, in other words, what levy would be chargeable or, indeed, could be chargeable so that the plane could be sold widely. Clearly, the more the levy, the lower the market. Estimates of the market themselves vary enormously. Some are of 200 and some go up to about 300. So there is a number of built-in variables on which there is, perhaps inevitably, a good deal of ambiguity. But it seems fairly clear that the likely levy per aircraft cannot exceed £2 million.
  If this is so, of course one can start doing various sums. These have been made by Mr. C. B. Edwards, a lecturer in economics at the University of East Anglia, who has produced to my knowledge the only detailed cost-benefit analysis of the Concorde project. But when we on the Committee are given broad general answers in the course of our interrogation, we are never able to probe in the way that the hon. Gentleman now seeks to probe—or if we do, we simply cannot get precise answers.
  The difficulty again is that the £730 million itself will certainly not be the last word, the final figure. The report says that if the development costs were to go up by more than some 15 per cent., a fundamental redesign of the aircraft would probably be involved. Maybe so, but this seems to imply that we can absorb—and probably will have to absorb —an increase of about 15 per cent. A 15 per cent. increase on £730 million is a lot of money—over £100 million.
  If we add that on, we have a total of about £840 million on our R and D. So if we recoup a full third, nearly £600 million would still be down the drain. But this, we are now told, is most unlikely to be realised, so the total subsidy from the English and French taxpayers to the Concorde could be at least £700 million and possibly, when the final bills come in, nearer £800 million.
  So much has been said about this that one feels almost helpless to add to what seems to me one of the most scandalous and disgraceful episodes in the whole history of parliamentary control of expenditure.
  1566
  This cost-benefit analysis by Mr. Edwards was carried out as a private initiative. The conclusions he reaches may be unsound, ill-founded and incorrect but they are valuable since we in this House have never been given any alternative authoritative cost-benefit analysis of Concorde.
  Before the M1 was built a complete study was carried out and it showed, in cost-benefit terms, that it would be a healthy investment. The same sort of detailed analysis, encouraged by officialdom, proved the same before the Victoria and Euston line was built. Since Parliament has never been given an analysis worth talking about for Concorde, it is interesting to note Mr. Edwards' words. Although this may be the last occasion on which I shall speak about this matter, there are many detailed figures in the document produced by Mr. Edwards—I will not state the statistics because they would be burdensome to the House—which should be examined by the Government.
  1 Mr. Edwards states, on page 8 of his report:
  " Working with the benefit of the hindsight which we have on the project so far, what is the net cost to the British economy of Concorde likely to be? On the assumption of a total research and development cost of, say, £900 million, a jigging and tooling cost of £100 million, a development period from 1962 to 1973, a profit per aircraft of £2 million, and a sales figure of 200 aircraft between 1973 and 1980, the net loss of the project at a discount rate of 8 per cent. p.a. is shown to be … £483 million … there is a loss to the U.K. economy of about £240 million from Concorde assuming sales of 200 aircraft and a `surplus' per aircraft sold of £2 million; with a sales figure of 140 and the same ' surplus ' the loss to the U.K. economy would be about £260 million."
  Clearly, if there are greater sales, the loss will be correspondingly less. There are countervailing arguments such as the benefit to the balance of payments and the technological spillover, but these too have never been spelt out in detail.
  I am in favour of output budgeting, an accounting technique by one which defines goals and has a breakdown in costs in terms of that target. However, we have had the Concorde target for a long time and we have been completely unable to control the costs involved. The problem must be profoundly one of management accountability, involving both Governments and firms.

  1567
  May I conclude with a final reference to Parkinson. My hon. Friend the Member for Heeley regretted that it was apparently impossible to work out what the right level for nurse staffing in hospitals should be. I have some reservations about this and about the Committee's strictures on the subject, for there are inherent difficulties in working out such a level and perhaps one is asking for trouble in trying to work it out. It may be not only possible but perhaps undesirable to imply that there should be some sort of straight forward calculation which enables us to tell whether a hospital is under-manned or over-manned; or, since we are speaking of nurses, over-womaned.
  It is curious to note that if one looks at the increase in full-time nurses between 1964 and 1968—for which figures were made available to the Committee—one sees that the increases correspond almost precisely to Parkinson's Law. Parkinson says that the calculation which gives the number of new staff required each year in any service is given by the formula
  100 (2 km +1)/Yn%
  Expressed as a percentage, it would be between 5·17 and 6·56 per cent., irrespective of any variation in the amount of work, if any, to be done. One is tempted to smile at such a formula, but 1 am not sure that one should because 1 have found that a simple calculation reveals that the number of nurses increased during the period 1964 to 1968 by 5·5 per cent., which is within Parkinson's calculation.
  I have suggested that there is a continuing problem facing the House and that we must take what is occasionally regarded as a jocular matter more seriously. I refer to the problems of bureaucratic extravagance which Parkinson's Law tries to identify. We must take these problems more seriously.
  This is a time when it is easy to be complacent and say,
  " There is a large volume of evidence and many complaints to support the theory of extravagance, but this evidence and those complaints relate only to what went wrong. Volumes could be published showing all the things that went right."
  But when
  1568
  I study the evidence before us—notably that applying to Concorde, the saga over the canteens and the business of the upholstery ordering—I wonder whether we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg and whether we need more effective surveillance and more rigorous management accountability than we have been accustomed to hitherto.
  6.6 p.m.
  Mr. Terence L. Higgins: This is essentially a parliamentary, rather than a partisan, occasion. By tradition, however, it is usual for a speech to be made from the Opposition Front Bench, and it is with pleasure that I make that speech.
  I have had the pleasure of listening to the entire debate and the speeches have revealed the importance of the matters before us. I am particularly glad of the opportunity to express my personal thanks—I am sure that the whole House will join me—to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) for the tremendous amount of work that he did and the success which the Committee had in looking after our affairs under his chairmanship.
  In his speech, which was full of charm and elegance, my right hon. Friend stressed the great work which the Committee had done and particularly the fact that there had always been a quorum. Given the size of the Committee and its comparatively large quorum, that showed how well the Committee undertook its work.
  I share the feeling of the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) that I am, so to speak, an ordinary shareholder in that I am not a member of the Public Accounts Committee. I assure him, however, that it has been refreshing to listen to the debate.
  It is sometimes said in the Press-1 was glad that the Press paid considerable attention to these Reports when they were first published—that there are certain hair-raising examples of expenditure examined by Committees of this sort. To mix metaphors. 1 suggest that the Committee was in the position of looking for a needle in a haystack because there was a vast area of public expenditure to be examined.

  1569
  The Committee had the difficult task of pinning down areas where some abuses might have occurred and commenting on them. It was a difficult task, considering the small number of abuses in relation to the total amount of Government expenditure. It is vital that this work should be done and perhaps my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee, as a former Treasury Minister, has been in the position of gamekeeper turned gamekeeper. We welcome his expertise and effectiveness in this matter.
  It was clear from the example which my right hon. Friend gave that stringent cross-examination took place over the question of the multiple hiring of married quarters in Germany. When a defect of this kind is found it is right that it should be brought out by the Committee, then on the Floor of the House and that the Government should take every possible step to prevent a recurrence. This can be done only if every case is considered with great care and if every point that needs pursuing is pursued.
  On 14th August, The Guardian had this to say:
  " The worrying feature common to most of the mistakes is not that there are many of them or even that they are very large but that they are the mistakes of a kind that ordinary businessmen would never make."
  That is not invariably true. In the case of the multiple hiring, the failure was not one of commercial judgment but one of administration, and it is on the commercial aspect that I now want to speak.
  My right hon. Friend pointed out that the Public Accounts Committee has now been in operation for more than a hundred years, but the economic environment in which it is operating is very different. Whereas in the last century it was just a question of sticking to clearly understood accounting techniques, in an age of inflation and in a period when we have had a very much faster rate of economic growth than we had in most periods of the 19th century, different economic methods are applicable. Moreover, we have today many financial techniques which were not available then, and the computer has given us greater powers of calculation.
  That being so, I should like, first, to take up the point that emerged from my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks). The
  1570
  reference to the Public Accounts Committee in Standing Orders is:
  " There shall be a select: committee, to be designated the Committee of Public Accounts, for the examination of the accounts showing the appropriation of the sums granted by Parliament to meet the public expenditure, and of such other accounts laid before Parliament as the committee may think fit…".
  to examine, and so on.
  It will, I think, be the general view of the House that it would be wrong for the work of the Committee to be concentrated purely on the cost side, because many of the matters into which it looks inevitably have not merely a cost aspect, but a revenue aspect in those circumstances, and looking at it from the commercial point of view it:is very important that both aspects should be brought out This was clearly recognised in the Committee's Report in page xxii. Incidentally, I must say that I find it difficult to switch to and from Roman numerals when going through such a long report.
  The Report states:
  " Your Committee were also informed that in consequence of the present cost escalation, the proportion of total development costs of Concorde which could now he recovered in the production price would probably be a good deal less than the one-third previously contemplated."
  It is important in this context that we should look not merely at the cost side but at the revenue side.
  I make no comment at all on the desirability or otherwise of the Concorde project—we are not concerned with that today—but it is relevant to look at the debate we had in Standing Committee on the Industrial Expansion Bill in March last year. Pursuing this point about the revenue likely to arise from the Concorde project, the Minister of Technology replied to a point I had made about market research which had been carried out.
  The right hon. Gentleman said:
  " This is a complicated and interesting question. The market here is the airlines, and it is not for us to interrogate their passengers about whether they would prefer to go rapidly to New York in a big aircraft or more slowly in a ship. The co-ordination of passenger demand is an airline responsibility, and the customers for Concorde are the airlines themselves. Therefore, if one is looking at the market point of view, one looks at it in terms of airline options and possible orders, and it is not possible for the Minister of Technology to do an analysis of passenger preference."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E. 19th March, 1968; c. 432.]

  1571
  Those words bring out the very important point that if we are to appraise whether or not public money is being properly spent, we must look at projects which are essentially commercial in nature and make sure that we get a reasonably accurate view of what the money is being spent on, and what we can expect from it. It is these two sides that are very important and which come out implicitly in much of what the Reports say with regard to the Concorde project.
  In addition, the Committee has shown its concern with the objects of the policy. Here, again, I must say that it is not always entirely clear whether one is concerned with prestige, economic development, balance of payments, buying foreign exchange at a premium, technological spin-off, or whatever it may be, and while the Committee is primarily concerned with the cost side it is quite right to emphasise the point about the one-third coming back. It is important to look at these things in commercial terms.
  A more general point is that, generally speaking, because we are in an inflationary situation, it is right that we should look at all these matters in terms of replacement value rather than historic cost—if I may use a little technical jargon. It is no good looking at a project in terms of what it cost originally: it is necessary to allow for the effect inflation has had on the actual value of the asset expressed by means of a constant measuring rod. Here I want to take up two particular points to which the Committee has referred.
  The first refers to regional policy, and one can take as an example of what 1 have just been saying the break clauses in the factory leases in regard to development policy. The Committee has rightly brought out the fact that this is a quite extraordinary situation where, apparently. the Board of Trade, in particular, has sought to use the historic cost approach rather than look at what the influence of inflation is likely to be in order to further policies of regional development.
  If one reads the interesting passages on this point in the reports one sees that gradually it is recognised that because there are other regional policies, such as investment grant policy, or R.E.P. policy,
  1572
  it is felt necessary to use this historic cost device to achieve an object of policy which was not really the original intention of Parliament. Therefore, in an inflationary situation it is very important to look at the thing in this way, rather than in purely accounting terms. I am very glad, if I may say so without presumption, that this point is well taken in the example I have just quoted.
  Similarly, with many projects it is very important—and the same example will serve me—to look at the project over the expected life of the asset. Here we have factories which are expected to be leased for, at any rate, 21 years. We now have many new capital budgeting techniques involving discounted cash flow, and so on, which have had the effect of making many commercial concerns look at the rate of return they are likely to get over the life of the asset. Adopting that approach, one cannot get into a muddle with regard to these factory leases. If it is that sort of project, it must be looked at in commercial terms of the life of the asset, rather than just taking the picture at an individual moment of time.
  One general point may be made here, because it is becoming increasingly important in both commercial life and Government service. Given that we have a relatively high rate of economic growth compared with the last century, one needs to see the other side of the coin, which is that the relative cost of labour compared with capital is rising. That means that if one is investing in a particular project, the right thing to do is not to take the relative cost of capital and labour at the time of making the investment decision, but the relative cost of capital and labour to be expected half way through the asset's life. This is increasingly done in commercial life, but has not become as widespread as, perhaps, it should when ordinary Government decisions are taken.
  This brings me to another major point which has come out of this debate. Time and time again people have said, "We do not have the full information"—or what, in commercial terms, would be a capital proposal. I seriously wonder whether it should not be the case that at any rate, the Public Accounts Committee, or perhaps Members of Parliament themselves—perhaps the documents could be put in the Library—should not have,

  1573
  where it is relevant for projects, the normal form of capital proposal showing the cost side and the revenue side which is expected. This I know is a somewhat revolutionary viewpoint, but perhaps it should be considered.
  Inevitably one jumps from paragraph to paragraph in reports such as these. I now wish to discuss the Local Employment Act, 1966—loan for the drydock. I listened to the contribution made by the hon. Member for Chislehurst and I take the point he made in endorsing the view of the Committee that in future any loans should be secured. I had a little difficulty in fully understanding the point, however. He had a difficult task and he explained it very clearly, but I had difficulty at one stage of the argument. I understood him to say that it would not be the case that loans of this kind would involve a nil failure rate. I can understand what he was arguing, but if one links that with what he said about full security for the loan I am not clear whether he suggested that a nil failure rate should not result in loss for the Government.
  Mr. Macdonald: I understand the point the hon. Member is making. On reflection, it is possible that I did not make myself quite clear. I was arguing that in all cases it is proper to take security, but I do not think it possible, even by having security, in every case to be so careful and meticulous that we can ensure that the Government never lose any money, nor do I think we should aim at that high degree of certainty.
  Mr. Higgins: This is a complicated point. It may be that with pleasure one could discuss it with the hon. Member outside the Chamber. I understand that the Committee's view was that generally there should be full security for loans of this kind. This is not unreasonable because there is a clear distinction between loans on which the Government do not expect to lose the capital sum and the existing system of grants. These should be brought into closer relationship. I found this point fascinating as concerned with the percentage of the total investment which should be put up by the operators of the scheme.
  Recently for development areas we were in a situation where with a 40 per cent. investment grant, 40 per cent. of
  1574
  the total cost was paid by the Government, and this means that a number of projects are undertaken which otherwise could not have been undertaken. On the basis of that cash flow it may be possible for those receiving the grant to raise a considerable sum of money and, given that that is the situation in a development area, the tendency will be for the total equity contribution put up by the promoters of this or that project to be closer to the limit of one-third, which the Committee thought an unsatisfactory level, than the one half which it thought would be the right and proper level for any individual entrepreneur to put up. This raises some very interesting points. I thought the study which the Committee has made of this case a stimulating one which hon. Members should consider very carefully.
  I make a final point with reference to over- and under-estimating. This is a difficult area because, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, traditionally there has been the feeling that a Supplementary Estimate is in some sense a terrible thing and ought not to happen. I am sure my right hon. Friend was right in saying that this is something which is not regarded with quite such horror as it was in the past. When one is looking at the Estimates and saying, "We think this is the amount of money which ought to be spent on a particular project", in some areas, particularly that of overseas aid, we seem to have got into the position in which the estimated figure is never actually achieved. That is because, although the ceiling is put at that point, for various reasons projects fall out and the total always falls below the estimated figure.
  As my right hon. Friend said, there is a case perhaps for changing our thinking a little, though not to a great extent, about whether one under-estimates or over-estimates. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) pointed out that we need accurate estimates and that one should get as close to the true expected figure as possible.
  Those of us who were not members of the Committee are glad that this debate has taken place. It has emphasised the important work which the Public Accounts Committee does. The tribute which my right hon. Friend paid to the Comptroller and Auditor General for the

  1575
  important work he does was wholly justified. We shall look forward with interest to the comments to be made by the Treasury Minister. The Treasury Minute is very abbreviated and a number of points which have been raised in the debate are not covered by it.
  I hope that the Minister of State will be able to give some answers to the highly complex but nevertheless most important questions that have been raised.
  6.26 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. William Rodgers): I shall do my best to help the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). Coming to this kind of debate for the first time, I have been struck by the extent to which hon. Members have commented more on the report of the Select Committee than on the Treasury Minute. I would detain the House unreasonably if my main contribution this evening was merely to repeat what is said in the Treasury Minute if there was nothing of additional value to be said. What I think is clear to the House is the tremendous importance which we attach to the work of the Committee and the attention which its report is given.
  The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) in introducing the Report, with the advantage of having been on the inside, said that he was sure it had had a considerable impact on the conduct of government. I noted what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks), especially about Concorde. I respect his impatience in so far as there has sometimes seemed to be delay in getting full information. That notwithstanding, I think it still true to say that the P.A.C. Report has a very considerable impact. I should like to feel that the Treasury Minute on this occasion has been acceptable and shows an agreeable willingness to take account of the views of the Committee. My feeling is that it is forthcoming and conciliatory because we recognise that in a number of cases the Committee has put its finger on important points and made criticisms which are justified.
  This is, of course, the most distinguished and important of House of Commons Committees. As a very new
  1576
  Treasury Minister, it is interesting to me to see how the role of the P.A.C. very much chimes with what the Treasury is often trying to do. An unusual aspect on this occasion for a Treasury Minister is that normally Treasury Ministers are blamed for things for which they are not responsible and held accountable for the collective decisions of Ministers. On this occasion there is little criticism of the Treasury, except perhaps where it has not been tough enough. So it is pleasant so early in my experience at the Treasury to find that people are sometimes on my side.
  Whereas the Treasury performs its important function with regard to government as a whole, and sometimes has its own criticisms of other Departments, which perhaps may be read between the lines of the Treasury Minutes, it is most important that the Select Committee, and, therefore, Parliament, if I may say so without disrespect, should stand behind the Treasury, prodding it forward, giving it support, but occasionally, if the Treasury leans too much one way or the other, pushing it back into line. If I were to speak of a partnership in this respect, again I hope I should not be disrespectful to a Committee which, being a Committee of the House, is, at the end of the day, sovereign.
  I add my own tribute to the Committee's work and to its members, both past and present. Its Report can be read with fascinated interest by anyone. To say that it is bedside reading is perhaps an exaggeration, but some of the exchanges, including some which the right hon. Gentleman quoted, are fascinating. Although the debate has not been very fully attended, those who read HANSARD may thereby know what they have missed and perhaps remedy it by reading the report.
  As for the Chairman, inevitably anything that I say will in a sense be a poor thing compared with what members of the Committee have said of him. He is held in the very highest regard by the House. When I was preparing for this debate and thinking what might be said and being reminded that the epitome of reports was to be brought up to date, I found the right hon. Gentleman's name on the front of this copy—
  " Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed "

  1577
  as long ago as 5th February, 1952. It is a very long and distinguished record, and we are greatly in the right hon. Gentleman's debt.
  Then there is the Comptroller and Auditor General, who, again, has a very special relationship. He is, I think I am right in saying, the servant of the House and of the Committee. Yet he has a Department under his own control. I do not know whether this is unique in the accounting methods of Parliaments. Whatever may be said about the need for further sophistication in the methods of the control of expenditure, his role is a very important one and his own personal service is most highly esteemed by the House.
  Considering what was said earlier, and perhaps the slight feeling expressed by members of the Committee that their own labours were not always fully noted, I was interested to see the very considerable comment there was at the time of the publication of the Report. For example, the Financial Times said that the report was as absorbing and salutary as ever. Having made some comments on the question of the control of public expenditure and the system of public accounting, it went on to say this:
  " It is very hard to see how there can be any substitute for the psychological value of a high-powered parliamentary committee which can cross-examine senior officials and cause them to justify the minutest details of their public transactions."
  On the day that that leading article appeared, there was a great deal of comment in the newspapers, which shows that the report was taken note of and is highly regarded outside the House. In that respect, because we all like to look for some reward or recognition of our labours, I do not think that the Committee should have any worries.
  I do not intend to detain the House for long, because much of what has been said today has been comment on the report. I shall not repeat what has been said in the Treasury Minute. The matters which mainly concern the House and upon which there have been repeated comments are: first, the purchase of upholstery cloth; secondly, the Land Commission; thirdly, the Board of Trade; fourthly, multiple hirings; and, fifthly, Concorde.
  On the first of these I have nothing to add. In so far as the Committee failed
  1578
  —I would not admit that it did—to make clear its criticisms, and in so far as the Treasury Minute may have implied that we did not in very large part accept it, the comments made today have emphasised the shortcomings which the Select Committee saw, and I can again say that the points have been noted.
  The Ministry accepts that the selection process must obtain the best value for money. Having listened to what has been said, I appreciate how the Committee came to wonder whether former procedures were the best for that purpose. As the House knows, and as the Committee now knows, there has been a change of procedure. The further comments made on both sides, if one can speak of both sides of the House in a debate of this kind, will have been noted.
  The very difficult task with which the Land Commission was faced was appreciated by the Committee. Had transactions reached or exceeded the level which might have been expected, the staff which it had in mind might have been inadequate for the purpose. In the last resort, in this sort of sphere when it is a matter of implementing the wishes of Parliament as embodied in legislation, it may be better to be on the safe side.
  As I think the House knows, and certainly as the Committee recognised, the peak number employed by the Land Commission—this was in January, 1968 —then still fell considerably short of the total staff planned for at the beginning. The Treasury Minute points out that the number of staff has since been reduced. I would not say that this makes a great deal of difference, but from 1st October to the end of October there has been a further reduction of two. I am sure that in the light of what the Committee said every step will be taken to ensure that further reductions are made as far as possible and as far as is reconcilable with the proper work which the Commission continues to undertake.
  On the question of the Board of Trade, again I think that the House will know that this was a matter upon which there was a difference of opinion between Departments, as from 1954 onwards the Treasury was suggesting to the Board that there was a case for introducing rent revision clauses into the leases for factories on the Board's industrial estates.

  1579
  In defence of the Board, it should be said that it was anxious that the terms of these leases would represent an effective inducement to firms to go to development areas and also an assurance to those areas of a continuity of employment on those estates.
  Now is not the time to enter into the argument. I simply say that because I think that the House will recognise that, on the one hand, the Treasury was carrying out its proper duty, as I think that the Select Committee has recognised, and, on the other, the Board had in its mind an important policy reason for not moving as fast and as far as otherwise we would like.
  On the question of the multiple hirings, I have noted very carefully all that has been said today and the strong words that have been used. Some interesting points have been made about the much wider question of placing responsibility and the extent to which we have, by the creation of the Parliamentary Commissioner, abandoned in part a practice which the right hon. Gentleman referred to as Ministerial accountability.
  It is now recognised that such is the detail of government that sometimes, if a Minister is properly responsible to this House for policy, he cannot be involved in a day-to-day way in all the details of his Department. I think that this is a very important and interesting point which I am sure hon. Members may wish to develop on future occasions.
  For the moment, I simply say that the question of disciplinary action against individuals was considered carefully by the Department but, because of the number of people involved and the lengthy period of time, it was not possible to allocate blame to individuals on the evidence available. It has, however, been made clear to all concerned that an extremely serious view is taken of what has happened. A new and strict instruction has been issued to remedy the weaknesses in financial and administrative control which allowed the failure so rightly condemned by the Committee to occur.
  As the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee will appreciate, this is something where the Treasury is greatly concerned. It is not only an administrative
  1580
  failure, if I may put it that way, but respect for proper procedures that is involved, and unless these procedures are followed there can be no control of expenditure of the kind which the House and also the Treasury require.
  I turn now to the question of the Concorde. Here again, I think that I can express some sympathy for most of what has been said about this today. I respect, in particular, the strength of view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington. He has expressed his view often and I know how strongly he feels about the escalation in costs of this project. He had some wise things to say and some points, upon which the hon. Member for Worthing has also reflected, about those who might or might not appear before Select Committees, but this has wider implications than those of the Concorde project.
  But we are quite clear as to the need to keep the House of Commons informed of increases in costs. I was asked by the right hon. Gentleman about what is meant by the words, "earliest practical opportunity" for informing the House. I understand that they mean as soon as the facts are clearly established, making proper allowance in the public interest for the problems which arise from this being an international project and from the commercial considerations involved.
  I think that the right hon. Gentleman himself went out of his way to make the point that his Committee fully understands the complications of a project such as that of the Concorde, and in that context I can certainly give the assurance which the House wants and for which the Committee has asked, and which I think we gave, although perhaps in guarded terms, in the Treasury Minute. It is a fair and important point and I am sure that, in particular, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology has taken note of it.
  As the House knows, my right hon. Friend told the House on 10th November that the agreed Anglo-French estimate of £730 million is being reviewed to take account of the devaluation of the franc and certain adjustments to the programme. He undertook to inform the House as soon as practicable—to use the familiar phrase—of the results of this review. The House will appreciate that

  1581
  this would not be the time—and I am not in any case in a position to do so—to add to what we said or to anticipate his statement. But I can repeat his undertaking to keep the programme under review and to balance the estimated development cost against the estimated return on our investment.
  Mr. Higgins: Presumably, also, the estimated production costs at the earliest time they are available.
  Mr. Rodgers: I take that point, which the hon. Member for Worthing himself took from my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington when he referred to the possibility of recouping some of the development costs from the sale of the aircraft. Very complex calculations are involved here. If I had the information, I do not think that now would be the time to give it to the House. But, as it happens, I do not possess it, so it would be right to wait for my right hon. Friend, who, I am sure, will note what has been said. I undertake to draw to his attention the matters he raised about Concorde and also to draw the attention of other members of the Government to the other matters raised in the debate.
  This has been a short debate but a most useful one, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee and the House, from wide experience, can take it that all that has been said in the report and in the debate is of the greatest importance to us in the Government and that we shall take full account of it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of the First, Second and Third Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts in the last Session of Parliament and of the Treasury Minute on those Reports (Command Paper No. 4191)."

  ESTIMATES
  Ordered, That during the present Session, notwithstanding anything in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 80 (Estimates Committee), the Estimates Committee shall consist of Thirty-three Members:
  Ordered, That Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones, Mr. Costain, Mr. Paul Dean, Mr. Peter Doig, Mr. James A. Dunn, Mr. John
  1582
  Ellis, Sir Eric Errington, Mr. Fred Evans, Mr. Ted Fletcher, Mr. Hugh Fraser, Sir Richard Glyn, Mr. R. Gresham-Cooke, Mr. Will Griffiths, Mr. Hall-Davis, Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. David Howell, Mr. W. Howie, Mr. Leslie Huckfield, Mr. Arthur Lewis, Mr. Macdonald, Mr. Neil Marten, Mr. Ray Mawby, Dr. Miller, Mr. Stratton Mills, Mr. William Molloy, Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles, Mr. Eric Ogden, Mr. R. Bonner Pink, Mr. Roy Roebuck, Mrs. Renee Short, Sir Spencer Summers, Mr. Edwin Wainwright, and Mr. George Wallace be Members of the Committee:
  Ordered, That every Sub-Committee appointed by the Committee have power to admit strangers during the examination of witnesses unless they otherwise order:
  Ordered, That during the present Session the Committee have power to appoint persons with technical or scientific knowledge for the purpose of particular inquiries, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference. —[Mr. McBride.]

  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to examine the Reports and Accounts of the Nationalised Industries established by Statute whose controlling Boards are appointed by Ministers of the Crown and whose annual receipts are not wholly or mainly derived from moneys provided by Parliament or advanced from the Exchequer; and of the Independent Television Authority, Cable and Wireless Ltd., and the Horserace Totalisator Board, and to examine such activities of the Bank of England as are not—

  (i) activities in the formulation and execution of monetary and financial policy, including responsibilities for the management of the gilt-edged, money and foreign exchange markets;

  (ii) activities, as agents of the Treasury, in managing the Exchange Equalisation Account and administering Exchange Control; or

  (iii) activities as a banker to other banks and private customers:

  Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Eighteen Members:
  Ordered, That Mr. Michael Alison, Mr. William Baxter, Mr. David Crouch. Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Mr. John Forrester, Mr. Norman Haseldine, Mr. John Horner, Mr. Roy Hughes, Sir Donald Kaberry, Mr. Richard Kelley, Mr. Russell Kerr, Colonel Lancaster, Mr. Ron Lewis, Mr. Michael McGuire, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Mr. J. T. Price, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, and Mr. John Smith be Members of the Committee:
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place and to report from time to time:
  Ordered, That the Committee have the power to report from time to time the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee:
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purpose of particular enquiries, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference:
  Ordered, That so much of the Minutes of Evidence taken before Sub-Committee B of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in the last Session of Parliament as relates to the Bank of England, together with the relevant Appendices, be referred to the Committee:
  Ordered, That Five be the Quorum of the Committee:
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee:
  Ordered, That every such Sub-Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to report to the Committee from time to time; and to adjourn from place to place;
  Ordered, That Three be the Quorum of every such Sub-Committee:
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to report from time to time any Minutes of Evidence taken before such Sub-Committees.—[Mr. McBride.]

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS (INQUIRY PROCEDURE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]
  6.48 p.m.
  Mr. Airey Neave: The early Adjournment enables me to raise this subject—which has been raised on several occasions before—at somewhat greater length than is usual, though I hope not at unreasonable length.
  This is not the first time I have raised with Ministers the nature of the inquiries into derailments and other incidents on British Railways. In February, 1966, a series of derailments occurred on the Western Region, some of them in my constituency on the line between Didcot and Swindon. I saw the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, who was then Minister of Transport, and discussed with her the whole question of the procedures involved in regard to derailment inquiries.
  I thought that, in regard to some of these derailments, all of which occurred fairly rapidly within the first two months of 1966, formal inquiries were needed in each case. The right hon. Lady refused this request, in some cases because some of the derailments did not come within the categories in which such inquiries are usually held. I do not dispute that this was within the rules, but what I do dispute is whether those rules are always wisely upheld.
  That brings me to the two sorts of inquiry I wish to discuss so far as they affect accidents on British Railways. First, there are those to which the Minister of Transport, as she was then, referred as domestic inquiries by British Railways. Second, I shall refer to inquiries ordered by the Minister to be held in public or private by the inspecting officer, which are generally known as formal inquiries.
  The whole question of domestic inquiries—if that is the correct term—by British Railways should be reviewed. This was made glaringly obvious at Didcot, in my constituency, in the first week of September, when the 9.45 passenger train from Weston-super-Mare to Paddington and the 8.25 Weymouth to Liverpool passenger train almost

  1585
  collided, engine to engine, on the same line very close to Didcot Junction. Both were on the same track, and I believe that it is correct to say that they stopped about 150 yards apart.
  Fortunately, they were going quite slowly. No announcement was made then by British Railways Western Region, but, as one would expect, the local Press came to hear of the incident and as a result British Railways had to make a statement. I was informed, and got in touch with the Ministry of Transport.
  The incident is important for many reasons. First, it was declared to be technically impossible in view of the modern signalling system. Despite the fact that there has been a two-day routine inquiry, as British Railways describe it, we still do not know why two express trains should have been confronting each other on the same road.
  It automatically follows that there should be an inquiry into a near-miss by airliners over the Atlantic. Whilst I am not suggesting for a moment that aviation inquiry procedures are the same problem as on the railways, this was an exceptionally serious matter. Since there was no collision and there were no injuries in that case, there was no obligation on the Minister to hold a formal inquiry, though the Western Region has reported the result of its two-day private inquiry to him.
  I am indebted to several newspapers, including local newspapers, for information about this incident, and for their support. The movements manager of Western Region said revealingly to the Oxford Mail, which circulates in my constituency:
  " Because the railways do not publish the outcome of their routine inquiries, this does not mean that they have anything to hide."
  That statement demonstrates how important it is for British Railways public relations that the Minister should tell the House tonight that he will review the problem. What could be more damaging to British Railways than to have a private inquiry into two express trains halting a few hundred yards apart, with the leakages and so on to the Press which occurred, and a good deal of speculation about the cause of the accident?
  I do not advocate that every incident should be the subject of an inquiry, but
  1586
  all incidents of the Didcot type should be inquired into in public. My main argument for this is that the Minister clearly has a statutory responsibility for rail safety, and an incident like that at Didcot, involving two express passenger trains, comes within that responsibility.
  The right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), who was Minister of Transport when I went to the Ministry in September, made a big mistake in not ordering a public inquiry into the case, although it apparently does not come within the category where it is usual to do so. I have no doubt that much of the problem here is very strict adherence to rules which have existed for a long time. I am not questioning in this debate the principal Act or the Orders, and there is no need for me to do so. A general direction to British Railways could be given on the matter.
  As I hope the Minister will agree, the point is that where there is an incident on British Railways that does not involve passenger casualties, but involves a passenger train and passengers being put at serious risk, as in that case, the matter should not be left in British Railways' hands. There should be a formal inquiry, and it should not be regarded as a routine or domestic inquiry. The words "routine" and "domestic" inquiry into such a case appear absurd in the modern context, and should not be used.
  That is my first point about the first type of inquiry conducted by British Railways—that where there is potential risk of that character the Minister should order a formal and public inquiry.
  I now come to cases where a formal inquiry is ordered by the Minister. The particular cases I have in mind are the derailment at Lichfield in Staffordshire on 10th June, at Somerton in Somerset on 13th June, and Sandy in Bedfordshire on 23rd July. I have taken an interest in these matters since at least 1966, owing to the considerable crop of derailments that occurred on the Western Region in or near my constituency. The derailment at Somerton and Sandy involved passenger trains, that at Sandy occurring at 90 miles an hour. Happily, none of the 400 passengers was injured in that accident, but there were casualties a t Somerton.
  Those three accidents—one an accident to a freight train, at Lichfield, and the

  1587
  other two passenger trains at Somerton and Sandy—were due to buckled rails, and particularly the buckling of lengths of continuous welded rail. Investigation has been going on into those two accidents and their causes, the possible effect of hot weather temperatures on continuous welded rail, and other relevant matters. There has been a great deal of patient research by British Railways, especially into de-stressing processes with continuous welded rail.
  I pay tribute to the research work, which is of a very high standard compared with that in many other countries. Men are being trained in de-stressing on a special course, which is very welcome and very important in view of the possible use of continuous welded rail in the future.
  I make no technical criticism—I am not in a position to do so—of continuous welded rail. But what I have just said makes it all the more preposterous that for reasons for convenience—the only reason I can find after discussion with the right hon. Member for Greenwich, and after reading the letter he wrote to me on 2nd September—the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways and his assistants should hold the technical part of the inquiry in private. This is entirely wrong. It has been made clear in the Press and statements from the British Railways Research Centre at Derby that British Railways have nothing to hide about continuous welded rail. If so, there is no reason why the results of the research into the buckling of rail should not be made public.
  I shall propose a new procedure for the inquiries. If there are no secrets involved, there can be no reason for the present out-dated method of inquiry. If matters of defence or security, or in certain cases discipline, were involved. I could understand the Minister exercising discretion and having the inquiry in private.
  The bare facts of the derailment or collision are inquired into in public in most cases, as happened at Somerton. What happened at the end of July was very unusual in some respects. I dare say that it has occurred once or twice before, but it was extremely wrong because the then Minister said that the inquiries into what happened at Lichfield
  1588
  and Sandy should be lumped together with the inquiry at Somerton which by that time had reached its second phase in private in discussing technical evidence.
  The result of this procedure, which I protested against most strongly at the time, is that there has been no formal inquiry into the derailments at Lichfield and Sandy. As I pointed out, the derailment at Sandy occurred at 90 miles an hour and involved 400 passengers.
  The right hon. Member for Greenwich, when he was Minister of Transport, told me in his letter of 2nd September that he could not agree to the examination in public or in private of witnesses to the Lichfield and Sandy derailments—he was referring not to the technical witnesses, but to the witnesses of the derailments—because they could add nothing to the knowledge of the inspecting officer. I was flabbergasted by that statement as one of the derailments involved 400 passengers and the train was travelling at 90 miles an hour.
  Lumping these three derailment inquiries together was very unwise because the facts of the three cases are not on all fours. The argument of the Minister and of the senior officials against me was that the buckling of the rail was known to the inspecting officer and that that was all that he needed to know. The result is that, even when passengers are injured, the technical evidence is heard in private. I do not believe that that is right.
  I am well aware that detailed and long investigations into design and laying techniques of continuous welded rail are required and into other factors which have a bearing on these derailments. But I do not like the present system. It has grown up over a long period. It is freely admitted that the inspectors, who are all men of high repute, gather experts round the table and then publish their report and the evidence which they think supports their conclusions. One has only to look at the inspector's report into two recent derailments to realise this.
  This is no reflection on the inspectors conduct. I am talking about the system. I am not attacking the continuous welded rail or trying to be alarmist. Many derailments have been due to outdated rolling stock rather than the condition of the rail. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would say something about that.

  1589
  In an age when there are many people with a certain degree of scientific and engineering education there is no reason why the results of the research into derailments should not be given in public and recorded. I do not suggest that the research itself should be carried out in public—it may take a substantial time —but the conclusions of the research teams should be given in public before the inspector and not just discussed with him round the table.
  There should be absolutely no objection to the Press, especially the technical Press and papers interested in railway matters, being present during the inspector's hearing of the technical evidence because, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows—I certainly know from correspondence—there are many engineers and technologists who are not employed by British Railways but who take a great interest in research into railway tracks and methods and who may have some contribution to make. I do not see why the expert evidence should not be exposed to a degree of cross-examination or why, by adopting a more open procedure, other people should not be able to contribute to the information put before the inspector. It is not sufficient to say that the inspector already has a certain amount of information and that he can collect the rest privately.
  It has been said against me that I want something in the nature of a planning inquiry such as is conducted by an inspector of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I am not suggesting a procedure like that. I am suggesting that the technical conclusions following from the research conducted by British Railways or other people should be given in public and that the technical Press should be able to report it. It is of considerable importance to railway staff that this should be done because there is a considerable delay before an inspector's report is published.
  On 2nd September, the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Greenwich, said—and he was referring to an investigation under the conditions which I am suggesting now—that it "would be much more difficult and complicated and would produce less comprehensive and valuable results". My view is exactly the opposite. As I have said, it is absurd that there should be no formal inquiry into derail
  1590
  ments like that which occurred at Sandy. There is a danger—and I do not want to stress it too much—that if this procedure continues in the present rather untidy and unintelligible way from the public's point of view people will say that there is something suspicious about the causes of these derailments. They are far too serious for such an arbitrary system to be adopted and the Minister must look at the rules again.
  If a Minister can order a public inquiry into the facts because there have been passenger casualties, is there any reason why he should not order a public inquiry into the causes of the derailment? It seems to be entirely a matter of convenience from the Minister's point of view that the inspectors do not want to be exposed to having witnesses before them in public who can be cross-examined.
  My argument is strongly supported by the fact that an inspector's report often is not published for over a year and sometimes a good deal longer. Therefore, the technical aspects of the causes of accidents are not available to the public or sometimes, I suppose, to railway staff. I have here one of the recent reports by a railway inspector into a derailment which occurred on 12th June, 1968, at Berkhamsted, published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. It deals with freight liner accidents. Another one which is dealt with occurred at Auchencastle, in Scotland, on 14th June, 1968. The inspector completed the report on 25th July, 1969, and the Stationery Office published it on 7th October, 1969. This is far too long a delay in publishing such a report. This is a manifestly inefficient and old-fashioned system and it is not in the general interest that a delay like that should occur.
  The inspector's report draws out strongly the desirability of a public hearing. He refers to evidence in 1968 on track laying and hot weather temperatures affecting continuous welded rail. Both the derailments in 1968 referred to were caused by buckled rails, and, therefore, this information was extremely relevant to what happened in the summer of this year. Had the inspector's report been available, it would greatly have facilitated the knowledge of many people outside the inspector's immediate entourage and the managers of the

  1591
  regions. It is true that track tests and wagon tests take some time, but this evidence could have been published in 1968. The inspector looking at Berkhamsted and Auchencastle should have heard the technical evidence in public so that the evidence would have been known to the public in 1968 instead of in 1969.
  The points I have made are especially for the benefit of railway staff, of whom there are many in my constituency. The report of the inspector into the Berkhamsted accident goes into the whole question of destressing, and temperatures in the United Kingdom, and make comparisons with other countries. All this information was highly relevant and, even if it might have been difficult for the inspector to produce the report as rapidly as some people would have wished, one would have thought that he might have been able to do so by the end of 1968. If the technical evidence on destressing had been heard in public people would have greatly benefited from knowing 12 months before what were thought to be the technical causes of the derailments.
  The Ministry of Transport and the railways must break away from their rather Victorian rules and organise inquiries so that they give the most benefit to the railwaymen and to passengers.
  7.12 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Albert Murray): I am very grateful for the opportunity to clarify the position about inquiries into railway accidents, and I thank the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) for giving the Ministry that opportunity. I think the whole House is aware of the hon. Member's persistence in this and other matters, with which he has had great success.
  The hon. Member is mostly concerned about inquiries into accidents to trains, and into failures of rolling stock and permanent way that might have led to such accidents—the kind of accidents and failures that are inquired into by the inspecting officers of railways in the Ministry of Transport. I will, therefore, confine my reply as closely as I can to this kind of accident.
  I think, however, that it is worth reminding the House that the Railway Inspectorate, through its railway employ
  1592
  ment inspectors, holds a large number of inquiries into accidents to railway staff, in most of which trains are involved, though the accident is to the man and not to the train, but some of which are not connected with trains. I should also distinguish, right at the start, between domestic inquiries held by British Railways, over which my right hon. Friend has, of course, no control, and formal inquiries into accidents ordered by the Minister.
  Mr. Neave: Before the Parliamentary Secretary leaves domestic inquiries, will he comment on the near-miss at Didcot and my argument that that should have been the subject of a formal inquiry?
  Mr. Murray: I promise the hon. Member that I will come to that later.
  The Statute that empowers the Minister of Transport to order an inquiry into a railway accident is the Regulation of Railways Act, 1871, as very slightly amended, as regards railway staff, by two later Acts.
  Under Section 6 of the 1871 Act any railway company, and that of course includes the regional managements of British Railways and London Transport railways, is required to report to the Ministry certain specified accidents—these are any accident attended with loss of life or personal injury, any collision where one of the trains is a passenger train, and any derailment of a passenger train. Section 6 also empowers the Minister to make from time to time an Order specifying what other accidents of such a kind as to have caused or to be likely to cause loss of life or personal injury must be reported to the Ministry.
  The current Order made under Section 6 is the Railways (Notice of Accidents) Order, 1965, and it specifies in great detail what accidents and failures are to be reported, in addition to those specified in the Act. For example, it lays down that a goods train derailment, as well as passenger train derailments, must be reported, though it makes the proviso that it must have occurred on or affected a passenger line. It also lays down that collisions between goods trains must be reported, as must mishaps at level crossings, aircraft running on to the permanent way, and so on. It also makes the railways report such incidents as fires, which are a potential danger to people.

  1593
  and a wide variety of failures of rolling stock and permanent way, such as broken rails and tyres, slips in cuttings, failures of bridges and culverts, buckling of a running track, and so on, any one of which might have caused an accident even though it did not do so.
  The hon. Member mentioned the Didcot "near-miss", and I must emphasise that the Order does not require a report on a "near-miss"—an accident that nearly happened but was averted. I feel strongly that it would not be practicable to make "near-misses" reportable, because of difficulties of definition if for no other reason. I can, however, assure the House that when there is a serious "near-miss" the general manager of the region concerned would always send details of it informally to the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways to keep him in the picture. The near-collision at Didcot on 6th September was a good example of this. No formal report was made to the Ministry, but the Chief Inspecting Officer was informally kept fully in the picture of what had happened.
  As a result of these provisions a very large number of accidents and failures are reported to the Ministry. For example, in 1968, the number of train accidents reported totalled just over 1,400, while nearly 1,600 failures of rolling stock and permanent way were reported. Many of the train accidents were of course of a very minor nature. There were, for example, 243 accidents involving open doors. I think I should remind all hon. Members of the dangers of this when we are commuting. When I have been travelling by train from Gravesend I have often seen people jump out and leave the door open, trusting that a porter will shut it.
  Sir Douglas Glover: The Minister is looking at me; I assure him that I always close the door when I get out of the train.
  Mr. Murray: I am just looking at the hon. Member because he is irresistible: for no other reason.
  As I was saying there were 243 accidents involving open doors, usually an open door on one train being struck by another train, and 87 cases of trains running into animals on the line. Much more seriously, there were seven collisions be-
  1594
  tween passenger trains, eight collisions between passenger trains and goods trains, light engines, or other moving vehicles, and 31 passenger and 336 goods train derailments. Only 22 of the failures actually caused accidents. Of the 161 failures of engines or multiple unit trains reported none caused an accident and of the 641 broken rails reported only two caused derailments.
  In view of these figures, I am sure that the hon. Member would agree that it would be neither desirable nor practicable to make formal inquiries into all the accidents and failures that are reported to the Ministry, or even into all the collisions and derailments. I should emphasise that the 1871 Act gives the Minister a permissive power to order an inquiry into a railway accident; it is not mandatory.
  Section 4 of the Act gives the inspector the necessary powers of entry and inspection, of summoning witnesses, and of demanding documents, etc., to enable him to probe into the circumstances of the accident, to examine it in depth, and to elucidate its cause. Furthermore, Section 7 of the Act requires the inspector to report to the Minister stating the causes of the accident and all its circumstances, and requires the Minister to make that report public. Such a procedure ensures that all the facts, when they have been established as facts, and all the theories when they have been properly argued out, are in due course made public.
  The details of all serious accidents are reported as quickly as possible to the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways. If necessary, he is contacted at all hours of the day and night, whether he is in his office or his department or wherever he may be, if the matter is of a serious nature. He advises my right hon. Friend whether in his view an inquiry should be ordered.
  In reaching a decision a number of factors have to be taken into account. These include the seriousness, potential as well as actual, of the accident; the casualties—an inquiry is almost always ordered when passengers have been killed and usually when train crew have been killed; the extent of probable public concern; the technical features involved, whether for example the integrity of the signalling system or other safety feature seems to be in question; whether the

  1595
  accident is one of an isolated type or one that fits into an accident pattern or trend and warrants investigation for that reason; whether a particular lesson needs to be made public; and whether the facts might best be elucidated in some other way. The inquiry when ordered is held by one of the inspecting officers of railways.
  A point I must stress is that when an inquiry is ordered it is in no way a court for the determination of legal responsibility of any kind. It is made into the technical aspects of the accident and its aim is to enable the inspecting officer to advise the Minister about the cause of the accident and of any measures that should be adopted to prevent a recurrence. The recommendations made by the inspecting officer cannot be imposed on the Railways Board, but they are always carefully considered by it and they are usually adopted. They have indeed led to the adoption of many safeguards that have benefited both the travelling public and railwaymen. The House is well aware that the hon. Member has a great many railwaymen in his constituency.
  Such an inquiry into a railway accident is necessarily held in two parts, The first aims to establish the facts of the accident and its immediate cause by the examination of those who actually witnessed it and those who were immediately involved. Where the cause of an accident lies in the actions or neglect of one or more of the persons immediately concerned, the public hearing of evidence is of vital importance. But I must stress the word "immediately". In some cases, such as some of those in which continuous welded rail track has buckled, the track may have been laid some years before it buckled and had not been disturbed since. This was indeed so at Sandy except for normal routine maintenance. And at Lichfield it has taken the region concerned a long time to dig back through the records and establish the history of the track. Ordinary inquiries into Sandy and Lichfield would only have established the immediate and vital fact that the track had already buckled before the train reached it, and that this was not the result of any action or omission by those immediately concerned with the track. This was already known to the Chief Inspecting Officer
  1596
  when he advised my right hon. Friend not to order separate inquiries into these two derailments.
  The second part of an inquiry however —and this has proved true in the case of the inquiry into the Somerton derailment—very often involves extremely detailed and prolonged technical investigation into the possible causes of quite simple facts disclosed by the first part. Such investigations will involve conferences and discussions with a wide variety of technical and scientific experts. The procedure is informal and flexible and much of its value depends on the fact that the inspecting officer can rely on the willing co-operation of all grades of railwaymen. There is, I believe, complete trust in the absolute impartiality and professional integrity of the inspecting officers, and the hon. Member gave them their rightful credit.
  At such discussions the various experts can speak their minds frankly and freely, in a way they might well not be prepared to do when subject to formal cross-examination. There is, of course, plenty of cross-examination by, and argument with, their fellow experts and, as a result of these close contacts between professionals, various theories and views are freely propounded and thoroughly discussed, and their values are assessed. Such discussions must necessarily be held in private: it would indeed be practically impossible to hold them in public, and if the attempt were to be made the investigation would be made much more difficult and complicated and would almost certainly produce less comprehensive and valuable results. We believe safety might well suffer.
  The second part of the inquiry, particularly if technical matters are involved may also necessitate the testing of equipment, and of theories, and the tests may be complex and widespread—the making of trial runs, and the reconstruction of events may be involved. None of this can practicably be carried out "in public" and neither, in the current investigation into continuous welded rail track, can the consultations that are being carried out with foreign railway administrations facing similar problems. I need hardly say that the British Railways Board is sparing no effort to find the right solutions to this problem and, as always, it is giving the inspecting officer every

  1597
  help. The inspecting officer is responsible for ensuring that all necessary tests are carried out and for full discussions with the Board's officers. He then has to make a full report to the Minister and this is always published.
  This method has been well tried and has been shown to work. The technical evidence, when complete, has been weighed and balanced—and the inspecting officer can call for advice at all stages from experts in the fields concerned—and that evidence and his conclusions from it are then made public. If, however, the discussions and tests which are spread over a period were to be held in public and a theory that is later proved wrong by test were to be given early publicity, much harm might be done and the public misled or even unnecessarily alarmed.
  I recognise that the inspecting officer's final report can take a long time to produce, and then some time to print and publish. This is often inevitable because the investigations take a long time and the report must be very carefully prepared. My right hon. Friend has therefore given instructions that, as soon as the inspecting officer has reached any early conclusions in the continuous welded track investigation or can report any firm progress before the whole investigation is complete, he is to make an interim report. This, like the final report, will be published.
  It may help the House to put some of these matters in perspective if I say that sometimes, when Questions are answered in thes House, the figures appear more alarming than they really are. The number of accidents has admittedly increased. However, taking an average over the last 10 years there has been one passenger fatality in a derailment in 145 million passenger journeys, and one passenger fatality in a significant collision in 186 million passenger journeys.
  The hon. Gentleman will know that the number of reportable accidents caused by the derailment of passenger trains has remained fairly constant, although those involving goods trains have increased. One of the problems is caused by the use of short wheel-base wagons, and measures are being taken to deal with that. For instance, in 1968, my right hon. Friend approved the necessary investment for the construction of 250 four-wheeled, long
  1598
  wheel-base wagons on an experimental basis, and in August, he approved the Board's proposal to build 3,200 wagons at an estimated cost of £12,700,000. Measures are also being taken by the B.R.B. on C.W.R. track. The ballast shoulders outside sleeper ends are being widened, and steps are being taken to ensure that the ballast is well up to sleeper top level. Various other methods are also being used to improve stability in C.W.R. track.
  I hope that what I have said has helped the hon. Gentleman in his quest for a solution to the problem and clarified it as we see it.
  My right hon. Friend considers that the present procedure for holding inquiries into railway accidents is sound, sensible, and right. It gets results, and he does not consider that it should be altered.

  50p COIN
  7.32 p.m.
  Sir Douglas Glover rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. 1 take it that the right hon. Gentleman has indicated to a Minister, as he has not indicated to the Chair, that he wishes to raise a new topic on the Adjournment.
  Sir D. Glover: Mr. Speaker. I have indicated my desire to speak on the Adjournment to the Minister of State, Board of Trade. He does not appear to be here at the moment, but I passed him a note to that effect when he was here for the previous debate and told him that it was my intention to raise the subject of the 50p coin.
  I see that the hon. Gentleman has just come into the Chamber. He will be aware that there is a Motion on the Order Paper, signed by a good many hon. Members,
  "… regretting the confusion inevitably caused by the introduction of a metal 50 penny piece, urges the Chancellor of the Exchequer to replace it without delay with an appropriate paper note of equivalent value."
  I cannot speak of the experiences of other hon. Members, but I find not only in my constituency but in my home town, where I do a great deal of household shopping, increasing and. growing hostility to the new coin. Shopkeepers have

  1599
  related to me at least a dozen instances of old-age pensioners, possibly due to their simple-mindedness or because their eyesight is not so good, handing over a halfcrown and a 50p coin thinking that they have tendered 4s. 6d. and, as a result, risking the loss of 8s.
  There is enormous hostility in the minds of the public in that the new coin is so difficult to distinguish from what we know as the 2s. piece. Although it has this odd shape, the edges are so narrow that, in the dark, it is very easy to confuse it with the present 2s. piece or the new 10p coin. It is even more difficult to distinguish it in the winter when one is wearing gloves. Probably taxi-drivers represent the one section of the population to be in favour of them. Certainly, after midnight in the cold weather many people will, by accident, give tips of 10s. instead of 2s. It is a very bad coin, and something should be done about it.
  The shape is unsatisfactory, as are the size and the look of it. The shape is such that it is so nearly round that, as I have said, in the dark and when wearing gloves, people will not realise the difference between 50p and 10p. In fact, Mr. Speaker, before you called me, I took out the coins from my pocket and I had to study them for some little time before deciding that there was not a 50p coin among them. I have seen the coin very often, but I cannot tell the difference between it and the new 10p piece. The ridges do not stand out in any remarkable way, and I believe that there is a great danger that people will give away far more than they intend.
  The size, too, is wrong. A coin which is the equivalent of 10s., in my view, should be bigger than the coin which is worth only one-fifth of that amount so that automatically one knows that it is a coin of greater value.
  And the look is wrong. We spend a great deal of time in the House discussing tourists. The new coin, in appearance. is about the cheapest one that we have. I believe that many tourists, Americans especially, will throw them away as if they were quarters and not realise until they have been in the country for a week that they have spent all their foreign currency.
  In normal conditions, the Government could rise in their wrath and say that we
  1600
  took a decision and that it must stand because it will cost a lot of money to put it right. However, this is one of the few occasions in our history when the Government can put matters right and make a profit. Perhaps I should get permission from M.I.5 before disclosing this horrifying fact, but the coin is worth more melted down than it is as currency. If that is the case, and there is an overwhelming body of opinion in the country that the Government have made a mistake in evolving the coin, it can easily be withdrawn.
  I am not attacking the Minister of State. I know that this matter was not decided in the Cabinet Office. The Government took advice from the Mint, and leading artists were commissioned to design the coin. Here is an opportunity, when there is overwhelming opposition to the coin, to alter the system or the policy and make a profit on the deal.
  One of my hon. Friends from Edinburgh reckons that if the Government called in all the coins and melted them down they would make a profit of £4 million. As the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) and I know, £4 million is a lot of money. If this can be done and we can thereby make the public happier, then I think that we should do something about it.
  I am not speaking in a vacuum about the problem. Although admittedly it is only a small part of our society, the Isle of Man has produced a very attractive 50p note to carry out the function that this new 50p coin will perform for us. If the Isle of Man can do it, then we should do the same.
  I do not know about the experience of other hon. Members. but it is quite fascinating to go shopping. If a customer gives a £1 note for 20 cigarettes, a pound of apples or 2 lbs. of sprouts, the shopkeeper does not give him his change just like that. He gives him his change and then puts alongside it this awful 50p piece, and says, "Watch that, Guv'nor. Otherwise you will lose it." This is the attitude of the shopkeeper. The shopkeeper has not reached that attitude by accident. He has reached it because he finds his retail customers hostile to the new coin.
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts>: Is it not really a matter of getting accustomed to the new coin? This

  1601
  is true of any coin in the first few weeks of its introduction. But after a time I feel that people will treat it with the contempt, if I may use that word, that they treat the rest of our coinage.
  Sir D. Glover: They will certainly treat it with contempt, because it is rapidly losing any value. I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to make that point. I do not think that his argument is valid. We had no difficulty about the new lop piece. It is this one coin that has created the controversy.
  I do not know about the hon. Member for Bedfordshire. South—he may live in a totally different world—but I have not found anybody yet who has a good word to say for the new coin. I have found some people who are neutral who say, "Well, I suppose we will get used to it". But I have not found anybody who has said, "It is a jolly good coin. I am glad that we are using this coin of this shape and not a note". All I got from people was a very guarded neutrality. But the great mass of the people are very hostile to the shape, size and look of the new coin.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Hear, hear.
  Sir D. Glover: If it were to cost £20 million to make the change I could understand the Government being so rigid in their attitude. But if by changing the system the Government would make a profit, because the price of nickel is so high, surely this is the moment for them to come clean and say: "All right. If you do not like it we will alter it and make a profit on the deal".
  What astonishes me is the way we approach these matters. For instance, I think that the change in our system to decimalisation ought to have been done on the basis of 10s., not the £. We shall have the most complicated decimal system in the world, purely because the Government of the day arbitrarily took a decision and did not, as far as I can make out, consult anybody but the so-called experts who usually travel round signing cheques and never change any money. They did not talk to Joe Soap in the pub, in the shop, and so on, about the form of currency we were to have.
  I am a simple minded chap who always thought that the whole basis and advan
  1602
  tage of decimal currency was that it could be divided by 10 and that that automatically gave the result. If it cannot be divided by 10 to give the result, what is the advantage? To a foreigner, our new system of coinage will be even more complicated than the present system. The only justification for changing the present system is that we think it too complicated for the foreigner—for example, our half-crown is not the equivalent of something else in another currency.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths rose
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. Before the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) gives way, I should draw his attention to the fact that any change in the system would involve legislation, and it is not in order to discuss changes in legislation on an Adjournment debate.
  Sir D. Glover: I give way and accept your Ruling implicitly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But I should think that on an Adjournment debate, when discussing and arguing about a particular coin in our system, it is within the rules of order to refer to the nonsense created by that coin. Had it not been for past events the coin would not exist.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. But the hon. Gentleman must not suggest that the system should be changed.
  Sir D. Glover: I willingly accept your Ruling. In fact, I should be in awful difficulty if I did not, so I had better leave that point.
  I apologise to the Minister for the short notice that I gave about this Adjournment debate. However, I did not know when we started our Business today that the important debate, as I thought, on the Report of the Public Accounts Committee would finish as early as it did. There was enough meat in that report to have kept us here until the early hours of the morning. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think that I sought to raise this subject out of vicious spite.
  I suppose I might have had an opportunity to raise a different subject. At the moment, there is the teachers' strike. There has been trouble with the dustmen. All sorts of different things have been

  1603
  happening. But in the last six weeks I have received more correspondence about the 50p coin than anything else. People have expressed their opposition to it, their dislike of it, and their fear that it will cost them money because they will give it away when they should not. They have asked me to do what I can on the Floor of the House to get the system altered before it is too late. Therefore, I thought it my duty, as a Member of Parliament, when the opportunity arose, to raise the matter on the Floor of the House.
  Recently we have had Questions asked about this coin. From the replies to those Questions the general impression appears to be that the Government will not alter it. That may be the Government's decision. All I can say is that when there is an opportunity to alter something which will not cost money but will make a profit and will give satisfaction to the great mass of people in this country—we are supposed to live in a democratic society—then we have a responsibility and a duty to make that alteration. The Government could justify not making the alteration if it would cost the State a lot of money. But that is not the situation. Therefore, I ask the Government, before this matter goes too far, to accept that the general view of the great mass of the British people is that this coin is wrong in shape, size and design and ought to be altered for their benefit. Before it gets too far into our history, I ask the Government to think again.
  7.50 p.m.
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I am sure that the House will forgive me if I leave shortly after making this very brief intervention. I have another commitment. Like the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), 1 had not intended to take part in this debate, but I happened to be here when it began. I opposed the hon. Member in the 1959 General Election.
  Sir D. Glover: Unsuccessfully.
  Mr. Roberts: Unsuccessfully. Since then I have supported him in the House on some aspects of decimalisation. I did so especially in defence of the 6d. piece. But I am not with him this evening.
  1604
  The hon. Member suggested that the general reaction to this new 10s. piece was hostile, but the other day I heard very eloquent testimony in its support. It came from a blind man, who said that for the first time in his life he was able to tell the difference between 10s. and £1. I agree that he represents only a small section of the community, but it is an important section, and the new coin is benefiting it.
  The hon. Member further said that the shopkeeper isolates the coin as though it were a monstrosity which had to be kept apart and pointed out to the shoppers. It is purely a matter of usage. The difference between the introduction of this type of coin and that of the 3d. piece is that this coin is a much more valuable one, and the shopkeeper is consequently extremely anxious that the customer should be able to identify and value it. When the customer is more used to it—and that will not be in a matter of weeks or months; it will be a year or more before he becomes used to it—it will be passed over the counter to the general public in the same way as is any other coin, without hesitation.
  The hon. Member also alleged that this coin was not convenient to the foreigner. The very justification for decimalisation —if there is a justification for the whole process—is the advantage that it brings to people who are used to decimal currencies. In some cases foreigners are used to having coins of quite a high value.
  Sir D. Glover: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me of any country that has a currency based on the equivalent of £1, and not 100 cents?
  Mr. Roberts: I am with the hon. Member on that. But I am on a different plane of argument. I do not argue with him about the £ unit. I have always felt that the may be the wrong unit, and that it might have been far better to have had a 10s. unit. But from the general point of usage this coin will not produce any difficulty for a foreigner who is used to the decimal system.
  The hon. Member today is a little off beam. He is placing far too much weight upon the initial reaction of the public. I feel a warm glow towards this coin. That glow which will gradually spread among members of the public.

  1605
  The hon. Member was quite wrong when he said that the Government will not change their mind on this matter. I have been present at Question Time when this matter has been raised, and I have got the impression that the Government are merely waiting a reasonable time so as to ascertain public reaction.
  The Government are giving the public time to decide. If, in a year or 18 months, the public are still as resistant and hostile to this coin as the hon. Member suggests I am sure that they will follow his lead and withdraw it. But it is still too early to judge this coin properly, and I feel that it may yet make a valuable contribution to our currency system.
  7.55 p.m.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I cannot refrain from commenting on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts). His view seems to be that it is better to wait until a thundering big mistake has been made before putting it right. I would have thought that logic lay with my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), when he said that if a mistake has been made the time to rectify it is at once. I cannot see much sense in protracting an experiment until the mistake has achieved an outstanding degree of costliness.
  I also disagree with the rather grand submission that we shall get used to the coin. Of course we shall get used to it—because we shall have no choice. Hobson's choice will be our only one in respect of this coin, which I now have in my hand. It will be the only 10s. unit in the country. It is called 50p, but I am old-fashioned, and regard it as a 10s. piece. The question that the hon. Member should ask is whether it is a better coin than the alternative—the existing 10s. note. He says that he has a warm glow for this seven-sided effort. I can only tell him that I have an even warmer glow for the 10s. note, which I find extremely convenient for many reasons, not least because it is easy to carry.
  I hope that the Minister will tell us in some detail whether or not the Government made it their business to discover how the public would react to a seven-sided coin. Did the Government conduct
  1606
  any experiments? My hon. Friend asked whether they had consulted Joe Soap in the pub. I should like to know whether they even consulted Joe Soap in the House of Commons. I very much doubt whether any consideration was given to the views of hon. Members, who are supposed to represent the people. I hope that the Minister will tell us what consultations he has had with the people that matter.
  I am not asking whether he consulted so-called experts in numismatics, or whether he went into the question of base metals or other metals with people in the Treasury. I want to know how many housewives or shopkeepers he consulted before this coin was agreed to as part of our currency. I suspect that the Government had only one reason for introducing this coin, and that that reason was based on cost. Perhaps they can show that the 10s. note wears out quicker and therefore costs a little more to keep in circulation than does this lump of metal. This coin still wears out our pockets and purses, and all sorts of other things, but the Government do not care about that. They do not care about our purse or our wallet, we all know that; what they care about is that it might save a little on the cost of keeping the 10s. note in circulation.
  A very much better approach would have been to ensure that the 10s. note, an excellent item of currency, was made of better paper, so that it did not wear out so rapidly and the problem which the Government are trying to solve with this miserable coin would have been solved more intelligently. So I want to know whom they consulted and the reason for introducing this coin, if it was not to save a little money for the Treasury at the expense of the rest of the country.
  My objections to the coin are those of many of my constituents, especially shopkeepers. When they tot up in the evening, it is much easier for them to bundle up their notes than to pull together all these large and rattling coins. I suspect that shopkeepers will continue to object to this very real difficulty.
  Sir D. Glover: This is a very interesting point. I used to be in the retail business. When we totted up on Saturday nights it took as long to tot up £10-worth of coins as perhaps £500-worth of notes.
  Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend speaks from experience: he has actually done it. He of all Members of the House knows that this is the last thing the Government considered. If they had consulted him and others like him, they might not have made this mistake.
  The second group who concern me are housewives, who may be confronted with five or six of these wretched things. In a housewife's purse they are far more awkward to carry than the equivalent number of notes. But which housewives were consulted by the Government? Will they consult housewives' organisations now? I hope that the Minister of State —in spite of his conversation with the Whip—will take note of this point. If this is an experiment, they should find out the views of housewives' organisations.
  The third group are the least of us all, the mere males. I have recently been in the United States, South Africa and elsewhere. When I arrived back at London Airport and was presented with one of these things, I naturally assumed that it was a 2s. piece—
  Mr. William Hamling: The hon. Member must have been absent-minded.
  Mr. Griffiths: Yes, but there are many like me. I think that my reaction was typical.
  I looked at this object and wondered what it was and whether I had got off at the wrong airport. When I discovered that I was in London and that, in my absence, the Government had perpetrated this thing, I began to examine it in some detail. I do not know whether you have ever done this, Mr. Speaker, in the quietness of your own private life, but this is a most perverse little job. There is a representation on one side of our Sovereign and all of us would agree that it is a charming likeness. But the date, 1969, comes after the letters D.G.REG.F.D. and on top of the Crown, instead of underneath, where we have been used to finding it, lo, these many centuries.
  I am old-fashioned enough to believe that there is some merit in keeping the date where it has always been and I cannot see why this mania to change everything has got into the Treasury or the Mint so they must put the date in a different place.
  1608
  Then I look at Britannia. We have heard much of Britannia in this House. Before I had the pleasure of sitting here, I listened from the Gallery to one of the hon. Member's hon. Friends being described as "a Britannia" by no less a person than the late Sir Winston Churchill. But Britannia on this coin no longer comports with my idea of Britannia. There is a rather stuffy and sedate lion peering out from the back of her skirts. There is a shield rather on one side which looks a very uncomfortable shield to sit on. Then she has this fork over her right shoulder. The combination of this rather superior lion and the askew shield and the general figure of Britannia, who is holding out, I think, three ears of corn, seems an extraordinary hagiology to have on the back of one of our coins. So I agree that this coin's appearance is not attractive to British people.
  Also, I do not like the seven sides. I do not know why we have to have seven sides on a coin. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South, who made a speech and then left, no doubt for a very good reason, said that it was important for those who are blind, and I recognise the force of that. But his argument comes slightly unstuck because the blind people I know have no difficulty distinguishing between a 10s. note and a £1 note, because the £1 note is larger. Therefore, this argument is simply "phoney", and a slander on blind people, who can make this distinction between our existing notes because of their different sizes.
  The nations of the world are coming more closely together and it is important that those who travel, as I do, should have an easy familiarity with the currencies with which they are asked to deal. One of the striking things about our European neighbours is that Germany, France, Belgium and Italy are moving towards units of currency which are almost the same size and look very similar. It may be a mark piece, a new franc, a gilder or a Belgian franc, but the currencies are similar and will eventually form the basis of a common currency in Europe.
  I understand that it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to seek association with the E.E.C. The Minister of State, I know, is a strong supporter of this policy, as I am. I should have thought that a little foresight would have led the

  1609
  Mint, the Treasury and Ministers at least to try to make our largest and most valuable coin similar to those European currencies.
  Instead of this, they have created something which is unique—a seven-sided 50p piece—and they have, therefore, taken a backward step.
  There is merit in coins increasing in size as they increase in value. For example, in the United States they have the dime, the quarter and the 50-cent piece. Certainly, they made a mistake in having the nickel slightly larger than the dime, but they regretted it. The broad philosophy of American currency is to increase the size of coins as their values increase. I should have thought that a sensible and logical British people would consider that the sensible way to organise our coinage, but the Government think differently.
  Instead, the Government have produced a coin which is neither particularly bigger nor smaller. It just has more size. This is neither logical nor sensible. Sometimes in a nation's history there can be too many changes in too short a time. Indeed. I am sometimes tempted to start a political party for leaving some things alone.
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that he is already a member of a political party the whole principle of which is to leave things alone, be they good or bad?
  Mr. Griffiths: There are many things which 1 wish had been left alone under Labour. I was about to mention some of them, although I would be out of order if I mentioned too many.
  We have recently seen proposals to change our telephone book, to paint our postboxes yellow instead of red. While many of them may be desirable, and some may even be useful, people sometimes get fed up with everything being changed without good reason and without their being asked. That is the burden of my criticism about the 10s. coin.
  In his usual temperate way the Minister will not regard my remarks as offensive when I tell him that in my constituency these coins are not known by the name of our Sovereign, but as "Wilsons", because they are manysided and two-faced. This may be an unfair way for me to attack the coin,
  1610
  but it is fair to tell the Minister that this illustrates the dissatisfaction of many people both of the Government and of their coinage.
  We should have been consulted, but we were not. The Government should have recognised the merits of increasing the size of the coin with its value. They now have an opportunity to get out of their mistake at minimum cost. Indeed, it is conceivable that they could make a profit in that if they abandoned the 10s. coin now, it would soon become a collector's item and be extremely valuable within a few years. I am sure that the Minister will accept the logic of the arguments that we have adduced about this wretched object which should disappear from our midst as soon as possible.
  8.14 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. William Rodgers): The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) was kind enough to let me know 45 minutes before he rose to his feet that he intended to raise this question tonight, so I have no complaint on that ground.
  I too, agree that this is a serious subject, though I would have preferred to have discussed it in different circumstances and at a different time. Not that on such an occasion would I have been able to have come forward with the sort of undertakings for which I have been pressed. I do not think I could have been able to say more than I shall say tonight about how the coin was chosen and why some of the strictures passed on it by hon. Gentlemen opposite are not wholly fair.
  As for the design of the coin—the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) used his full descriptive powers to tell us what we already knew —I personally regard it as a rather beautiful piece of work. Whatever might be said against it on other grounds there should not be any criticism of those who designed it, from the point of view of its appearance and style.
  I do not deny that there is some concern about the coin. Like many other people. I still tend to refer to it as a ten-shilling piece. That is not a bad thing and not necessarily a criticism because all of us must adjust over a time to the coming of decimalisation. The fact

  1611
  that I rather like it and find it convenient —I find all 10s. notes dirty and torn—and the fact that I can put a 50p coin in my pocket in about half a second whereas it takes me more than a minute to take out my wallet to put away a 10s. note are reasons why it makes better sense to me. However, I undertake to consult my children about this. It is my impression that they, of a different generation, find this a convenient coin to have and much prefer it to 10s. notes which get torn in their money boxes. A nice shiny coin is more acceptable to children than a dirty piece of paper not much different from what they draw on and play with. Thus, some of the strictures against the coin are somewhat unfair.
  I am sympathetic in so far as a new coin of this kind is bound to create some problems and lead to certain misunderstandings. There are those who find it difficult to accept something new. In particular, I have every sympathy with old people, who find the adjustment to something new like this not only perhaps rather difficult but a little uncongenial as well.
  On the other hand, I could not go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) and speak of a warm glow. Nor could I go as far as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds in his frigid distaste for the coin.
  Some people, it is true, have expressed dislike of the coin, but from my personal experience it is not necessarily that customers do not like it but that shopkeepers believe that they may not want it. I have been in the position of being asked by a shopkeeper, "Do you mind having one of these?", referring to a 50p coin. I have replied, "Not at all. I think they are rather good", to which he has replied, "So do I". I believe that the feeling has been engendered that it is not an acceptable coin, since we acquire these habits of mind from what we are told and what other people believe.
  The view expressed tonight about the coin by hon. Gentlemen opposite is not necessarily representative of opinion in the House as a whole. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South showed in a powerful way that on this side there are those who think that the
  1612
  coin is right. I well remember, when this matter was discussed at Question Time on 4th November, the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) saying that the new 10s. coin was not at all bad. This is, therefore, not a matter between the parties and it is certainly not a matter on which there is any unanimity of feeling that a mistake has been made.
  Sir D. Glover: The hon. Gentleman will realise that my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith), whom I love dearly, always takes the minority view.
  Mr. Rodgers: Were there to be a free vote I think that the hon. Gentleman would find that his hon. Friend was not taking the minority view on this occasion but that he, the hon. Member for Ormskirk, was in that category.
  The decision to bring in this coin was certainly not made hastily. Nor was it an arbitrary decision of Government. The first Report of the Decimal Currency Board was published by order of this House as long ago as 10th July of last year and set out fully the circumstances in which a coin of this kind was decided upon. It was the Decimal Currency Board which advised the Government on specification for a new coin and its Report gives some account of how it was decided that a seven-sided coin might best serve the purpose. It states that the shape was suggested by its own technical member who was, at that time, President of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.
  Both hon. Members opposite referred to the characteristics of the coin; to its material, its size and its shape. I ask them, if they are in any doubt, to inquire more fully, if they wish, of the board about the circumstances in which it considered the specification. The board did consider various types of metal and different sizes and shapes. It decided that brass would not hold its colour or lustre for long, and could be confused with cupro-nickel in poor light. Bronze was associated with low value coins. That was why the board decided to recommend the cupro-nickel coin. As to size, experience shows that very large coins are unpopular in every day use and for that reason it was considered that the size recommended was likely to be right.

  1613
  Again, the board carefully considered what the shape should be. It decided that the coin could not be round as it might be confused with other coins. It considered the possibility of four, seven, 10 and 12 sides. It then had very full consultations with, among others, banks, retailers, transport organisations, consumer interests—and I stress the consumer interests—and organisations representing the blind or the partially sighted. In addition it commissioned an investigation by the Applied Psychology Unit of the Medical Research Council. It conducted tests in which housewives— and before hon. Gentlemen are contemptuous, I may say that these were tests in which housewives themselves were asked to recognise different coin shapes.
  On this point it can be argued that the Board should have consulted this group of individuals or that, one particular shopkeeper or another, but I think that the board, whose responsibility this was, had very full consultations, indeed. It took the best advice available to it in the circumstances, and if it made a mistake in its recommendation—which I cannot concede—it was not out of indifference to the importance of the issue or due to a failure to look very closely at the possibilities of consumer reactions.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I have two questions arising out of that statement. First, why did the board decide to have a coin? This is not clear. Secondly, the Minister said that the board consulted all these people, but what did the people say when they were consulted?
  Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman's first point bears on what he said about cost. He suggested that in some way a decision made on grounds of cost was, as I think he put it, a Treasury decision. That is a very interesting argument, because a decision on grounds of cost, because a 50p coin lasts a great deal longer, would not be made in the interests of the Treasury but in the interests of the tax-payers as a whole. Whether the decision itself was right or wrong, surely it was a proper consideration for those who were faced with deciding, whether having a coin would, in the long run, save more
  1614
  of the taxpayers' money than having a note. That is a proper and fair criterion.
  As the House will probably know, the coin may have a life of 50 years, whereas the note has a life of only a few months. There is, therefore, here involved a point of the greatest importance, even though it may be argued now whether or not the decision was right—
  Sir D. Glover: The wallet I am using has notes in it: I have been using it for 10 years. The trousers I am wearing are about five years old, and both pockets, because they have had coins in them, have been repaired.
  Mr. Rodgers: With respect, that argument cuts several ways. At the moment, I am concerned only to answer the question put by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and the short answer is that the coin does save the taxpayers money and that is an important consideration which should not be needlessly overlooked. As I have said, in my own personal experience there are considerable advantages. I will find it less wearing on my suits to put a 50p coin in my pocket than to have to take out my wallet every time I want to put a note in it. In that personal sense I shall be better off than hitherto because of the coin. These are matters of personal taste: they cannot ultimately be matters on which the Government can have a clear view.
  The decision was made on the best available evidence. The Decimal Currency Board carried out the proper responsibilities given to it, weighed all the advantages and made the appropriate recommendation. I understand now that there is some anxiety and some concern. I am certainly not arrogant enough to suggest that this coin should simply be accepted, and that, irrespective of the way public opinion moves, we should say that having decided upon it we shall never change our course. But to change the course immediately would be as mistaken as to be arrogant enough never to consider change. We shall watch very carefully how things go, we shall note public reaction to the coin, and we shall take account of it in whatever decisions are made.
  Sir D. Glover: Before the Minister sits down, I should like to say how much I appreciate his courtesy in replying to this debate at very short notice. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) and I have had a reply to our arguments far more full than
  1616
  we probably had a right to expect. We are very grateful to the Minister.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Eight o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  British Standard Time
  British Standard Time
  Prison Sentences (Women)
  Prison Sentences (Women)
  Birmingham Police (Undermanning Allowance)
  Birmingham Police (Undermanning Allowance)
  Approved School Inmates (Reading Ability)
  Approved School Inmates (Reading Ability)
  Borstal and Prison Inmates (Reading Ability)
  Borstal and Prison Inmates (Reading Ability)
  Firearms Act 1968 (Section 5)
  Firearms Act 1968 (Section 5)
  Young Persons (Police Custody)
  Young Persons (Police Custody)
  Metropolitan Police (Personal Radios)
  Metropolitan Police (Personal Radios)
  Long-Term Prisoners (Visitors)
  Long-Term Prisoners (Visitors)
  Murder 1957 to 1968 (Report)
  Murder 1957 to 1968 (Report)
  Victims of Crime(Reparation by Offenders)
  Victims of Crime(Reparation by Offenders)
  Amusement Arcades at Fairs (Rifles)
  Amusement Arcades at Fairs (Rifles)
  State Opening of Parliament
  State Opening of Parliament
  Telephone Service (Emergency Calls)
  Telephone Service (Emergency Calls)
  Illegal Betting
  Illegal Betting
  Electoral Registers
  Electoral Registers
  Springboks' Tour (Policing)
  Springboks' Tour (Policing)
  Police Forces (Resignations)
  Police Forces (Resignations)
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Coloured Policemen
  Coloured Policemen
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  (Detention)
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Police (Recruitment)
  Police (Recruitment)
  Indictable Offences
  Indictable Offences
  Anti-Apartheid Demonstration, Leicester (Police Costs)
  Anti-Apartheid Demonstration, Leicester (Police Costs)
  50p Coins (Forgeries)
  50p Coins (Forgeries)
  Police, Liverpool and Bootle (Strength)
  Police, Liverpool and Bootle (Strength)
  Crimes of Violence (Liverpool and Bootle)
  Crimes of Violence (Liverpool and Bootle)
  Local Government Candidates(Age Limit)
  Local Government Candidates(Age Limit)
  Prisoners (Mental Instability)
  Prisoners (Mental Instability)
  Justices of the Peace(Subsistence Allowances)
  Justices of the Peace(Subsistence Allowances)
  Mr. and Mrs. Kroger
  Mr. and Mrs. Kroger
  Springbok Rugby Matches(Demonstrations)
  Springbok Rugby Matches(Demonstrations)
  Foster Children
  Foster Children
  Brent (Polling Stations)
  Brent (Polling Stations)
  Circular (Director of Public Prosecutions)
  Circular (Director of Public Prosecutions)
  Gaming Board (Applications for Licences)
  Gaming Board (Applications for Licences)
  Special Constabulary
  Special Constabulary
  Unpaid Fines
  Unpaid Fines
  Murderers (Release from Prison)
  Murderers (Release from Prison)
  Police (Foreign Languages)
  Police (Foreign Languages)
  Springboks' Rugby Match, Newport(Police)
  Springboks' Rugby Match, Newport(Police)
  Stamford Bridge (Proposed Prison)
  Stamford Bridge (Proposed Prison)
  Children's Department (Staff)
  Children's Department (Staff)
  Toothpaste (Chloroform)
  Toothpaste (Chloroform)
  Capital Murders
  Capital Murders
  Scotland Yard(Accident Research Unit)
  Scotland Yard(Accident Research Unit)
  Totalisators (Administrative Expenses)
  Totalisators (Administrative Expenses)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Overseas Aid
  Overseas Aid
  Agricultural Education(Book Scheme)
  Agricultural Education(Book Scheme)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Trade Unions (Model Rules)
  Trade Unions (Model Rules)
  Motor Industry
  Motor Industry
  Trade Union Officials (Pay Increases)
  Trade Union Officials (Pay Increases)
  Northern Region (Average Earnings)
  Northern Region (Average Earnings)
  Unemployed Persons (Monthly Returns)
  Unemployed Persons (Monthly Returns)
  Employment, Bootle
  Employment, Bootle
  Earnings and Prices(International Comparisons)
  Earnings and Prices(International Comparisons)
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Earnings
  Earnings
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE London Transport Museum
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE London Transport Museum
  B.B.C. Programmes (Sex Education)
  B.B.C. Programmes (Sex Education)
  Part-time Teachers
  Part-time Teachers
  University Grants(Northern Region)
  University Grants(Northern Region)
  Tyneside Film Theatre
  Tyneside Film Theatre
  School Meals
  School Meals
  D.D.T.
  D.D.T.
  Polish Centre Site (Purchase)
  Polish Centre Site (Purchase)
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Ashley Primary School
  Ashley Primary School
SCOTLAND
  Economic Planning Council (Chairman)
  Economic Planning Council (Chairman)
  Springbok Rugby Match (Murrayfield)
  Springbok Rugby Match (Murrayfield)
  Fire Prevention Campaign
  Fire Prevention Campaign
NATIONAL FINANCE
  50p Coins
  50p Coins
  Overseas Aid
  Overseas Aid
  Wines and Spirits Trade
  Wines and Spirits Trade
  Managing Director of I.M.F.(Visit)
  Managing Director of I.M.F.(Visit)
  Estate Duty
  Estate Duty
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Social Security Benefits
  Social Security Benefits
HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  East Yorkshire (Wolds Way)
  East Yorkshire (Wolds Way)
  Local Authority Rents (Control)
  Local Authority Rents (Control)
  Housing Subsidies
  Housing Subsidies
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  House Purchase Advances, Bournemouth
  House Purchase Advances, Bournemouth
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Rabies
  Rabies
  Biafra (Relief Flights)
  Biafra (Relief Flights)
  South-West Africa (Namibia)
  South-West Africa (Namibia)
  Rome Treaty
  Rome Treaty
TRADE
  Exports
  Exports
  Commercial Aircraft (Near Collisions)
  Commercial Aircraft (Near Collisions)
  B.O.A.C. (North Atlantic Route)
  B.O.A.C. (North Atlantic Route)
  Inverness Airport, Dalcross
  Inverness Airport, Dalcross
  B.E.A. Scheduled Flights(Domestic Routes)
  B.E.A. Scheduled Flights(Domestic Routes)
  Cold Reduced Steel Sheet(Import Duty)
  Cold Reduced Steel Sheet(Import Duty)
  Jet Aircraft, Gatwick (Night Flights)
  Jet Aircraft, Gatwick (Night Flights)
  Wales (Air Services)
  Wales (Air Services)
TRANSPORT
  M23 Northern Terminal
  M23 Northern Terminal
  Lorries with Trailers
  Lorries with Trailers
  Lorries (Drawbar Trailers)
  Lorries (Drawbar Trailers)
  Vehicle Tests
  Vehicle Tests
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agriculture (Liquidity)
  Agriculture (Liquidity)
  Slaughterhouses
  Slaughterhouses
DEFENCE
  Boy Entrants (Committee)
  Boy Entrants (Committee)
  Army Horses (Disposal)
  Army Horses (Disposal)
DUCHY OF LANCASTER
  Devolutions and Forfeitures
  Devolutions and Forfeitures
Keeper of the Privy Purse
  (Payments)
  (Payments)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Sickness Benefit (Industrial Disputes)
  Sickness Benefit (Industrial Disputes)
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
TECHNOLOGY
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Jet Aircraft Engines (Noise)
  Jet Aircraft Engines (Noise)
  Power Stations(Comparative Costs)
  Power Stations(Comparative Costs)
  Beagle Aircraft Limited
  Beagle Aircraft Limited

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

RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN SCHOOLS
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was a follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the number of pupils in many schools whose parents are adherents of non-Christian faiths, whether any local education authorities have taken steps to provide pupils with an appreciation of non-Christian faiths, particularly in schools where a larger proportion of the pupils are non-Christian, in order both to gratify the non-Christian parents and also to acquaint nominally Christian pupils with the nature and moral values of the religious faiths of their fellow pupils.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, schools with significant numbers of pupils of non-Christian faiths are increasingly providing opportunities for all pupils to learn about each of the faiths represented in the school. This may be done both through curricular instruction and through joint or observed acts of worship. It is a trend which is well supported by local education authorities and which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science would wish to encourage.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether she knows of any instances where these opportunities are provided. Further, would she not agree that it would be worth while to give some encouragement to local authorities to consider this matter sympathetically, particularly in view of the fact that in many schools a large proportion of the pupils do not know of
1060
the Christian faith, even though often they attend Christian services?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I accept my noble friend's comment that there are a number of children of non-Christian faith in schools at the moment, but I would remind him that this is primarily a matter for the schools, rather than for the local authority. Local authorities encourage this discussion and teaching through agreed syllabuses. The Inner London Education Authority is a good example, and it encourages the development of religious education along these lines.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that, in view of the complexity as well as the importance of this matter, as opposed to what might be called the comparative religion at an early stage, there is need of a good deal more in-service training of teachers It is a complicated matter. Does not the noble Baroness think that this ought to be encouraged on a wider scale?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I agree with the right reverend Prelate, and I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science would also agree. Many noble Lords will know that the Education Committee of the British Council of Churches has set up a Working Party on this subject. The Schools' Council is also looking into this question and has made some splendid recommendations.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, would not the noble Baroness agree that it is rather extraordinary that in a Christian country we should be paying so much attention to the education of non-Christian children (and may I say, in passing, that I by no means disagree with this?), but at the same time are giving no education in our schools to those of Christian faith?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I must at once refute what the noble Lord says; and I do not think he could have meant it as it sounded. We do give Christian instruction in our schools, and I am sure the noble Lord will agree that the example of the teachers is much more important than any precept which they could utter. The first principle of a Christian is surely to be liberal and tolerant.

BLIND PUPILS AND RELIGIOUS SERVICES
3.10 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: 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 whether attendance at religious services is compulsory for blind pupils or students in any educational establishment for which the Government or local authorities are responsible.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, such schools, like maintained schools, must under the law make provision for pupils to attend religious worship, provided that no pupil shall be required to attend religious worship contrary to the wishes of his parents. For pupils whose parents express no such wishes, an individual school may require attendance at religious worship, but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has no record of the schools where this is done.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether this applies to independent schools; and would she say whether the Worcester College for the Blind. which I think was criticised on this ground some time ago, comes within the orbit of the Minister?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the particular school to which my noble friend has referred was criticised, but I would point out that the deputy headmaster denied the allegation that the boys were required to attend compulsorily on Sundays. As my noble friend will know, this is a boarding school managed by the Royal National Institution for the Blind; it takes about 65 boys and provides a grammar school education for the State ones. There is normally one compulsory religious service on Sunday morning but, in accordance with the regulations, the boys may on their parents' request be excused attendance.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Worcester College for the Blind, which is a most admirable school, has a great admiration for your Lordships' House, and that the headmaster brings the sixth
1062
form to listen in the Gallery here at least twice a year?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am of course wholly in favour of anybody who is also a fan of your Lordships' House.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords. is my noble friend aware that I cast no reflection on this school, which in other respects I know to be excellent?

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVE ANIMALS
EARL FORTESCUE: 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 when they intend to implement all or any of the recommendations made in 1965 by the Littlewood Committee on Experiments on Live Animal; and whether they consider that nine to twelve inspectors suffice to oversee experiments now running at the rate of over 5,000,000 per year.]
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, the Littlewood Committee recommended against piecemeal implementation of its proposal's, and the Government do not propose to introduce changes in the present system of control in advance of new legislation. With the present pressure on the legislative programme, I am afraid I cannot say now when it may be possible to introduce a Bill. The noble Earl will be glad to know that new appointments have recently been made to bring the strength of the inspectorate up to twelve. The inspectors' task is to ensure that licence-holders understand and fulfil their responsibilities under the Act rather than to supervise actual experiments, and that view was endorsed by the Littlewood Committee.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I feel gratification at the increase in the number of inspectors, but are the Government sufficiently aware that the Littlewood Report was not written by starry-eyed humanitarians but by a cross section of sensible and well-instructed opinion? Further, they made nearly a hundred recommendations, most of which are not contentious, and there is considerable feeling in the country

1063
generally that it is high time something was done about it.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, we are indeed aware of the excellent quality of the people who made up the Littlewood Committee. It is true that they made 83 recommendations, some of which undoubtedly require legislation. The Government are very sympathetic to the recommendations made and intend to bring in legislation, but the Littlewood Committee themselves made no suggestion as to the urgency of the legislation required.
LORD BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, I realise that the noble Baroness is in a difficult position, because she does not arrange Government business, but is she aware that the delay by the Government in implementing the recommendations in this Report is becoming a scandal? Is she aware that the present law was passed in 1876, and the Littlewood Committee said the provisions of that Act did not match up to modern scientific and technological requirements? More than four years have passed since then and nothing has been done.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I could not accept the word "scandal" in reference to this matter. We are all aware, the noble Lord more than anybody, of the difficulties of arranging Government business. Obviously the Government are sympathetic; they have planned legislation. Four years is not all that long when you consider the complexity of the numbers of bodies involved, or the different interests which must be brought to bear on this issue if we are to get proper legislation. I think it is better to proceed a little more slowly and arrive at a more complete solution.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, while Government dilatoriness continues to prevail in the matter of this odious activity of torturing live, helpless, in-offensive animals, can the noble Baroness give an unequivocal assurance to the House that these experiments are undertaken expressly and for the sole purpose of demonstrably benefiting mankind, and not with a view to proudly proclaiming and advertising the wonders of science and producing horrific and obscene
1064
things like a dog with two heads, and other abominations that we see illustrated in certain organs of the Press from time to time? Such evils—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question! Order, order!
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I do not often ask for your Lordships' indulgence. I should like to finish my question—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? He is being very interesting, but I think he is just beginning to over-try the patience of the House. If he would ask a question, it would be helpful. He has managed to make a considerable number of points, but perhaps he could now ask his question. There is also a Resolution about not reading speeches, and I think his question is turning into a speech.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I have to accept what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has said. If these unholy animal experiences have to continue, can the noble Baroness say whether veterinary advice is available at all—and I repeat, "at all"—veterinary laboratories?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his question and say that I can give him that assurance. Inspectors are highly qualified medically and in the veterinary sense, and some of them are qualified in both respects. We have tremendous confidence in them. We know the advice they give is accepted. We know that the people who have the licences are given them only after the most stringent inspection. Furthermore, the premises themselves have to be licensed. I have absolutely no shadow of doubt in giving the noble Lord that assurance.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, would not the noble Baroness agree that one of the chief evils in this practice is the element of wastage—that is to say, the making of between 60 and 100 experiments where perhaps two would do? Would she not agree that one way possibly to avoid this wastage would be to make the purchase of animals for experiment a great deal more expensive?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, the Littlewood

1065
Committee themselves found very little evidence indeed of wastage. It is quite true that the number of experiments has increased and will continue to do so. That is because of the therapeutic revolution and the need for new drugs. I should like to remind the House that many of these experiments are required by law. Before you can put on the market new drugs which have been discovered, each batch has to be tested. Nearly all those experiments are not in any sense horrific, as the noble Lord said; they are injections and that kind of thing—the same treatment as is given to humans.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that the putting up of the price of animals can lead only to an increased risk of thieving for unlicensed sellers of animals?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, yes, I agree, but it is an extremely complicated business.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that experiments on animals are quite in order to beautify her sex, and that a great number of experiments are carried out on animals for cosmetics—for instance, for eye drops?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I do not think that most of our sex needs beautifying; I do not know about the other sex. But I should like to say that in fact very few experiments are done purely for cosmetic value. It is very difficult to draw the line between research on skin disease and skin conditions and that done purely for cosmetic purposes.
LORD McCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that those who carry out these experiments are no less humane than any Members of your Lordships' House?

NIGERIA: GROUP CAPTAIN CHESHIRE'S VISIT TO BIAFRA
3.20 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it was suggested after consultation with the Foreign Office that Group Captain Leonard Cheshire, V.C., should visit Biafra, prior to the Prime Minister's journey to Lagos in March, 1969, to secure information about Biafran intentions; whether Group Captain Cheshire presented a report; whether it was considered by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and what conclusions were reached upon it.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, the suggestion that Group Captain Cheshire might undertake this visit was initially made privately to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office by an unofficial source in January, 1969, well before the Prime Minister's journey to Lagos was contemplated. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office welcomed (as they had done in many other cases) Group Captain Cheshire's willingness to visit Colonel Ojukwu for the purpose of building up a picture of the Biafran attitude. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office discussed the visit with Group Captain Cheshire before he went. His journey was made in a private capacity and the arrangements were entirely his own. After his visit, Group Captain Cheshire reported his conclusions to Her Majesty's Government orally and in writing. His impressions were carefully considered by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and, together with other evidence of Colonel Ojukwu's attitude, have been fully taken into account.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while appreciating that very full reply, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that in view of the hopeful developments which have taken place since these interviews I do not want to press questions about the past, except about a particular proposal which Group Captain Cheshire made? May I ask what is the Government's response to his proposal that there should be an aircraft carrier in international waters which would carry observers to the Uli airstrip, to prevent military action on either side? Further, may I ask this question? Even if British participation in such a project is not acceptable to Biafra, would Her Majesty's

1067
Government encourage the United States of America to extend its assurance into action, and accept the co-operation of Governments like that of Canada in a project which might bring relief to these million starving children in Biafra?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have seen the reported suggestion of Group Captain Cheshire about an aircraft carrier, but I think this would raise very considerable problems, because Nigeria is a sovereign State and clearly we should need to have the agreement of the Federal Government, as I suppose we should need to have the agreement of the Biafran authorities. In regard to the airlift, I hope the House will forgive me if I give the noble Lord a perhaps unusually lengthy answer, but I think this is well worth stating.
On September 13 the International Red Cross signed an agreement with the Federal Government of Nigeria allowing an internationally inspected relief airlift during daylight hours for an experimental period, with good prospects for renewal. But the Biafran authorities refused to accept such flights, apparently because they feared that the daylight airlift might be misused for a surprise attack on Uli airfield. They therefore asked for assurances about the good faith of the Nigerian Government in this respect.
The United States Secretary of State, Mr. Rogers, issued a statement on November 13, in which he stated that, to meet the Biafran concern, the United States Government, at President Nixon's direction, took the following initiatives:
"1. Sought and received the solemn assurance of the Federal Government of Nigeria that it would ensure that no hostile military action would be taken against the International Red Cross relief aircraft.
2. After consultations with us,"—
that is, the United States—
"other Governments agreed to offer impartial observers to accompany International Red Cross aircraft on their relief flights.
3. Ambassador Ferguson went to West Africa to give the Biafrans the specific pledge of the Federal Government of Nigeria as to the inviolability of the International Red Cross relief
1068
flights. On October 24, 1969, the Biafran authorities formally rejected this assurance."
In the light of this action by the United States Government, putting as it did the prestige and the good faith of the United States Government behind the assurances which had been given, your Lordships may well wonder what further assurances are required to persuade the Biafran authorities to allow relief to flow to the people for whose welfare they have assumed responsibility. My Lords, I should wish still to know what further assurances are necessary.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I have indicated my regret that General Ojukwu did not accept that assurance? But is it not now the case that we must try to do something to prevent the further starvation of the million children in Biafra, supplementing the million and a half who have already died? Is this not an intense responsibility for Her Majesty's Government? When this hopeful proposition which I have indicated is made, may we ask Her Majesty's Government to contact the Governments of the United States of America and of Canada to co-operate in putting this project into operation?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we have a responsibility, and so has the world, but the real responsibility, I fear, lies in Nigeria and in Biafra. I do not see any way other than the suggestions which we have put to the International Red Cross for relief to get into Biafra.
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, may I ask the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, whether Her Majesty's Government would agree to Group Captain Cheshire's going out once again to Nigeria—that is, if he were able to arrange to do so—and to give him full co-operation and let him report back to Her Majesty's Government once again?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, many individuals have gone to Biafra, including my noble friend Lord Brockway. We have always welcomed their visits, particularly if they can bring us back news and perhaps some basis upon which action can be taken. If Group Captain Cheshire himself or others wish to go there, naturally we shall continue to welcome it.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, if I may venture to say so, all the questions appear to have been slightly one-sided. Is it not now up to General Ojukwu to make some responsible contribution?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the fact is that the airfields in Biafra are closed by day and it is only during the day that the major airlift of food can occur.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House this question. I recognise—of course, all of us do—the importance and interest which your Lordships attach to this Question. But the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in answer to a supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, made a very long statement indeed, and a carefully prepared one, which so far as I know is very much contrary to both the rules and the spirit of the Orders of the House on Questions. It seems to me a little hard that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. should get away with this while my noble friend Lord Ailwyn should not.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I hope I always try to act impartially in your Lordships' House. I think my noble friend Lord Shepherd was trying to be as helpful as he could. I was myself beginning to wonder just how long his reply was going to be. It is always a difficult question for Ministers. but I believe that the views and the customs of the House in regard to these matters should apply equally to Ministers as to noble Lords generally.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Shepherd will be making a Statement on the Falkland Isles, after which I shall be making a Statement on the Swann Report on the use of antibiotics.

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP BILL
3.28 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords,
1070
in moving the first Motion that stands in my name on the Order Paper, I think I should say a very few words to explain why I am asking your Lordships to agree to it. To permit this Bill to be deposited on November 27, as laid down in our Standing Orders, a representation has been made to the Secretary of State for Scotland. This representation was in fact made two days late. In order to allow the Bill to be deposited in time, I am now asking the House to dispense with the provisions of Standing Order No. 193. I would add that a similiar Motion was agreed to last Tuesday in another place. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That Private Bill Standing Order No. 193 [Deposit of Bill under section 1(4) of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936] be considered in order to its being dispensed with to allow the Bill to be deposited on or before the 27th November—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make further provision about the courts (including Assizes), their business, jurisdiction and procedure; to amend the law respecting the enforcement of debt and other liabilities; and for miscellaneous purposes connected with the administration of justice. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.

SPECIAL ORDERS COMMITTEE
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Lord Molson be appointed a member of the Select Committee.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

ARMY ACT 1955 (CONTINUATION) ORDER 1969
3.33 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTER-BOTTOM): My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Army Act 1955 (Continuation) Order 1969, laid before the House on October 28 last, be approved. A similar Motion in respect of the Air Force Act 1955 (Continuation) Order 1969 also stands in my name on the Order Paper. With the leave of the House, I propose to speak to both Motions together, in the hope that at the end of our debate we may take the Air Force Motion formally.
As I had the opportunity of explaining to the House on a comparable occasion nearly a year ago, in the early days of my present appointment, the Army and Air Force Act 1961 and the Armed Forces Act 1966 continued the system of annual Orders in Council and quinquennial Acts provided for by the Army and Air Force Acts 1955. The Orders of which the drafts are before the House to-day will be the third pair to be made under the 1966 Act. The Acts themselves, of course, will be due for renewal in 1971. By tradition, our short debate on the Orders gives us an opportunity to discuss personnel questions in the two Services. I propose to speak mainly about discipline, with which the Acts are so extensively concerned, and recruiting, to which I referred last year as the Army's most difficult preoccupation.
The importance of military discipline and an organised force has been demonstrated particularly powerfully in Northern Ireland. I would not wish to divert the attention of noble Lords to the wider issues of the problem there; we had a full debate on the subject here only last month, and we shall shortly be debating the legislation which is to follow on the Report of the Committee which sat under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. But it is not inappropriate for me to record to-day that the troops in Northern Ireland have been required to face a uniquely difficult situation and they have overcome it magnificently; their skill and restraint have been exemplary. The purpose of military discipline
1072
is, in a sense, to instil self-discipline, and it is this quality which has stood out.
The Army Act imposes restraints on the liberty of the individual which would not be accepted in civilian life. It is because troops may be required to deal with situations which only disciplined bodies of men could control that they accept these restraints on their liberty as part of their way of life. Service discipline is not merely a matter of petty restriction: it is training for tackling dangerous and unpleasant tasks, and surmounting the handicaps of poor accommodation, fatigue and provocation. Noble Lords will, I am sure, recognise that there could be no more telling justification for the continuation of the Army Act than the behaviour of our troops in Northern Ireland.
As regards discipline in the Royal Air Force, I have satisfying statistical evidence. The number of minor offences dealt with summarily by commanding officers has again shown an encouraging decrease. The number of courts-martial continues at a very low level, although the figure of 252 for the twelve months to September 30 this year was slightly higher than the 240 in the previous twelve months.
My Lords, I can assure the House that the disciplinary system within the Armed Forces continues to operate in a fair and efficient manner. Much of the credit for this satisfactory state of affairs is due to the individual commanding officers, and it is on their leadership, judgment and sense of justice that discipline and morale in the Services depend.
I turn now to recruiting. There has been some improvement this year, particularly in the month of September, when we recruited to the Army and the Royal Air Force 1,350 more than in the same month last year. In 1968–69 we recruited about 24,000 male other ranks to the two Services. In the first six months of the current financial year there was an increase of about 2,500 for the Army and 480 for the Royal Air Force over the performance in the same period last year. If this improvement continues, we shall be able to repair, to some extent, the defects of last year's shortfall which, together with this year's requirement, amounts to about 40,000 men for the two Services.

1073
The problem is that the Services, by the very nature of the active and sometimes combatant role which they have to play, must recruit men young, and they are mainly interested in the 15 to 20 age group. And there are important trends affecting this. The number of young men available for employment in this recruiting age group of 15 to 20 is declining because of later school leaving and the expansion of higher education. This trend will continue until the mid-1970s. Again, the effects of the Industrial Training Act, which aims at increasing the quality of industrial training, will be to reduce the traditional attractiveness of the Services' schemes of apprenticeship. The tendency to marry younger may also affect recruiting, although the recent decision by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, following the report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, to extend the full range of marriage and associated allowances to all officers and men, without regard to age, should offset many of the disadvantages which previously deterred some young men from joining the Services.
There is still some misunderstanding arising from the contraction of the Services. We have to convince young men, and those who influence them, that they can look forward to an interesting and worthwhile career, and that the future role of the Forces poses new challenges demanding high qualities to match first-class equipment. To keep forces balanced in age, rank and promotion prospects, although reduced in size, requires a steady infusion of fit young men—and perhaps naturally this is not generally appreciated. My Lords, having stressed the importance of the 15 to 20 age group, perhaps I should digress for a moment to mention that, as my honourable friend the Minister of Defence for Administration announced in another place last week, he is setting up a Committee which will inquire into the conditions of Service life as they affect boy entrants and young Servicemen.
Turning to the specific question of Army recruitment, I hope the House will bear with me if I tend to dwell to some extent on the statistical side of this problem. From the figures I hope to show that, so far as soldier recruiting is concerned, there are signs that we may have passed the most serious period, though I must urge that there is no reason for
1074
complacency. Taking first the problem of officer recruiting, I am sure that noble Lords are aware that our re-shaping of defence policy has resulted in the need for a smaller Army. An Army which comprised 180,000 adult males in early 1967 will reduce to about 152,000 in 1974. The smaller Army will require fewer officers. Since it takes some years to train an officer, we are now recruiting for the Army of the early 1970s, and so we need fewer officer cadets to meet our target number of young officers. We are just about holding our own. Even allowing for this decreasing requirement, however, the Army will have a difficult time in reaching its target next year, since the trends may be running against it. This year the number entering Sandhurst as cadets for permanent Regular Commissions was 259, only 26 less than the target. This year has also seen the first entry to Sandhurst of cadets to be trained for Special Regular Commissions—32 in all. The universities are valuable sources of officers. The Army has also a university cadetship scheme. Twenty-three cadetships were granted in 1968, the same number as the year before. This year we have granted 29 and we have received more applications than ever before. We should like to commission more university graduates with the necessary qualities. Even so, we expect to commission at least 31 this year.
Non-permanent officers form a very valuable part of the Army's officer cadre. We require 460 non-permanent officers each year. They are granted commissions of two types: Special Regular Commissions, granted for a minimum of 16 years; and Short Service Commissions for 3 years which may be extended to a maximum of 8 years. We require 300 Special Regular Commissioned officers of various ages each year; and in 1968 we were able to commission only 219. Better results have been obtained with the Short Service Commission. There was a shortfall of 26 in the number commissioned last year, but the trend towards the end of the year was encouraging. There has been a continuing improvement in 1969, mainly as a result of an imaginative joint scheme which we have been promoting with industry. This scheme allows a young man who obtains a Short-Service Commission to meet and negotiate with his

1075
future civilian employers before he begins his Army career, or at any time during it. This arrangement benefits all the parties to it—the Army, the civilian employer and the young man himself. Through this scheme, the number of inquiries for Short Service Commissions has risen by 60 per cent.; 157 applicants for the scheme have so far passed the Regular Commissions Board, 68 of them have already been commissioned, and a further 25 are under training at Mons Officer Cadet School. The success of the scheme is having a snowballing effect among employers too; the original 90 participating companies have now been joined by a further 32.
For soldier recruiting, there is no doubt that 1968 was the worst year that the Army has experienced, though the falling off in the recruiting of boys was much less serious. There are, however, signs that that year may prove to have been the nadir. The indications are that 1969, after a poor January, will show that there has been a recovery. The Army has, in fact, recruited nearly 20 per cent. more adults and young soldiers (excluding boys) this year than by the same time in 1968. This improvement is most encouraging. Some of it results from our amendment of the Regulations from April 1 last to allow more men to enlist on a three-year engagement, although one must recognise that we do not yet know what proportion of those young men who come in under the scheme are prolonging their engagements. Recruitment of boys has also improved. We have obtained 900 more in the period from April to September this year than we did in the same period in 1968.
Noble Lords may recall that we said in this year's Statement on the Defence Estimates that the Army was making efforts to improve its methods of selecting recruits and so to reduce wastage. To this end, it had started pilot schemes for the centralised selection of adults and junior recruits. We hope that the improvement of selection processes will have a significant effect on the job satisfaction of recruits and on the wastage figures. Since the pilot scheme for adults was started in October, 1968, 1,914 men have been put through the new selection process. Of these, 300 have been rejected.
1076
This figure may seem high, but it shows that unsuitable men have been weeded out early rather than being passed into the training machine where they would increase the handicap to themselves and to the Army. The remaining 1,614 have been placed in Corps and trades to which they are most suited. A number of these men have expressed surprise at the care that the Army is taking to ensure that each individual finds his most suitable niche. The pilot schemes have made an encouraging start, and we are now studying ways in which we might extend this method of selection.
I should like to refer next to the Army Cadet Force which clearly has a contribution of special importance to make to Regular Army recruiting. Twelve years have passed since the Army Cadet Force was last reviewed and in that time there have been considerable changes in both the Army and the Youth Services. A committee under the chairmanship of my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army has therefore been set up to review the aim, organisation and equipment of the Army Cadet Force and to make recommendations.
To complete my review of Regular Army recruiting, I should like to say a word about prolongation. The Army depends on a fair proportion of men to extend their service to provide it with senior ranks and the more technically qualified. The prolongation rates for men joining on six-year engagements have risen from 36 per cent. in 1966 to about 50 per cent. in the last two years. I find this most encouraging. It is also pleasing to note that the number of voluntary retirements of officers has fallen off from a high peak reached last year. For me, these facts seem to point the lesson that there is nothing wrong with the Army as a career and that the men now serving realise this.
Before I turn to the Royal Air Force, perhaps I should mention the TAVR in which several noble Lords have a very active interest. As the House is aware, the TAVR was recently the subject of a review which led to changes designed to strengthen its role in support of our Regular forces. These changes have been consolidated over the

1077
last year. Recruiting has been satisfactory and the strength—disregarding the Territorials (TAVR III), who have been disbanded—has increased from about 40,500 in December last year to nearly 47,000 at the end of September.
Now may I turn to the Royal Air Force? As in the case of the Army, recruiting to the Royal Air Force has not been either easy or satisfactory, in terms of meeting our needs, during the last year or so. This is the pattern for both officers and airman recruiting. On the airman side, however, I am glad to say that we have done noticeably better in the six months up to September 30 last, with the numbers of men up by 5 per cent. on the previous six months' results, and those of airwomen up by 35 per cent., while in the field of apprentice recruiting things are even more encouraging. Although we are still not getting all the men and women the Royal Air Force needs, we are doing considerably better than we should have dared to hope twelve months or so ago. It is the shortages caused by the lean years of the past which we now have to make good, and this will take time and the effort of all concerned.
As with the airmen, officer recruiting is also stronger this year, and we are encouraged by the response to our publicity, in terms of inquiries about commissioned service, especially in the ground branches. If we can convert enough of this renewed interest into actual applications for commissions, we shall not be far from our targets this year, except, of course, in areas such as the Medical and Engineer Branches where recruiting is to some extent affected by national shortages.
The progress of the R.A.F.'s new Graduate Entry Scheme for officers is encouraging. We have achieved what we set out to do at the beginning of the year; namely, to award as many university cadetships as possible in lieu of Cranwell cadetships. In the round, we have achieved the same number of cadetship entrants as in 1968 but with a much increased university element. In addition to this year's university cadet awards to direct applicants, 48 Cranwell cadets transferred to universities after one year at the College. By the end of the year, the number of cadets up at university
1078
will be about 140 more than we had at the end of 1968—a sound start towards getting the flow of graduates to full career commissions which the Graduate Entry Scheme requires. But once again the field of Royal Air Force officer recruiting is one in which we cannot afford to relax our advertising and other positive recruiting efforts if we are to meet our requirements in terms of both quantity and, even more important, quality.
The modest but encouraging improvement which we have already achieved in Royal Air Force recruiting overall is the result of a number of factors, but the efforts made by the Royal Air Force recruiting organisation have played a significant part. We have, for instance, reorganised and expanded the Careers Information Services, under the Inspector of Recruiting, so that we now have some 60 careers information officers throughout the United Kingdom, backed by a mobile network. These offices are staffed by regular officers and N.C.Os who have undergone special training for the purpose; they do these jobs as normal Royal Air Force postings and so are well in touch with the needs of the frontline Royal Air Force. We have taken a critical look at our recruiting techniques, and have launched special publicity and recruiting campaigns in particular areas with considerable success. For instance, the significant rise in apprentice recruitment follows the special campaigns we have mounted featuring an Apprentice Fortnight followed by a two-day Apprentice Symposium attended by headmasters and others eminent in the educational field. Similar campaigns are in prospect. For example, one for mechanics has just ended, and another for the electrical and electronic trades is planned for early next year.
Despite these encouraging trends, recruiting in the ground trades continues to be a challenging prospect. We still have to bridge a 25 per cent. shortfall on recruiting requirements, and the market in which we compete is becoming ever more competitive. Would-be recruits nowadays are more selective and discriminating in committing themselves to a future career and are thereby harder to get. But the number of airmen already in the Service and wishing to make it a lifelong career

1079
is such that the numbers of applications for extensions of service and for pensionable engagements continue to show healthy increases, and we are of course encouraged by this and other evidence that men and women who have sampled life in the Royal Air Force are keen to stay.
To sum up, my Lords, I am sure that, having looked at the recruiting picture in both Services, noble Lords will agree that the satisfactory rate of re-engagement shows that those who have experienced Service life find it a career worth following. It remains for us to convince those with no experience of Service life, or whose information is outdated, that the life and activities of the modern Serviceman offer an interesting and challenging career, with good pay and prospects of promotion. Satisfying as the re-engagement rate is, it is not possible to regard it as a substitute for new recruits.
I have already referred to some of the considerable improvements which are being made in our processes of selection and in the use we make of manpower. The Forces are increasingly technical, and it is essential that all the most modern management techniques should be used in determining aptitudes and in training a man for a job which is satisfying and which improves his personal and technical qualities, and in the course of this prepares him for his second career. Naturally, entry standards are continually examined to ensure that the optimum use is made of young men who wish to adopt a Service life.
We are also studying the relationship between the current role of the Services and the personal way of life of the Serviceman and his family in order to analyse and implement whatever possibilities there may be for improving the conditions in the Armed Forces with particular reference to family life. Efforts in all these areas must be supplemented by effective external publicity on an adequate scale. We are spending an additional £1 million in 1969–70 on a really high-pressure recruiting publicity campaign.
Not only must we go out to the young men in order to convince them of the worthwhileness and challenges of a Service career. We hope also to bring the public to the Services by organising "at
1080
homes", open days and similar arrangements to enable the community to see the Services close at hand. In the current year we have increased funds for this by some quarter of a million pounds. We do not expect dramatic results from all these measures. We recognise that it may be a slow haul before the competitive pull of the Armed Forces begins to show a sustained and steady improvement. It is however a fact that, even in these difficult times, there is a really good career— testing as well as rewarding—for anyone who joins the Services. It is also a fact, but one little better recognised in many circles, that the Services are essential to the real interests of our nation. I welcome the opportunity of our debate to-day to invite noble Lords to join me in making all possible efforts to convince leaders of opinion everywhere of both these facts. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Army Act 1955 (Continuation) Order 1969, laid before the House on October 28 last, be approved.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

THE FALKLAND ISLANDS
3.56 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, yesterday, referring to a Question on the Falkland Islands, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition drew attention to a tape report. As a consequence of his observations I undertook to keep the House informed. Therefore with permission, I would now repeat a Statement that has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I will use his words:
"As I informed the House on the 11th of December, 1968, discussions with the Argentine Government have continued. In accordance with the practice for several years past, letters will be sent by the Argentine Government and ourselves to the Secretary-General of the United Nations describing these discussions.
"The text of these letters will be made public tomorrow at 7.30 p.m. Falkland Islands time, a time agreed by all parties and convenient to the Falkland Islanders.
"With the permission of the House, I will make a fuller statement on Monday. Meanwhile, I can assure the

1081
House that the undertakings which Her Majesty's Government have repeatedly given both to Parliament and to the Islanders remain unchanged; namely, that the Governor and his Executive Council have been kept informed and that there can be no transfer of sovereignty against the wishes of the Islanders."
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for repeating that Statement, and of course I shall defer any substantive comment until we have seen the text of the letters. I hardly need remind the noble Lord, however, of the very great interest which this House has taken in this matter, and of the considerable disquiet which has been aroused in the past. In view of that, I should like to ask the noble Lord this question: would it not have been better to arrange for these letters to be published at a time which would have permitted a simultaneous announcement to be made to both Houses of Parliament?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, since presumably this House will not have an opportunity of questioning the Minister on Monday, as we shall not be sitting, may I ask him whether we are now approaching the moment when we shall have to ascertain what the true views of the Falkland Islanders are? If that is so, what opportunity will Parliament as a whole in this country have of deciding what is the best way of doing that?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, since I have already been reproved once for giving a lengthy answer, I will say to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that he will find, on Monday, his question to be hypothetical; and to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that there is nothing sinister about the fact that this is to happen on a Friday. The reason for it is that four parties are involved and that was the most convenient date possible.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, when the noble Lord says that my question will be found to be hypothetical, may I ask him whether that means that we are never going to find out what the views of the Falkland Islanders are?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the noble Lord will look at Hansard to-morrow he will see that he put that
1082
question in the light of the letters which are being sent to the United Nations on Friday. To that extent, as I said, the question was hypothetical.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, how are these letters going to get into Hansard to-morrow, if they are not going to be published until to-morrow night?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I suggest that the noble Lord reads the paper, and if he looks at what I said about Hansard, he will see that it was in the terms of his question.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I assure the noble Lord that I was not putting forward a sinister interpretation? All I was suggesting was that the convenience of one of the major Parties here, and the convenience of Parliament, surely is an important consideration.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, when I used the word "sinister" I was perhaps suspicious of what might have been behind the noble Earl's question.

FARM LIVESTOCK: USE OF ANTIBIOTICS
4.0 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, with the permission of the House I will now repeat the Statement made in another place by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is as follows:
"The Report of the Joint Committee on the Use of Antibiotics in Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine has been laid before Parliament and published to-day. My right honourable friends and I would like to thank the Committee for its detailed and precise analysis of a most complex matter and for its clear findings and recommendations.
"The Committee found that the administration of antibiotics to farm livestock poses certain hazards to human and animal health since it has led to the emergence of strains of bacteria which are resistant to antibiotics. The Committee was satisfied that these hazards can largely be avoided and has put forward a number of recommendations to that end.
"We accept, in general, the Committee's proposals for the control of antibiotics.

1083
"The Committee's principal recommendation is that antibiotics should be classified as either 'feed' or 'therapeutic' and that in future only 'feed' antibiotics should be available without prescription for use in feedingstuffs. The Committee also defines 'feed' antibiotics in a way which will enable us to ensure that hazards to human health cannot arise from their use in feedingstuffs. The use of antibiotics on prescription by the veterinary profession would not be limited. We accept these recommendations.
"As a consequence of its main proposal, the Committee recommends that the use of penicillin and the tetracyclines in feedingstuffs should be prohibited; and that certain other drugs which are now freely available should also be available only on prescription. We also accept these recommendations.
"Some of the Committee's more detailed recommendations and longer-term proposals on research and veterinary epidemiology will need further study.
"The implementation of these recommendations will require consultations. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and the other Health Ministers will therefore be consulting medical and pharmaceutical interests. I and the other agricultural Minisiters will be consulting veterinary, agricultural and animal feedingstuffs interests. We are proceeding to these consultations immediately".
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for that Statement, and add my personal welcome for the Swann Committee's Report which I had a chance to read briefly this morning? It has been a constant surprise to me that whereas I need a doctor's prescription to buy a few pills of an antibiotic, I can buy hundred-weights of antibiotics for my farm without any control at all. Therefore I welcome the main recommendation here that these antibiotics should be differentiated into those of therapeutic value and those of feed value, and that the former should be supplied on a veterinary prescription only.
1084
There is one point on which I should like the noble Lord's further assurance, and that is with regard to the Report's recommendation, to which the noble Lord referred, about further work in veterinary epidemiology. This is obviously urgent, and as more and more antibiotics come out it will be necessary to put a value on them and to give advice on how they can be used for disease purposes. Would the noble Lord give me a firm assurance that it is the Government's intention to promote this research and make available all necessary resources, especially in the field of veterinary epidemiology where it tends to overlap into human epidemiology, because here there is undoubtedly a field of great danger about which the public is feeling some anxiety?
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I very much welcome this unanimous and forthright Report, with its clear recommendations on what is in fact a very frightening subject. I notice that the noble Lord, in repeating the Statement, quoted the words "these hazards can largely be avoided." He did not quote other words used by the Committee which say, "and should not therefore be allowed to continue." This is in my view very important indeed, and I wonder what proposals the Government have for going into action immediately. I notice that there are certain things which require further study— and I quite understand that. But before further study takes place, and before further legislation is introduced, it is important that the Government should do something. Furthermore, I hope that they will start consultations internationally. because this matter affects not only our own meatstuffs but what we import.
Lastly, I notice that the Government are to consult other interests. Among other interests is the pharmaceutical industry. The pharmaceutical industry bears a very heavy responsibility in this respect, and I hope that the Government will press the pharmaceutical industry to put its own house in order. I am sure that the pharmaceutical industry is only too aware of this, but there are weaker brethren within any industry, and I hope the Government will make it absolutely certain that it will no longer be possible for drugs to be manufactured in a way that enables the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, to point out that they can be bought by the hundredweight.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for the welcome they have given, both to the Report and, as I understand it, to the Statement made about the Government's reaction to it. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked me about the action to be taken. I should have thought that what we are now proposing to do would meet any reasonable requirements. The drugs which will not be allowed are carefully defined, and those which will be allowed, as I stated, will be on the prescription of a veterinary surgeon, a veterinary officer.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, about the further work that is required. I think that if he looks at pages 53 and 54 of the Report he will see that the recommendations on epidemiology are very wide and very detailed, and that it would not be possible to take action in the immediate future. However, I can give him an assurance that the consultations about the implementation of those recommendations will proceed immediately, and that the Government do take the recommendations very seriously indeed and accept them in principle.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, about imports. He will find it stated in the Report that there is no hazard from imported foodstuffs, but my right honourable friend has indicated in the Statement that a survey will be taken of imported foodstuffs to see whether there is any hazard arising from the residue of the stock feed in which antibiotics may have been given. I think that I have answered all the questions put to me.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the importance of this Report, and indeed of the whole question to the consumer, may I ask my noble friend whether he will consider giving time for a debate in this House, not only on the findings in this Report but on the whole question of the indiscriminate use of drugs which have been inadequately tested? I feel that the country is very concerned about this matter.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I accept what my noble friend says about the concern of the country in this matter. It so happens that before Christmas we unusually have a very heavy legislative programme and I do not see any possibility
1086
of a debate before Christmas. But I will certainly see, through the usual channels, what can be done after Christmas. I was asked a further question by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, about the pharmaceutical industry. I am sure that what he has said in that regard will be noted.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether, as a matter of routine, this information is passed to other countries whose schools of medicine are similar to our own—for instance, to members of the Commonwealth?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not sure whether it is done as a matter of routine, but arrangements will be made to see that this Report is freely available.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, will the Government make arrangements whereby they can discover to what extent antibiotics are put in the feed of animals imported into this country?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, the Report says that so far as the Committee could see there is no hazard arising from this source. Nevertheless, Her Majesty's Government feel that a survey into this matter would be justified.

ARMY ACT 1955 (CONTINUATION) ORDER 1969
4.10 p.m.
Debate resumed.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for the information which he has given us, and although none of us wishes to have a major Defence debate this afternoon—we must not keep the South—West waiting too long—I think it is useful for us periodically to look at the nuts and bolts of defence policy. Like the noble Lord, I propose to confine myself entirely to personnel matters, and I should like at the outset to say now grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for having given us such a comprehensive review of the picture as he sees it to-day. I know that these matters are those in which he is deeply involved, and indeed deeply interested, and his very considerable personal interest and concern for these matters came through very much in what he said.

1087
I should like, first of all, to associate myself straight away with what the noble Lord said about our forces in Northern Ireland. They have done and are doing an extraordinarily difficult job extra-ordinarily well, and they are doing it just as well as I think we all expected them to do it. Many of us, of course, have been very concerned at the conditions in which many of our troops in Ulster are now serving. If I felt that the Government were not fully alive to the need to look after their material welfare, in so far as that is possible, I should have been extremely critical of them this afternoon. But I am persuaded that these needs are recognised and that action to repair the most obvious and glaring omissions and problems is being taken. May I say that I consider the decision to move the "Maidstone" to Belfast to be both sensible and imaginative. I spent a number of weeks aboard "Maidstone" myself during the war and I know what good accommodation she has. It was perhaps a stroke of good luck that Mr. Healey had not yet sent her to the knacker's yard. That said, I turn to the darker side of the picture.
For the past five years we on these Benches have expressed our concern about the rundown in our Armed Forces. Time and time again we have emphasised that a sensible defence policy must make provision for the unexpected. With that in mind we have deplored the Government's emasculation of our reserve forces, and we have emphasised that they were cutting the cutting edge of the British Army—the infantry battalions—dangerously fine. Now the unexpected has occurred. Who would have thought a year ago that it would now be necessary —and, indeed, it is very necessary—for us to station ten military units in Northern Ireland? This is, I think, the first time that this Administration has been confronted with what is only to be expected; namely, the unexpected. And what do we find, my Lords? Immediately we find all the signs and symptoms of overstretch and overstrain.
There is the undermanning of our units —or at least some of them—in Northern Ireland. I think we have it on the authority of Mr. Healey that 25 men is the minimum number in an infantry platoon. And of course numbers are particularly
1088
crucial when one is dealing with internal security. But when he visited Northern Ireland recently, my right honourable friend Mr. Ramsden, a former Secretary of State for War found that there were in fact less than eight men per section in the 1st Battalion of the Royal Green-jackets. Can the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, assure us that this under-manning is exceptional to that particular unit? I hope he can.
Another sign of overstretch is that in order to provide the necessary 10 units in Northern Ireland, Mr. Healey has had to call upon composite units. One of the units is an amalgam of two squadrons of the R.A.F. Regiment and a battery of a light regiment of the Royal Artillery. I very well remember the criticisms to which we were exposed when, confronted by a number of emergencies all around the world—in East Africa, in South Arabia, in South-East Asia—we called upon the Royal Artillery to fulfil infantry roles. But those Artillery units were trained for the internal security role, and it cannot be a good thing, especially when troops are undertaking internal security, the most delicate of tasks in a highly charged political atmosphere, to have to rely upon hastily-formed mergers.
The third sign of overstretch is the extent to which Northern Ireland has forced us to draw upon our strategic reserve. Despite all the fine words of our Minister of Defence about our general reinforcement capability, five of the nine battalions of the 3rd Division are now in Northern Ireland. Again, I recall that at all times, even when we were dealing with a number of simultaneous emergencies, we managed to retain in England up to strength a full brigade group of the strategic reserve. I hope and trust—and I shall be very surprised if this is not the case—that the noble Lord can assure us that that is indeed the position to-day.
Finally, and most important, there is the warning that the Government may have to draw upon B.A.O.R. in order to keep our garrison in Northern Ireland up to strength. Here again we have been subjected to a great deal of talk about the reinforcement of the British military presence in Europe. But of course those who speak a great deal about that refrain from reminding us that the Government have withdrawn one

1089
brigade, the 6th Infantry Brigade, from B.A.O.R., and that that brigade is physically stationed in this country at the present time. Now we are told that it is probable that a battalion from B.A.O.R. will be needed in the new year in Northern Ireland. The Ministry told us that it was not for reinforcement but for relief purposes. Well, my Lords, whatever the verbiage they wrap this around in, the fact remains that that battalion will not be with B.A.O.R.
Last spring my noble friend Lord St. Oswald and I spent some days in Belgium looking at our NATO force. We were both concerned, as all of us must be, with the signs we saw of the weakening of the Alliance's conventional military posture in Europe. There are threats of withdrawal from the NATO conventional strength all across the board. Time and time again it was brought home to us that the one obvious thing which we could do to stop this potential rot was to move the 6th Infantry Brigade back to B.A.O.R. I notice, incidentally, that there is a report in the Guardian that that may be our intention, and I should very much like to ask the noble Lord whether he can say anything about that report when he replies.
Be that as it may, I should also very much like to ask the noble Lord what is the actual strength, the actual numbers of British Army personnel at present physically on the ground in the British Army of the Rhine to-day. I hope that he can give me a perfectly straightforward and simple answer, excluding Berlin, excluding Belgium, excluding the 6th Brigade and excluding those units associated with it, like 36 Heavy Air Defence Regiment. By the same token, when the Government draw the contrast which they are very fond of drawing between the 19 battalions physically present in this country in June, 1964, and the 30 battalions present to-day, are they or are they not including the 6th Brigade in that total?—because I think there is sometimes a tendency for that Brigade to be double counted.
I have indicated some of the signs of overstretch and overstrain which this emergency has caused and I should like to explore the Government's intentions a little further. The emergency has of course high-lighted—if high-lighting was
1090
needed—the need for adequate reserves. I am not expecting any great change of heart from the Government here. I am glad to see that the total of TAVR II has climbed from 40,000 to some 47,000, but I need hardly remind the noble Lord that this is still over 10,000 below strength. Another thing which the Government could do is to defer the disbandment of our infantry battalions, at least until we can see the picture in Northern Ireland more clearly. We had 66 infantry battalions in June, 1964, and the total is now down to 59. We are due to lose six more next year and two more in the two succeeding years. In my view, a prudent Administration would, in prudence, review this programme, which, unless it is changed, will further erode our very slim reserves of infantry manpower.
The Government may, of course, be relying upon better recruitmenl—and, goodness knows! they need it. It is my understanding that in April of this year the Army was nearly 9,900 men short of peace-time establishment, and the Under-Secretary told us in June [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 25/6/69, col. 270.]:
"If the present trend in recruiting continues I estimate the shortfall on 1st April, 1970, as about 8,750—
and that, of course, is with a considerably reduced establishment. The noble Lord has given us—and I was glad he was able to do so—some rather more hopeful figures about recruiting trends at the present time. He has told us that it is 20 per cent. up on recruitment for the corresponding period last year but he rather took the gilt off that gingerbread by reminding us that last year was in fact the nadia of our recruitment. He has also laid emphasis on the encouraging re-engagement trends, and he is quite right to do so—it is exceptionally important. But of course we cannot tell where we are going until we know much more than we do now about what the re-engagement trends are going to be with those who have enlisted on a three-year engagement; and he quite rightly said that. But I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he could tell us what is the present estimate of the Ministry of Defence for the Army shortfall, given the rather more encouraging recruiting trend at present. They were able to calculate that last summer: I am sure that their computers and their statisticians can calculate it now.

1091
There are two aspects of recruitment which the noble Lord touched on and which I should like to explore a little further with him. The first is the question of specialist skills, where competition with the civilian market is at its most acute and where the shoe pinches most, because all three Services now make extraordinarily clamant demands on specialist and highly-skilled manpower. We read in the Defence White Paper this year that in the Navy, for example,
"there are major shortages of recruits for the seamen, communications and electrical branches "—
all absolutely key skills in the Navy of 1969. We also read that there were serious shortages in certain of the essential trades of aircraft mechanic in the Royal Air Force. I may have missed it, but I think that the noble Lord, when he was saying that the shortfall was something like 25 per cent., was referring to those specialist branches in the Royal Air Force; but I am not certain.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: In the Royal Air Force, yes.
EARL JELLICOE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for frankly disclosing that figure. It is a very serious one, and no one knows that better than he does. Anything which he can say in amplification about that I should be glad to hear, because all three Services—but above all, perhaps, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force—depend tremendously upon these specialist skills and specialist manpower.
May I dwell, secondly, for a moment on the officer position? I know that we are concerned here primarily with the Royal Air Force and the Army, but I noticed that the Under-Secretary of State for the Army disclosed on a similar occasion last week—and, as a former naval person, I cannot help reminding the noble Lord, also as a former naval person, about this —that officer entries for the Navy this year were nearly 70 below the entries for last year, and that for the first time there is a shortage of entries in the Seamen (General List). I read those words with very great concern indeed.
I was also concerned at what was said in the White Paper on the shortfall of recruits in what I have always thought is one of the most important and most
1092
interesting avenues of entry into the Forces these days, and that is through the university. I read that the number of cadets for the R.A.F. in residence at universities was 137 against a target of 201. What I think the noble Lord has told us this afternoon has put a much more favourable gloss upon that particular figure, but I am still very unhappy about the position here as regards the Army. I think he told us that the number of Army university cadetships was now something like 29 or 31 (I forget the precise figures) and had risen, but in the White Paper we were told that the target here was 65. It therefore seems, if I am right in my statistics, that we have still reached only 50 per cent. of target, and that worries me.
Two further "nuts and bolts" questions, my Lords, because they both have a bearing on recruitment. The first concerns pay. In the debate in another place last week the Government spokesman produced figures designed to show that the Serviceman will gain a lot when the new scales are introduced next year. I would ask, first: can the noble Lord categorically confirm that the Government are certain they will be able to meet the April deadline for the introduction of the new system? I assume that he can, because his colleagues in another place last week expressed every confidence that this was so.
As for the figures themselves, I am uncertain whether I understand the new system—in fact I am pretty certain that I do not understand it, because it is extraordinarily complicated. But the Minister of Defence for Administration told another place last week:
… the increase which Grigg would have produced since 1966 is between £75 million and £80 million".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 13/11 /69, col. 630.]
He went on to say that under the new formula the Services wage bill will have increased, by comparison, by £130 million. This, I think, was designed to show that the Forces will be £50 million better off, paywise, under Aubrey Jones than they would have been under Grigg. That is all very satisfactory, if that is the case, and it obviously has a bearing (although one can exaggerate that bearing) on recruitment. But what I should like to ask the noble Lord is whether these two sets of figures are really comparable.

1093
As I understand it, the new system means that the Armed Forces will receive gross pay and will then have an amount deducted from that pay—doubtless before they get the actual cash—for such things as accommodation and food. Moreover, if they are receiving more pay, there may well be an increased taxation liability. What I should like to know is whether those elements had been taken into account in the figure of £130 million—that is to say, was the figure gross or was it a net figure—and is it strictly comparable with the figure of £80 million? My second question is to ask the noble Lord when the Government hope to receive the Report of the Committee on Boy Entrants—and here I may say that I think the Government have been right to establish this Committee to look into this very difficult subject.
My Lords, there is one further matter that I should like very briefly to touch on, and that is the question of our Service attaché representation abroad. We touched on this, of course, in the context of the Duncan Review Committee's Report yesterday. My noble friend Lord Selkirk drew your Lordships' attention to the very important contribution which our Service attachés make to our representation abroad, not least when the unexpected, the emergency, occurs; and I entirely endorse what my noble friend, with all his very great experience in this particular matter, said. It is quite obvious to any of us who know what Service attachés are sometimes called upon to do that they perform far more than a purely ornamental role.
As I understand it, the Duncan Committee, who looked into this matter pretty thoroughly, made a number of minor recommendations and three major recommendations. They came to the conclusion (in their own horrid terminology) that in the "Outer Area" we could cut our Service attaché representation by about a third. Next, they concluded that our Service staffs in the United States, which include the British Defence Staff in Washington and which amount to almost 300 people, could probably be cut by about a quarter. Thirdly, they recommended that it was vital for the Services to appoint Service attachés who were on their way up in their career, rather than on their way out. Here they were merely crossing a "t"
1094
where the Plowden Committee of five years before had dotted the "i". We learned only in general terms yesterday about the Government's standpoint: on Duncan—let alone on this part of Duncan —and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will take this opportunity of telling us a little more about: their thinking on these specific recommendations regarding our Service attaché representation abroad.
My own views in capsule form are very simple, almost simpliste. I personally have some doubt whether it would be sensible to make the full cuts recommended by Duncan in the Service attaché representation in the Outer Area where the fabric and the crust of security is very thin in so many very neuralgic places. Secondly, I venture to say this. I am personally inclined to think that we could afford to make perhaps rather deeper cuts in our representation in the United States. This is only a personal hunch but I am a little inclined to doubt whether, but for the accident of history and the wartime heritage of the Combined Chiefs, we would accept anything like this figure of 300 as being in any way reasonable. My personal view is that what we need in Washington is a very high-level, small, military nucleus to which task forces for specific purposes like Polaris or Phantom could be attached—in fact one might be able to fly out short-term experts from London (Duncan's "flying Missionaries") when necessary. These are purely personal views.
Finally, on the question of Service attaché representation, I should like to say that I concur with what Duncan said about the quality. The only surprising thing is that Duncan felt compelled to repeat this recommendation when it was made five years ago by Plowden and, so far as I know, accepted then by the Government of the day.
Those are the areas which I wanted briefly to touch upon to-day. I have put a great many questions to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, and I await a great many satisfactory (or less satisfactory, as the case may be) answers from him.
4.32 p.m.
LORD BOURNE: My Lords, I should like first to say how much I agree with the two noble Lords who have already spoken about the conduct of British forces in Northern Ireland. The only thing I

1095
would add is that, however unpleasant and however much of a surprise it is to British Army units to be keeping street control inside their own country, I think we can rely on them to perform their duties. I must take slight issue with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, because I see that a unit of the Royal Horse Artillery Regiment went there last week. I can assure him that they will be at least as good as any infantry battalion—with or without training.
This is not the occasion for a full-dress defence debate, and I propose to touch upon two aspects only—reserves and manpower, and to ask the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, two questions consequent upon my short remarks. It is almost exactly a year ago that we had a Statement on the reserves of the Army (and when I talk about reserves to-day I am referring to reserves of the Army); and during the discussion I asked the question: have the volunteers of the Territorial Army (which up to that time had been called TAVR III) a role? The Territorial Army has since been abolished, so that there is no need to ask that question this afternoon.
I also asked a question about TAVR II, which was, rightly, being reorganised by the Government to an establishment of 56,000—which we have heard they are gradually reaching. The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, told me that the role of this force was to supply reserves for the existing Regular units —I think he meant in Germany—and to replace casualties in them. I called this role "plugging holes". Anyway, however you like to look at it, and whatever expression you use, the fact remains that it is a front-line duty and not a reserve duty. There was no mention of home defence in the role of the Reserve; there was no mention of the damage to the volunteer spirit—which admittedly is not a pure Army question but a countrywide question; there was no mention of having a disposable extra reserve which any general, or any country entering a war, must have in order to be able to swing the campaign in their favour. I got the impression that we were going to war without any true reserves except for front-line duties.
Since the Defence Review was written in 1966, the emphasis on our defence
1096
role has been very much on Europe. I do not happen to agree with that; but that is not what we are discussing this afternoon. But in the European role I find it very curious that every NATO member except this country has a reserve Army separate from its contribution to NATO. That is what I am really talking about. In the Defence Review three years ago the emphasis was on very quick war. It said:
"The danger of deliberate war in Europe at any level is small so long as the potential aggressor believes this is likely to lead to a nuclear response."
It was on that basis that we destroyed our reserves. The Defence Review later went on:
"We urged on the Alliance that it should abandon those military preparations which rest on the assumption that a general war in Europe might last for several months."
Of course, it is anybody's guess what the future war is going to be like, but at least we in this House have learned to prepare for the unexpected. I cannot help feeling that the Government were right when they emphasised in successive Defence White Papers that defence policy must never remain static; that it must be kept constantly under review.
Since that Defence Review in 1966 and many similar Statements there have been many more Statements emphasising the need for preparation for conventional war. As a matter of fact, we had an example of conventional way, but without shooting, when the Russians put 250,000 men into Czechoslovakia very quickly. Admittedly that was behind the Iron Curtain; but that is the sort of thing that we might have to meet. So the question I should like to ask is this: have the Government had second thoughts about the character and duration of war, especially of conventional war, and consequently of the need for proper reserve forces?
I will now turn to manpower, a subject which will not take me many minutes. Nine years ago we had a Navy, Army and Air Force 608,000 strong. Admittedly, we were in the middle of a reduction programme from 700,000 down to 400,000 which involved giving up National Service and turning to Regular Forces. Now the plan is to reduce the total Armed Forces to 340,000. Of course, it is a subject for a proper Defence debate whether a force of 340,000 is or is not capable of

1097
meeting the defence role required by the Government.
An interesting feature of this. very much reduced force is that it is predominantly married and is therefore very expensive. Of the officers, 83 per cent. are married; of the sergeants, 92 per cent. are married; of the other ranks, 62 per cent. are married. I am speaking of all the three Services. The latest Defence White Paper puts the yearly requirement to keep this force going as 35,000 males. I was encouraged and rather relieved to hear the figures for last year's recruitment which the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, gave us, figures in which we are all deeply interested. They do not, unfortunately, prove the future; and I am sorry to say that the general tendency is down. I only have to quote from the present Defence White Paper to show what I mean.
In the Navy, in the last four years—1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968—the number of males recruited dropped from 6,688 to 4,305. I make this a drop of 35 per cent. which is very serious indeed and must eventually mean that the ships do not go to sea because there are not the men to man them. At the same time the figure for the Army dropped from 13,848 to 8,337 in four years, a drop of 40 per cent. We all know that this really hit the infantry, the men on the street, as is indicated by the strength of a platoon on the street—for example, in Belfast or Londonderry. It is vital, in my opinion, that a company of infantry should be 90 or 100 strong; otherwise it has to leave the street to be relieved. There is no getting away from it, if a section consists of only eight men they have to be relieved. We see pictures on the B.B.C. of soldiers patrolling streets, but those men have to be relieved and so the weakness is serious. If I am right in thinking that the long-term trend is a 40 per cent. drop in four years, I sincerely hope that the encouraging figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will prove to be permanent. I happen to think the opposite.
I do not believe that at the present time the Defence Services have the status that they used to have. Defence reductions are the biggest single factor in causing this drop in status. The Services no longer have the appeal of adventure and travel which they once had. It is no
1098
use telling a young man who is thinking of joining the Army that he will exercise in Canada or Australia—Libya has been struck off, by the way, in the last week or two. It is no good emphasising to a young man that he will live on Salisbury Plain and do his exercises in the Commonwealth; that does not make him join the Army. What makes him join is the prospect of taking part in something really active, like the emergency in Kenya, Cyprus, or something of that nature. It is no satisfaction to me that in its latest Report the Prices and Incomes Board agrees with all these remarks.
So, my Lords, my question to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, is this Assuming that his fairly encouraging recent recruiting figures will prove to be more than a flash in the pan, but observing that any Ministry of Defence must make prudent plans in case they do not achieve these results; if recruiting does not achieve the very modest manpower requirements of our reduced Regular Forces—that is to say, 35,000 men a year—what do the Government propose to do about it? They must, I suggest, make the conditions even more attractive; that is to say, compete even more with industry, which I think is a hopeless chase—and incidentally covers up the fact that recruiting a young man for the Navy, the Army or the Air Force is quite different from recruiting him for industry. Or, alternatively, are the Government prepared to reintroduce National Service on a selective basis? Those are my two questions.
4.44 p.m.
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: My Lords, my intervention will be quite short. Going back to the rather complicated question of pay, the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said that the discipline accepted by soldiers is different from that accepted by civilians; and this is clearly tight. But now the noble Lord is going to put soldiers on a civilian system of pay. Those who are in the forces are finding it increasingly difficult to understand and accept it, and those who are out do not even begin to understand it. There is a fear among those who are serving that this will be the finish of the "backbone", which is the unit system in the Army; the officers' mess, the sergeants' mess and

1099
the corporals' mess. If the men have to pay to live in mess and in addition have to pay for their food, they will live out. One has seen from the example of Continental armies the disastrous results of men not living in mess but in various places in a town. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree with St. Benedict, who said that if men must live without women they must not live without rules. I think that too much attention has been paid to the married officer and soldier and too little to the single soldier and to those who are married but who have to live as single men for operational or other reasons. That is the only point which I wanted to raise.
4.46 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I say how much I agree with my noble friend Lord Jellicoe. I believe people in this country are getting worried that our defence system is too theoretical. We have a Secretary of State who is extremely theoretical. He is an able and indeed a vigorous Secretary of State, but what happens if his theories are wrong? In the debate on the Address the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, made a remark which I think went like this: that the question of reserves is a question of philosophy. My Lords, it is not. Reserves are a fact of life in any form of armed service; you cannot dispense with them in any theoretical form whatsoever.
May I say just one other word on the question of military attachés overseas. This question really turns on the structure of military government. I have come up against it once or twice, and it is not always quite what it appears. The man at the top is not really in charge. What normally happens is that there is a committee, composed of Colonels or perhaps Generals, who are very difficult to approach. In a sense they are rather like Parliament, except that they meet in secret. They appoint the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or whoever it may be. You may perhaps see the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary, but you very rarely get to the source of power, which is a semi-secret bloc of officers who sit back and really command the situation. Into that sort of fortress a military attaché can gain admission very much more easily than the ordinary diplomat,
1100
if I may say so with respect. The military attaché understands military language. There are many places to-day where there is military rule, and for all we know there will be more. These are places where a man with some military background may gain information which would not be readily available to other people. It is for this reason that I ask the noble Lord, and the Government, to think carefully about the kind of recommendations contained in the Duncan Committee Report.
4.47 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I wish to make one point on the references by the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, to the new policy for officer entry into the Royal Air Force: that in future the normal entry will be through universities, and from the universities to particular air training, a policy which I was glad to hear welcomed by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe. The purpose of my intervention is to make an appeal to the universities to look after these young men. They may be scattered through the different faculties and departments of the universities, but they are being educated for a specific profession every bit as much as a medical student, a law student or a divinity student is being educated; and the universities, in accepting this policy, are undertaking a very considerable responsibility not only to the young men but also to national defence. It is to make that appeal to those noble Lords who are connected with universities that I have ventured to speak.
4.49 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lords who are about to debate the problems of the South-West will not think that the discussion we have had has been a waste of time. I found it extremely helpful and interesting. I accept that no policy is perfect and that all the policies of a Government must be supervised by the Opposition of the day. Nevertheless, I am encouraged by the general agreement on goals, even though we may disagree on methods. I will first try to answer, as well as I can, the various points that were raised by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe; and I am grateful to him for having given me advanced warning of most of his "punches".

1101
The noble Earl was entirely correct: I think it would be dishonest to say that there is not an element of overstretch in our present position. We should not have the shortfall in our requirements for soldiers and airmen at the moment if we were not overstretched. I think that one is associated with the other. The noble Earl, unfortunately, is correct in his information about the 1st Battalion of the Green Jackets. They are exceptionally under strength for that very famous Regiment, and are undermanned in comparison with other units at the moment in Northern Ireland. The noble Earl will also remember, although he will not, I think, be very pleased about it (he has, in fact, already said that he regrets it) that the Green Jackets are due to contract to two battalions. That is all part of the reason for the undermanning of that unit.
Perhaps if I could get the B.A.O.R. position out of the way we might then turn to the question of drawing on our strategic reserves. The latest figure I have available to me is that there are at the moment in Germany 48,150 men, give or take a few. This excludes Berlin, NATO headquarters outside Germany, the Advanced Base in Belgium and 6 Brigade which, while redeployed to this country, remains under the operational command of B.A.O.R. The figure of 48,150 includes Headquarters Northern Army Group, some 600 men, and the Royal Malta Artillery, about 370 men. That is the position in B.A.O.R. at the moment.
It may be convenient if I touch on the question of the return of 6 Brigade to Germany. As the noble Earl knows, 6 Brigade was withdrawn in 1968 for balance-of-payments reasons, and there has always been the possibility that the Brigade, which has remained part of B.A.O.R., could be returned after the balance-of-payments problems were resolved: and I am sure we are all glad that, if we are not out of the tunnel in that respect, there is at any rate light at the end of the tunnel. This was one of the contingencies which was bound to be/considered in the context of NATO'S studies of remedial measures following the Canadian decision to withdraw some of its forces from Europe. It would, however, be premature to suggest that a decision is about to be taken. This is a matter in which NATO as a whole has an interest. That is the position to-day.
1102
I have tried to find out the precise position on the matter raised by the noble Earl on strategic reserves. This, unfortunately, depends very much as a matter of definition on what is meant by strategic reserves. At the moment five of the battalions in Northern Ireland are out of the 13 battalions of 3 Division and the Parachute force, both 3 Division and the Parachute force being earmarked for assignment to NATO. This means that there is something more than a Brigade Group available in this country. The sending of battalions to Northern Ireland does not really withdraw them from the United Kingdom as a whole. They are tied up there, and if there arose an emergency more serious than that which exists in Northern Ireland to-day they would have to be recalled to face that more serious threat. But the skill with which the Army has handled matters in Northern Ireland—and I am grateful, as I am sure the Army is, to noble Lords who have expressed their congratulations in to-day's debate—should not lead noble Lords to think that the strategic forces of this country are stretched to a point of danger. They are of course taxed heavily, but there is still a substantial reserve capacity in this country which could be at once reinforced by recall from Northern Ireland.
I was glad that the noble Earl gave his support to the attempts being made to draw an increasing number of graduate officers into the Armed Forces; and I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, for the encouragement given by him to the universities to help in this way. He is preaching what he practises because, if I recollect correctly, he is chairman of the military committee of one of the great Scottish universities, and he has been a tower of strength to us in recruiting North of the Border.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, also mentioned R.A.F. mechanic recruiting as a major problem. I mentioned in my speech that this year we have introduced the R.A.F. mechanic apprentice scheme in an attempt to overcome this substantial shortfall of our requirements. I said that we had had a special presentation, followed by a conference of headmasters, in order to encourage applications to enter the R.A.F. Apprentice Training School, which is so famous and has produced so

1103
many famous men. I myself opened that conference and spent a substantial time discussing the problem with headmasters from all over the United Kingdom, including one from the Hebrides. I think they were surprised when they saw the quality of the training that we were giving to our young men and I believe that they will be extremely good as recruiting officers.
EARL JELLICOE: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I am not quite clear about the position. In the White Paper particular emphasis was placed upon the shortfall in R.A.F. mechanic recruitment. Has there been any improvement in the last nine months parallel to the improvement to which the noble Lord has been able to point, in, for example, general Army recruitment?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: What I said was that the actual recruitment of apprentices was extremely encouraging. Apprentices, of course, are not frontline troops. They are given a very thorough training, and it will be some time before this increasing number of young men who are coming through the training machine actually reach the front line of the Royal Air Force. But we are very encouraged by the number of young men who are starting to train in the Royal Air Force, and we believe that in due course, although it will be in a substantial time scale, we shall get the numbers and quality of young men that we require. It is of course quality that is important in this field, because weapons of war get more and more complex and they cannot be maintained by untrained or semi-trained men.
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, I think, put his finger most pertinently on a key question of recruiting. He asked, quite clearly: if Her Majesty's Government do not by their existing methods obtain the men required, will they introduce selective conscription? I think that, so far as this Government are concerned, the answer is No; we have pinned our faith to an all-Regular Armed Force, and we have to make our existing policy succeed. Success must depend to a substantial degree on the comparability of pay between what a man can earn in industry and what he is allowed to earn in the Armed Forces.
1104
Perhaps I may have one more attempt to clarify the position of the military salary, and the other ancillary payments that it is proposed to make, and try to make a comparison between what might have been paid under the Grigg system and what will in all probability be paid under the Prices and Incomes Board's proposals. I sent the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, a copy of a letter written by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, but, of course, other noble Lords have not had the benefit of seeing it. I will do my best to make the position clear. Let us take the period 1966 to 1970—a period of four pay years. Using the Grigg formula, over this period, the Services might have expected increases of £80 million. My honourable friend, the Minister for Administration in another place gave a rather lower figure, but if we take it at £80 million, for simple arithmetic, this approximates to £20 million a year. The noble Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, mentioned the matter of tax. Grigg was gross, too. It was not a net figure; it was a gross figure, just as the Prices and Incomes figure is a gross figure, before tax.
May I make one point clear. There are three elements in this: the concept of the military salary, which is one element; job evaluation, which is a second element, and there is the x factor, the wear and tear of military life, which is the third element. In 1968 the forces received £27 million. In 1969 they have received £20½ million. In addition, it is calculated that £52½ million will be paid to them to implement the military salary; that is to say, the first element of the new concept. This is £100 million compared with £80 million over the same period for Grigg. In addition, for the financial year 1970–71, there will be £30 million made available to cover job evaluation and the x factor. This is the provision that has been agreed; it does not necessarily forecast what the Prices and Incomes Board's findings will be. They have made it quite clear that they are not in any way influenced by this figure. They are going to evaluate the equivalent of the various trades in the various arms of the Armed Services; they are in no way tied by this particular figure.
We are working against time, and time in fact means, first, job evaluation and, secondly, translating all the data into

1105
an appropriate form for including it on the computer, which has to pay wages from April 1 next year. Therefore, £30 million is the provision for the two other elements, the X factor and the job evaluation for the coming year. If this is incorrect it will have to be put right in the future.
The noble Earl in opening the debate from the other side of the House asked me if I was in step with my Service colleagues on whether or not we should achieve the carrying into effect of this new pay structure by April next year. Acts of God apart, we are confident that we can do this. The computer might have a mechanical breakdown; individuals might have breakdowns, but acts of God apart, we believe that this will be carried into effect.
5.5 p.m.
LORD BOURNE: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the point of manpower, may I thank him for the clear reply to my question when he said that this Government would not contemplate the reintroduction of National Service on a selective basis. That is quite clear and is rather the answer I had expected. The noble Lord did not answer the other part of my question. His very interesting description of the new military salary, which contains the three elements, the money, the X factor and job evaluation, and also how many more millions of pounds a year it was going to cost than Grigg, really amounts to paying people to attract them away from industry. I suggest—and other noble Lords may not agree with me—it has been proved many times that one thing that does not attract young men into the Services is money. What attracts them is adventure. If they want money, then they had better stay where they are in Birmingham, Liverpool or a place like that and not join the Army, the Navy or the Air Force. I am a little unhappy about the non-answer to that question.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I was going to come on to the point made by the noble Lord. I thought that he had a double pessimism. He did not think that we were going to succeed in our policy. He seemed to say we would only succeed if we had a steady flow of troubles, or disturbances throughout the world, requiring military attention. I feel this is not quite the case. I am
1106
afraid that troubles come however skilled our policy is in trying to avoid them. We are always running into unforeseen difficulties. I feel that the people of the generation who will have to face the troubles of the future—those of them who think about the matter—are willing to join the Armed Services and face up to what may not have been as glamorous a life as existed in the days of the North-West Frontier, but, nevertheless, is a worthwhile life.
I have been enormously encouraged by visiting the university air squadrons and finding that for every young man that we take into them we have to reject none. I think I indicated that the Army, too, was receiving some real inquiries for the new types of commissions that are being offered to young men who are willing to make a career in the armed forces. May I say at this point that whereas it may not attract young people into the forces, the wage of a young unmarried soldier under this scheme is a very major advance on what he was getting before. If pay is satisfactory once a man has joined the armed forces, a larger number than the 50 per cent. who re-engage at the moment will, we hope, stay on, and re-engagement rates will increase. Thus, the hard core of trained men in the armed forces will be built up at comparatively small expense. I hope that I have made myself reasonably clear on the military salary question, which is a tricky one.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for what he has said. He said that he would attempt to clarify this point and he has made a very gallant attempt to do so. I must admit that it is as clear as mud to me. He told us all about the x factor, but he did not tell us about the L.I. factor—that is my "Lack of Intelligence" factor. I will have private tuition from the noble Lord at another time.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Earl has had private tuition from me on the subject already. I can go no further until the job evaluation has been carried out, and until we finish this particular operation. We hope to finish the evaluation by the end of this month, and we are hoping to get the £30 million allocated by the end of February so that the computer can be "fed" in March. That is roughly the time scale.

1107
Let us hope that the computer does not let us down. I think I have covered all the military points made by the noble Earl, but may I turn for a moment to Service attachés. Before doing so, I would say that the point of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is very interesting and will doubtless be noted by my right honourable friend; I will bring it to his attention.
However, more generally, since the publication of the Duncan Report, officials have been working on the assumptions and criteria which will form the basis of a comprehensive review of all the Service attaché and adviser posts and of the complement of the British Defence Staff in Washington. Service attachés perform important functions in liaison work, in the gathering of information and in facilitating the sale of British defence equipment. The essential question is to what extent it is no longer necessary to perform all these functions on the scale which has hitherto been accepted as right. The review will provide the Government with an accurate indication of future requirements in this field and of any changes that may need to be made in the light of defence priorities.
That is a rather careful statement on the lines upon which the official committee will be working. What noble Lords have said will doubtless be considered by the committee. In view of the pressing business that still lies before the House, I hope that the House will accept that I have done my best to inform noble Lords, and if I have not been able to satisfy them I hope they will forgive me. But, once again, may I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate for the constructive attitude shown by noble Lords towards the problems which we on both sides are facing in ensuring that, within the limitations of finance and manpower, we get the best defence forces we can to serve us in the 'seventies.
LORD BOURNE: My Lords, before the noble Lord completes his winding up of the debate, I wonder whether he could give me a reply to my question about the Reserves. Can he say whether the character and duration of war, particularly of conventional war, have been reconsidered, and whether the Government have had second thoughts and, con-
1108
sequently, whether there is any need for reserves as in a good many other nations in NATO?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I was in fact reproved by one noble Lord for using the word "philosophy". The point is that we are moving from a situation, the only situation open to us, of immediate nuclear response to an enemy attack, to a position where we have bought some time and are able to respond more flexibly to a threatened attack or a minor incursion across into allied territory. I do not think we have yet reached the point where reserves in the—what shall I say?—conditions of the 'thirties are applicable to our present needs. This is, however, a most important subject of defence theory, and perhaps might be better discussed in a full-blooded Defence debate, rather than in a debate on these Orders.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AIR FORCE ACT 1955 (CONTINUATION) ORDER 1969
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Air Force Act 1955 (Continuation) Order 1969, laid before the House on 28th October last, be approved.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROBLEMS OF SOUTH-WEST ENGLAND
5.14 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the need to keep under review the problems of the South-West. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is with no little diffidence that I rise to ask the Question standing in my name on the Paper to-day, mainly because there are so many noble Lords who are more competent than I to do so. I am glad to see some of their names on the list. When the enormity of what I had done hit me, I made a thorough examination of my conscience and came up with the answer that the motivation for what I was doing was one of the most loathsome of human failings, in that, speaking region-wise, I had a most colossal chip on

1109
my shoulder. In your Lordships' House we have heard discussed the problems of the North-West, the North-East, Wales, Scotland—every week—and East Anglia, but never heretofore those of the South-West.
A couple of months ago I left the depths of darkest Devon to visit a couple of your Lordships North of the Border—I see one of them here this afternoon. I went up the East side of the country and came down the West, and there was not a sign, not a sniff, of a motorway until one reached North of Bristol. And what a nice complex they have in South Wales! In Scotland (I do not know whether or not they were boasting about how good they were at extracting from the central Government) they led me astray with the colossal amount they were able to get for roads, compared with those of us in the depths of the South-West. Perhaps it is somewhat our own fault. I was brought up to understand that the definition of "a gentleman" was a chap who considered other people's feelings at all times. I think that heretofore we have been far too gentlemanly. It is now time that we made some vulgar noises.
Owing to the form which this discussion is taking I shall not be allowed to speak at its conclusion, so I should like, if I may, to thank the noble Lords who have come along to support me in putting this Question to-day. I cannot of course refer to them all, but I think that a couple of ex-Ministers are very kind to condescend to come along. The noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, who was on the C.L.A. Committee for the South-West Region, which produced an excellent report and had long and intricate discussions with the Economic Planning Council for the South-West, should have a valuable contribution to make. The noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, is very forgiving, because in 1941 I was a young company commander and I had my company billeted in his house; I had an officers' mess in his agent's house. Then we went away to the war in the Middle East, and when I came back I heard that he had had to pull the place down. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton, is to make his maiden speech to-day. Your Lordships should not be misled by his natural humility, for he is a valued member of the North Devon community, a justice of the peace, with large
1110
land-owning and woodland interests and expertise especially on forestry.
Hardly anyone can discuss the area in which he lives and works without declaring an interest of sorts, and I hereby declare mine. I am a member of the National Farmers' Union, an official of the C.L.A.; I own farmland in Devon and land in Somerset. My family no longer have land in Cornwall; we have married five times in the last hundred years into Dorset. I think that that more or less covers most of the far South-West. My last but one Territorial Army appointment, before our rulers decided that reserves were no longer necessary, was as deputy-brigade commander of the South-West Brigade Group, which took me from Somerset to Land's End.
My Lords, what is the South-West region? Going back to the area I have just mentioned, which was that of the 43rd Wessex Division, it came its far East as Berkshire, and included Oxford, Wiltshire. Hampshire and Gloucestershire. The Government's South-West, as per their tome, is mainly Gloucester, Somerset, Dorset, Devon and Cornwall. My South-West would be the old Kingdom of Dummonia plus the latter Kingdom of Wessex. That gives us roughly, I suppose, a line from Southampton to Bristol. Before I go on further with a definition of the region, it may interest those who have not studied their atlases recently to be reminded that the Eastern part of Devon is as close to Land's End as it is to Hyde Park Corner. Many people, I am sure, do not realise that.
Our problems come under many headings. The most important are the three main headings on which we in the South-West depend: agriculture, tourism and the extractive industries. Talking about the problems of the South-West, I may say that I do not go along with a certain Tory politician friend of mine who said, "What! Problems of the South-West? There is only one problem in the South-West." I said. "What's that?". And he replied, "The Liberal Party". I think that our problems are of far greater substance, and I will deal with some of them. I should like to re-emphasise that my remarks are based mainly on the part of the region that I know best and on those parts in which I have what might be called a vested interest.

1111
Let me deal first with roads. If we take the map which is at the back of the Government's Green Book on roads and we draw a line across the South-West, as I have just been describing it, there will be seen the minimum amount of colour of that or any other region. In addition to that, as the South-West peninsula narrows so these minimal roads get more crowded. Not a motorway to be seen; and in any other county but Devon—and also perhaps Cornwall—the 700 miles of trunk and class I roads would not, with few exceptions, justify an "A" classification. With a few notable exceptions, all other roads should also be downgraded. It is my bet that the bureaucracy which briefs Ministers responsible on this occasion went first of all to find some sort of excuse for the country's long and continued neglect of the roads in the South-West. For over twenty years we have been hearing what is supposed to be done. So far as Devon is concerned, what have we? The Honiton bypass and the Cullompton bypass.
My Lords, this roads racket is strangling the South-West more than anything else. A "crash" programme for a motorway or dual carriageway from London to Penzance, say on the line of the A.303, A.30, A.38, joined by the promised M.5 from Bristol and the Midlands is the first priority. That should be followed by additional financial grants so that the counties can bring the minor roads up to a standard where they can be used by rural buses and milk tankers. Anything less, and we shall come to a grinding halt. I think that everybody knows about the continued rail closures in our part of the world before adequate road services had been provided, and I will not labour that point for the moment; but under every sub-heading with which I am dealing to-day there is bound to be a "moan" about road communications.
Let me illustrate how badly we in the South-West have been treated, and are being treated, by quoting just a few comparative figures. I will quote the example of the amounts spent, in the last reportable years, in the West Riding, Lancashire, Durham and Devon on major road projects. In 1965–66, the figure was £5 million in the West Riding, £2½ million in Lancashire, £2¾ million in Durham and £800,000 in Devon. In 1966–67 the
1112
comparative figures were £13 million in the West Riding, £4 million in Lancashire, £5 million in Durham, and £965,000 in Devon. In the year 1967–68 the figures were £17¼ million in the West Riding, £10 million in Lancashire, £l1 million in Durham, £2½ million in Devon. The reason why we in the South-West have been treated so badly is that Whitehall operates its road priority system on an out-of-date formula known as "E.R.R." —economic rate of return. This is wrong, because it leads to an excessive rate of concentration which is in itself expensive to the nation. An example is the London Box. Unless this system is abandoned the Government might as well close the borders of the South-West peninsula and permit travel only by buggy and stage coach.
I now come to agriculture, which is our main interest in the South-West; we are all mainly agricultural people. But, more than that, the South-West is predominantly an area of medium and small farms, a large percentage of them being owner-occupied. That can be illustrated by the fact that the C.L.A. membership in Devon is the highest for any administrative county in the country. Basically, the main problem is that over the last few years the gross income of farmers has increased by only 2½ to 3 per cent., whereas the gross expenditure has gone up by about 50 per cent. My Lords, this state of affairs cannot go on. Three of my tenants have given up the unequal struggle in the last few years. I have amalgamated, as the Government suggest, and carried on with their farms in that way. However, I do not think it is the right social answer, because I believe that it means getting rid of the first step in the farming ladder.
We in the South-West are predominantly a dairy farming area, and I would say that the first essential is that the dairy farmer should get nothing less than an increase of 2d. a gallon on milk. The next essential, of course, is roads to get our fertiliser in and our produce out. How can a farmer modernise with bulk milk supply if we have not got a road that will take a bulk milk carrier?—and most farms are on minor roads.
It is not only the small farmers who are going to the wall. In the last year six large farmers, knowing of my interests

1113
and connections in Australia, have approached me for advice (not that I am a good one to give advice) on how they could move their agricultural interests out to that part of the world. What they are worried about more than anything else seems to be the taxation side of farming. I venture to suggest that a wealth tax such as is proposed by the Labour Party, starting at even £50,000, would hit the 150-acre farm—which is not a large farm— right from the beginning. And I think that, were such a tax introduced, the exodus would then be immediate.
We have a great many problems: those of our hill farming, of cubic measures, and of people who would take our land for a hundred and one uses for which we do not think they should take it. There are present to-day many noble Lords who are experts in the agricultural side of the South-West, so I will leave it to them to dot the i's and cross the t's. But I should like just to mention a few examples of what we are up against. Of all sections of the community I believe that the dairy farmer is the hardest hit by credit restrictions and the high rate of interest. I should have thought that we must have a land bank where farmers could borrow at a reasonable rate of interest, such as the 3 per cent., or lower, in Western Germany, the 1½ per cent. in Belgium, the 1 per cent. to 3 per cent. in Italy, or the 1 per cent. to 3 per cent. in France. I confess that those are all 1966 figures. But look at the rates at which we have to borrow in this country.
In a generally depopulated area specialist enterprises like horticulture are unable to carry on, once an area like the North Devon Development Area is designated, because the farmer who has to employ a great many people in the specialised activities will lose his labour. Farmers who are unfortunate enough to earn their livings in a National Park are particularly unfortunate—and we have two well-known National Parks in Exmoor and Devon. The Biblical exhortation praising him who makes two ears of corn grow where before only one grew is to be put into reverse. In fact the Lord's Prayer for them should be re-written to read: "Give us permission this day to earn our daily bread", let alone grow it. The example of a moorland farmer who was not allowed to
1114
put in mains electricity unless he put it underground at a cost of £6,000 is, to my mind, scandalous. If the country wants amenity it should pay for it, and should not penalise the farmer who happens to live and work within the boundaries of a national park.
While on land use and amenity, we feel that the Government should get their priorities right and make certain that productive farm land is never used for roads, reservoirs and so on, even though some of these parks are beloved of a very small minority, if there is any alternative. Flooding people's land and homes is indefensible in these circumstances. On this subject, I have declared my interest and am speaking as a farmer in this day and age and as of now. However, I must say that from 1980 onwards the authorities must really look to desalinisation and barrages instead of to the more traditional type reservoirs which takes agricultural or national park land, with the accompanying tribal warfare which will probably put the noble Lord. Lord Foot, on one side of the fence and myself on the other in our part of the world.
In all aspects for farmers' communications are vital, and they have been scandalously neglected. Given good road and rail services we could get our produce out. As it is we are hampered. North Devon particularly has need of a new main link road and no more rail closures. Recently it has been reported that cattle transported by rail from that area face a 50 per cent. increase in charges. "Take it or leave it", seems to be the attitude of British Rail. I think it should be repeated ad nauseam that the industry has been forced by successive Governments to use the benefits accruing from increased efficiency to offset cost increases, most of which are due to the Government failing to control inflation. In 1968–69 farm income was in real terms only one half per cent. higher than in 1954–55, whereas net output was up by 45 per cent.
We are small farmers in the South-West, and I think we should remain so. In social terms the amalgamation scheme is a questionable step. The trouble is, I confess, that some of the small farmers, especially since the recent pay increase, are getting a smaller take-home wage than their men. I know that speaking farm-wise it is certainly so in my case. Perhaps

1115
we could make ourselves slightly more viable by cashing in on the tourist industry. I know some of my tenants do. Government taxation policy over recent years has made it increasingly difficult to get any money from the borrowing point of view, and it is now more expensive than ever.
Perhaps I might finish on the agricultural scene so far as I am concerned by saying that it seems to me that farmers and soldiers are only appreciated in time of peril and the rest of the time we have to battle against the inertia of the rest of the country. Perhaps your Lordships know the story of the Dartmoor farmer who at the end of the last war had saved a bit of money. He was an old bachelor. He went to his builder in Tavistock and said, "Look, George, come out and build us one of these 'ere pull and let go's. I'm getting a bit fed up with going down the garden path in winter." This chap built it for him. He only had one near relative, a niece who was married to a city slicker in Plymouth; she used to come and visit uncle once a year. When she came he said "My dear, you know about these things. You go down and see if it's all right". When she came back she said, "Yes, everything is lovely uncle. There's only one thing, there's no lavatory brush, but don't you worry, when I get back to Plymouth I'll send you up one." A year passed and she came again, and she said, "Uncle, didn't you get that lavatory brush I sent up?" He said, "Oh yes, my dear; I tried it for a while but I found it a bit rough, so I went back to the Western Morning News."
That brings me to the Press. I think we have some of the best provincial Press, so there is nothing to worry about there. Under the same heading as agriculture might come the fishing industry, and the Western Morning News recently had an article entitled "Devon crabbers' war". One irate fisherman commented:
"What a state of affairs! We have to keep 12 miles off France but they creep in six miles off Devon. Why don't they come right in—they could get free teeth and medication, and if they haven't got any fish from our waters, perhaps we could give them National Assistance as well".
Seriously, my Lords, we should protect this industry from losing their gear and
1116
having their pots fouled. May I suggest that in this House your Lordships have the answer. Could not the admiral of the Brixham Trawlerman's Race Association, who is none other than the Captain of the Yeoman of the Guard, lead his combined forces out to protect this industry in which we know he has such an interest? Perhaps he could change his uniform every eight bells.
I come now to the holiday industry. The West Coast of Somerset and the South Coast of Dorset and both coasts of Cornwall and Devon are the biggest holiday areas in the country: one-fifth of all United Kingdom holiday expenditure goes there. I do not want to labour the point too much, but if there is one factor which has depressed the holiday industry more than anything else it is the incidence of S.E.T. What was meant to divert labour from service to productive industries might work well in Walsall and Birmingham but it is plain lunacy in Torquay. One medium-sized hotel I know of had an extra £2,000 to find when the last increment was made, so they cut down service and sacked some of the staff. But there are no local industries to which these people can go. So what do they do? They go on to the employment exchange, National Assistance benefits and so on. In a proper accounting system I do not think this pays, especially in that part of the world. Our local industries are few and far between, and those there are, like Centrax in Newton Abbot, seem to be at the moment on strike or else laying off men as well.
The South West Travel Association, which covers Devon, Somerset, Dorset and Cornwall, have produced an annual report for 1968–69 which highlights the effect of things like British Rail closing the Swanage-Wareham line and the 10 per cent. Saturday surcharge on fares. The latter is surely the meanest thing one industry could do to another in the same country. Day return first-class has been abolished. Carpark fees at Exeter Station have gone up 33⅓ per cent.; and booking fees are practically double. I do not think they do anything to help the holiday trade. Worst of all is the increasing difficulty of travelling by car. More and more people are crying off, or so we are led to believe, because of the Exeter By-pass and Telegraph Hill

1117
snarl-up, bottlenecks which have been national headlines for twenty years, and getting worse.
I am glad to hear the Tories say that they will abolish S.E.T., but I am always dubious about any taxes being abolished by any Government. One of our local stories which was going the rounds was of a garage which was mainly employed in repairing heavy agriculture machinery which was paying the S.E.T. in full; it was next door to another factory which was making plastic Dartmoor pixies and gnomes and which was receiving the bonus.
I come now to the extracting industries. This is a subject in which I have an interest, but I feel that with such an expert as the noble Lord, Lord Arwyn, in your Lordships' House there is no need for me to go into details. My interest is purely from sand and stone, which I have in both Devon and Somerset. The clay industry is a most important industry to both Devon and Cornwall. Now there is a resuscitation of the mining industry. There are many hindrances, especially in the South-West, to this mining resuscitation. First of all, there is the inability to acquire tenure of land owing to the mineral rights position not being certain and the landowners being put in a position where it would not pay them to let the land because of betterment levy and capital gains tax. May I quote one case of which I know? An owner refused to allow an operating company to have an extension, as he would have had, as the rules then stood, to find £15,000. He said that it would have been much easier to lose £3,000 a year, taxed at the highest rate, than try to find £15,000. Your Lordships may remember that I asked the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, a Question on the subject, which he later kindly answered satisfactorily by letter.
Secondly, local authorities, generally speaking, are unfamiliar with mining and tend to fight shy even of discussing something that they know little about. Moreover, in Devon the area of geological interest is around the edge of Dartmoor, and the amenity societies are, generally speaking, vociferous against any mining at all. Thirdly, taxation is too severe for a high risk, high investment industry to consider developing in the area. Depletion allowance for income tax and reduction in tax during the early part
1118
of the mine's life is essential to allow the recovery cost of investment and prospecting. Fourthly, as there is no general policy on minerals there is no help which an operator can obtain from Government sources. The Institute of Geological Science exists, but the staff are not mining people. I look forward to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Arwyn, on this subject.
Before leaving the extractive industries, I should like to mention the ball clay industry with which my family have had a long connection, although we have no financial interest. The first ball clay came from our area. By 1785 the tonnage shipped—this all from the small port of Teignmouth—was already 10,000 tons; by 1949 it was 73,000 tons, and by 1968 it was 330,000 tons. Shipments are made everywhere: to Finland, Greece, the Lebanon, Israel and Egypt, arid by trans-shipment in Holland all over the world. This is all done through the port of Teignmouth.
Is this not a success story and would it not be good Government policy to follow the old military precept of reinforcing success? That could easily be done in this case by making Teignmouth into a harbour into which something larger than small coasters, which can get in only at high tide, could go and so cut down on the cost of transshipment. If the road between Kingsteignton and Teignmouth were improved, again it would help this industry. One plan is to improve the area at the same time as increasing the amount of beach that is available for the holiday industry. That would kill two birds with the same stone. I may add here that if the Plymouth area had been given the same development status as Cornwall, as suggested by Professor Tress and reinforced by the Hunt Committee's Report, the clay industry there could have greatly assisted prosperity in that area.
The general economic situation in large areas of the South-West is not healthy. Away from the coastal and tourist areas the villages are dying, whereas many of the coastal areas, owing to the introduction of S.E.T., suffer from large seasonal unemployment. There is also a large measure of hidden unemployment and under-employment compared with the rest of the country, though the households have to carry the average weight of rates

1119
and taxes. North Devon, for example, has now been made a development area, but I cannot see that that will really be effective unless there is a good dual carriageway, spur link road, and the ceasing of railway closures. Moreover, why was the Okehampton area left out? Without the Service camps on the edge of Dartmoor, it could be in a poor way economically.
The whole of this area cannot grow at the moment because of the lack of adequate water, sewerage and roads. The rest of Devon can be, and is being, helped by the Board of Trade with industrial development certificates. The holiday industry is going through a bad period because of S.E.T., and the amount of run-down is concealed (this applies all over our area) by the large influx of people who come into the area to retire. That brings other problems which are peculiar to our part of the world. The increasing number of old people who are getting poorer and poorer as the value of their savings decreases through inflation, and the increasing number of young people who are leaving the area, creates an unbalanced society, both in structure and age. The local community cannot be expected to go on bearing the cost of carrying this increasing burden. It is estimated that the elderly population of Devon increases by many thousands a year, by reason of old people coming there to retire. What happens is that the husband dies and leaves a widow; the savings are not enough to carry on with, and we get this increasing geriatric problem.
Statistically, the area as a whole is slightly phoney, because Bristol and the Gloucestershire area, where they have a higher standard of pay, makes our position seem a little better than it really is. The Western Morning News recently displayed a couple of headlines. One read:
"October Jobless Highest Post-war Figure".
The figure for the region was then 35,583, and I have explained how that is a little out of balance. Another heading from the same paper said:
"£6 million State aids for jobs, but one for West. Protest by Dunwoody."
I should like to use those two headlines to explain why I think it is important for us to consider the South-West to-day.
1120
Only three days ago in another place an announcement was made that there were more jobless elsewhere. I do not believe it. Yesterday, there was announced a record figure of persons jobless in our part of the world: in Ilfracombe alone it is up to over 11 per cent., and in Bideford it is up to 5·4 per cent. I should like to know whether the areas to which this money has been allocated by the Government have a higher rate of unemployment percentagewise than that.
We are the Cinderella of the United Kingdom. I think this can be proved by official statistics relative to Government assistance in development areas. If the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, would refer to Appendix 2 of the Ninth Annual Report of the Board of Trade for the year ended March 31, 1969, I think he will get the answers: that in each of the three years examined the numbers wholly unemployed in the South-Western Development Area were higher than in any other development area, being 4 per cent. in 1967, 4·6 per cent. in 1968 and 4·7 per cent. in 1969. For the period April. 1960, to March, 1969, the South-Western Development Area had 1·6 per cent. of the total spent on new development, whereas the percentage of population was 3·6 per cent. This, I think, compares with the Northern, Merseyside, Welsh and Scottish Development Areas.
I quote these figures only to reinforce my main point; namely, that we are the Cinderella, that we have been the Cinderella for too long, and that it is about time that the situation was changed. A recent economic and social survey on North Devon, sub-titled "Rural Depopulation" has suggested a sort of Highlands and Islands Development Board for North Cornwall, North Devon and West Somerset. Have the Government any views on that suggestion? Has the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who lives in that part of Somerset?
My Lords, I leave the economic side and, just for a moment, come to the question of law and order, the matter of the police. The main problem of the police in the South-West can best be illustrated by a quotation from Autocar in 1962, under the heading "A Western Canute". It said:
"If there is one job I would not have it is that of Chief Constable of Devon. His summer traffic problem is appalling."

1121
That was seven years ago. As we have the most neglected-by-Government roads in the country it follows that the police traffic problem is the most intractable in the country. That is bad enough in the winter, but what about the summer? Our police force area, now Devon and Cornwall, has a population of about 1¼ million, and every summer 7½ million people take a holiday in the South-West. We reckon that one in five of all holidaymakers come to the South-West and that one in ten come to Devon; and the level of car ownership among the holidaymakers is 65 per cent., compared to 45 per cent. elsewhere.
The whole of the peninsula is dotted with holiday resorts, all of which must be policed, allowing no possibility of reinforcements from one part of the area to the other. Should adequate recruiting be permitted by the Government, the answer would be to have a mobile reserve which could be sent to reinforce the hard-pressed summer resorts. But when will the Government permit adequate recruiting? To emphasise the recruiting problem, I may say that the reduction of police working hours from 42 to 40 per week will necessitate another 100 men to maintain even the present level of policing. But, my Lords, crime apart, traffic is hell; and even if the modest plans of the Green Book are carried out, will things be any easier? The answer is "No", unless corresponding improvements of roads within Devon and Cornwall are also carried out. When it rains in the season the holidaymaker just gets into his car and drives round and round in ever-decreasing circles. Unfortunately for us residents, he does not meet the end portrayed in the Rugby club rhyme that somebody wrote.
Crime itself gives the defeated police force no respite. From 21,000 reported cases in 1963, the number rose to 29,000 in 1968. In 1965 seven persons were prosecuted for dangerous drug offences; last year the number was 103. Over the years there has been a 700 per cent. increase in disorderly conduct in Torbay, compared to a 50 per cent. increase of police. And so one could go on. One improvement for which we can thank the Government is the decrease in the number of escapes from Dartmoor Prison since the Mountbatten Report: only
three have occurred this year. But I
1122
ask your Lordships to visualise the extra strain on the police forces when the worst of the country's criminals escape in a local area, and of course, the extra cost to the locality involved. The problems under this heading could be solved eventually if more finance were made available; and that would enable us to sleep more soundly in our beds.
But, my Lords, as always nowadays, our troubles, or most of them, seem to come back to the neglect of our roads. An immediate motorway from London to Penzance joined by a Midlands motorway, as planned, is the minimum requirement. The recent police planned holiday routes had one major effect in that we local yokels can no longer get about in the lanes which heretofore have been our summer lifelines.
I was going to mention the Services, but I think I will leave that out, except to say that we in Plymouth, particularly, are very anxious that the dockyard is riot run down. We are very frightened that, with the abolition of the aircraft carriers it might be. Also, we in Devon and Cornwall believe that we have always produced the best sailors and the best pirates, and we are rather annoyed that the C.-in-C., Plymouth, was downgraded.
To end, I should like to make just a couple of remarks on the countryside and local government. If I were speaking from a personal and entirely selfish point of view I should dig a metaphorical moat around my own particular county and allow in only those of your Lordships who would come and keep me company for a bit of sailing, shooting, fishing, hiking or whatever it is. However, I recognise that that would be a selfish attitude, and neither right nor fair to the rest of the population. Basically, if land has to be found for new roads, new towns, and new reservoirs, then the land taken must be the least valuable land from an agricultural point of view. The beauty of the English agricultural counties— and there is none more beautiful in the whole world—is due to the work of the landowner and farmer, and his men, over the centuries. The trees in their clumps, and on the hillsides, that I now enjoy were planted for me by my great-grandfather. Would that those I am planting now could be enjoyed by my son, let alone my grandson!

1123
I personally feel that we have far too many organisations and petty bodies telling us what to do and what not to do. One example is that of a friend of mine who bought a place near us. He found an old design of the place and he started to cut down trees here and plant trees there. Along came a local official who asked him, "What are you doing?" When he replied, "I am only trying to make it more like Capability Brown intended", the answer he received was, Who is he?" I have another example, a local one, of what happens when the planners run riot—as they often seem to me to do. For twelve years we have fought to get the Chudleigh bypass from the A.38 put to the North of the town, where the agricultural land is not so valuable as that to the South. We won that battle, only to read in the papers a week later that they are now planning to increase this village of 2,000-odd people to 10,000. And where are they going to put them? On the very land that we have saved from being a bypass. Consequently, we are not particularly enamoured of too many planners.
My interests, as I have shown, are in and of the countryside, and when we are discussing the South-West we are discussing mainly, I think, the countryside. It will therefore come as no surprise to your Lordships to hear that I am not enamoured of the Maud Report. I think that we are lucky in that we have county councils slanted towards the rural population—but that situation will not necessarily last for ever. Before finishing. I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that when we were discussing in this House the Torbay Order, one argument I used was that the Government should not go ahead with the Order, because we should wait for the Maud Report. That argument was laughed out of court. I find it rather interesting, or ironical, that that argument which was then laughed out of court is now being used by the Government as an excuse for their constituency boundary—but I will not use the word. To summarise, I am of the opinion that the South-West has got the dirty end of the stick, whether it be in agriculture, development area treatment, taxation or mining. The experience of other regions suggests that they complain more and get more, and the object
1124
of my exercise to-day has been to do a little more complaining in the hope of redressing the balance in the future.
5.58 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, it is a great honour to have been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, to take part in what is now a marathon debate upon an Unstarred Question. The honour to me is more so because, after hearing him, I must confess to him that I live 40 miles the Edinburgh side of Bristol, which I suppose is a very long way from where the noble Lord and many of his colleagues live. Your Lordships will have noted that the noble Lord is wearing a Wessex tie that seems to be of some original design. It is not in fact an original design, but it is indeed the tie of the Wessex Division to which he referred. There are a good many noble Lords who could come to your Lordships' House "armed"—if that were allowed— by that tie, and no doubt the honorary leader would be the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, who is sitting next to the noble Lord. The wearers of that tie in five or six years' time will require the Government, of whatever political colour, to do something about the implementation of the Report which is the subject of the noble Lord's Unstarred Question.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, as a loyal supporter of his Party and Prima Minister, I am certain will be keen to see that this country goes into the European Economic Community, into the Common Market. All three Parties are united in that view, but some of us are keener than others, and if we can see that there is advantage to the country as a whole we shall be very keen indeed. At present the only advantage that I can definitely see of joining the E.E.C. will be that £500 million to £600 million will be spent by the English housewife towards supporting one agriculture policy or another in Europe. That is because of the levy principle. The temperate foodstuffs that we require in order to keep up our standard of living will have to support that amount of levy. It will not be spent in this country; it will be spent in Europe. Many of us on the C.L.A.—and I have the honour of being a member of the committee to which the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, referred—are firmly of the opinion that the more temperate foodstuffs that can he produced in our own

1125
country, the less will be the amount of levy that will go overseas to Europe. If prices of food must increase, why not keep the results of those price increases at home? Governments of various political colours have ways and means enough of taxing that money back into the Exchequer, but abroad it would be lost.
The reason I introduce this subject is that there will be a levy system if we join the Common Market, and although it is operating with almost embarrassing success so far as their own agricultural interests are concerned, there are no doubt "nuts and bolts" problems which might be lessened by the noble Lord's Party and by others. This would be of help to the Common Market people if negotiations were got going to allow us in. The levy system will mean that dumping of livestock products and horticultural products, in particular, which are of special interest to the South-West region, will not be possible during glut market times. If that dumping is not possible, the market prices will rise and agriculture in the South-West region will be at the benefit end, instead of at the "dog-and-stick" end as we tend to be at present when dumping takes place.
Many of us believe that the present system of price support is out-dated and that a levy system should be gradually brought in to tie in with the Common Market system if we join them. If that is done, there will be little wrong with the price structure of the livestock products and horticultural products, which are creating such a problem within the region and which mean that the earnings of the region are considerably lower than those of the industrial regions elsewhere in the country. A small unit increase on agricultural products means a very large increase in prosperity for the agricultural industry within the region.
The noble Lord, Lord Clifford, mentioned the taxation system of the agricultural industry in relation to the system in the E.E.C. countries. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and his Government pay good lip service to prosperous agriculture and so forth, but how, by its very nature, can agriculture survive against competition by such dumping as is happening now and against the levy system if we join, if there are all the effects of the capital gains tax and estate duty in particular—making for smaller units instead of bigger units which Her Majesty's
1126
Government purport to support—and also the betterment levy? Many of us agree with the noble Lord, that a completely new system of taxation peculiar to the agricultural industry alone should be developed, as indeed has been done in Europe in those countries which will no doubt one day be our immediate competitors.
The noble Lord has mentioned the service industry. There are more people employed in the service industry and the construction industry in the South West region than in any other region in the country. The noble Lord also mentioned S.E.T., which causes more hardship, not only to employees but to employers in the service industry, than any other financial measure which this Government have introduced. If that tax were removed the problems of the hotel and catering industry would not disappear overnight, but they would be alleviated to an enormous degree. Furthermore those old people who wish to find part-time jobs would be able to find them far more easily but for the effect of the S.E.T.
As is brought out in paragraphs 68 and 69 of the Report, the holiday and tourist industry in the South-West region is in a difficult position. Less money is being spent on holidays at home. Perhaps this year the position will be reversed, but every further difficulty which is put on to the industry makes it harder to stop currency from going out of the country for holidays abroad. The industry is encouraged to make itself attractive to visitors from abroad. It must be one of the only industries which, to a very large extent, can earn foreign currency without previously having bought its raw materials from another country; in particular, from a dollar source. Why in the world the hotel and catering industry in all its branches cannot be treated taxation-wise, grant-wise and in every other way on exactly the same footing as a manufacturing industry is beyond the ken of almost all of us in the South-West region, and certainly those in the hotel and catering trade.
We are low on industrial population, and there is a reason for that. Obviously, there is not so much industry, but there are something like 408,000 people employed in all classifications of manufacturing industry. But the industry which is prospering is modern industry and

1127
industry which employs relatively small numbers of people. That trend is going to spread all over the country and all over the world. Production industry, manufacturing industry, is getting out of date. The machine and automation will take over to a very large extent. It is the service industry, the construction industry, and all that goes with it which is the industry of the future. Anything that the present Government or any future Government can do to foster something which is not a manufacturing industry must be of benefit to the people who are working now, or who will seek jobs in years to come, and it will be of benefit in particular to the South-West region.
The noble Lord, Lord Clifford. mentioned roads, and there are expert Members of your Lordships' House who will speak specifically on that subject; but we believe that the spine road is essential, and money spent on it will help to solve many of the problems which are expounded in the Report. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will say, quite rightly, that the cash is not available. My Lords, what is there to prevent the imposition of a toll on whatever route the noble Lord and others consider it necessary? Why cannot we have toll roads, so that if people wish to spend five shillings, or whatever the sum may be, and have a quick and easy trip, they may do so, whereas if they do not wish to do so they can go on the minor roads and the by-ways? We already have one of the greatest modern bridges in the world—we share this honour with the North Country and Scotland—the Severn Bridge, and I understand that the toll figures for that bridge are such that it is paying its way far better than had ever been expected.
The problem of old people is dealt with in this Report at great length, and with much sympathy, and there is no doubt that the population in the South-West Region is older than the average in the rest of the country. But that does not present an altogether true picture. The birthrate of the younger people there, of the families already there, is level and equal to that in the rest of the country.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Hear, hear!
EARL BATHURST: The noble Earl says, "Hear, hear!" That is perfectly
1128
true, and some assistance is being given to those figures, no doubt. But the reason is that, while there is good education in the South-West Region—probably as good facilities as exist anywhere outside London—the jobs are not available. so the younger people tend to move out. But even if the jobs are available, there are no means of getting to those jobs or back home again. Moreover, the sort of people who will work at them, the younger people, wish to have some sort of entertainment in the evenings or weekends. Yet there is no public transport to enable them to attend that entertainment.
Practically all our motor-bus system in the South-West region is run by rather quaint-sounding and very patriotically-named companies. In fact, as the noble Lord well knows, they are all under a British Transport subsidiary of one sort or another. One can admire British Transport's aims and objects, to provide a service, and we can sympathise with the extraordinary problems they face in rural areas. But do they really try to serve the small communities, the villages and the outposts which the noble Lord and ourselves are describing? I should like to see the brakes taken off the ordinary person in this respect. Why cannot anyone— of course he must be of good character and repute—run a minibus or his own car for hire and reward, under certain conditions laid down by all the controlling factors in connection with passenger transport at this present time? At present, people cannot get to the railway station from a village, or from the bus station to the railway station, except by taxi—at vast expense. Would it not be possible for a rural taxi proprietor to have a special concession in some way or another? That was the view which some of us put forward; but, of course, it is not referred to in the Report, although the problem which I believe it would solve is referred to at great length.
As to the provision of jobs in rural areas, almost all our villages are especially quaint, preserved, of historic interest, or in one category or another which practically precludes development. We should like to see more positive planning put forward in these areas— with, I admit, great discretion—where it is considered necessary for provision to

1129
be made for jobs, so that the countryside is not despoiled. I believe that it can be done by proper planning; but it is difficult to attract light industry into these areas so that extra jobs can be obtained by the very people who are moving out, as the noble Lord has mentioned.
All these problems are referred to in this Report, and I should like to give credit to Professor Tress, the first chairman, and in particular to Mrs. Humphries, the Secretary of the Committee who drew up this Report, who is a most remarkable woman. She worked as nobody has worked before to produce the Report, and to make it such a constructive document. I would also thank all those members of the Committee who worked so hard to produce this document. Their hands, however, were very considerably tied behind their backs. All these problems which the noble Lord has mentioned, and which I have mentioned—agricultural prices; S.E.T. and industrial treatment, so far as taxation for the tourist trade is concerned; the roads, which the noble Lord has mentioned; the bus services and positive planning in rural areas—are matters of national policy; they do not come within the orbit of the South-West Regional Planning Committee. I do not believe that the noble Lord opposite and his Party will be able to loosen the restrictions on the policies that are required in order to solve these problems which we have mentioned. If they can, they will receive all the credit due. But I do not believe that they will be able to do so, simply because it is not national policy that is tying the region but, the dogma of the Socialist Party, of which the noble Lord is a member.
6.16 p.m.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I rise for the first time in your Lordships' House. It is with pride and honour that I follow a long line of ancestors who have had the honour and privilege of being Members of your Lordships' House from the 13th century. As is the custom in your Lordships' House, I declare my interest, as other Members have done, as a landowner, farmer and forester. The South-West of England, which we are discussing this evening, is, like the rest of our nation, changing very fast, and I believe for the better. However, my con-
1130
cern on this occasion is with the two primary producing industries—that of farming and of forestry.
As to agriculture in the West Country, I should like to draw attention to two factors which give some cause for concern. In my opinion there is at present a lack of the necessary confidence. For the future, we lack a long-term plan. This makes it impossible for the farmer to know what best to produce, and we have the position of one product being very popular one year and another the next. If only long-term prices could be fixed against costs over a longer period than one year, I am sure that it would be to our advantage and would give us that confidence and stability which are needed.
Secondly, livestock play an important part in West Country farming. The dairy cattle produce the nation's milk; there is the rearing of beef on the poorer land; and, thirdly, there is the raising of stock, especially pedigree stock. I pay tribute to the two local breeds, the North Devon cattle, which produce beef—which I myself believe is second to none—and the South Devon cattle, which are used as dual-purpose cattle. Both breeds are exported. In this connection, we are experiencing extreme difficulties in the eradication of brucellosis. Due to the regulations here there is to be a restriction on the free movement of animals between breeders, and with this in mind I would appeal to the Government to try to speed up their scheme and get this disease wiped out. I believe it has been suggested in farming circles that this could be done area by area, and I feel that the South-West peninsula would be an ideal area in which to start.
Turning to forestry, I would point out that the South-West peninsula has an ideal climate, wet and suitable for growing conifers. These grow extremely fast and well, and already large areas have been planted throughout the South-West. These areas are increasing yearly as land which is uneconomical for agriculture is being planted with trees. This, I believe, is in the best interests of the forestry industry and should be encouraged, since there are still large areas of land unsuitable and uneconomic for farming. I believe that it might be possible to have some encouragement in the form of grants on these new lands planted. With

1131
this also in mind, and with the increase in the volume of timber coming out of the forests, now and in the future, I believe that some form of pulpmill or chipboard mill situated in the middle of the West Country, preferably further westward, should be contemplated. One of our weaknesses in the South-West peninsula at present is the long distances and expensive transport needed to take our supplies to the present markets further up the country.
Secondly—and this is a very important thing in forestry—the wages, which as your Lordships know are controlled by the Agricultural Wages Board, have risen at least 53s. since 1967. These have had to be paid by the forestry industry without the compensating increase given by the Annual Price Review for agriculture. I know that there has been very little increase in the price of timber sold since the war. To conclude, I believe that agriculture and forestry should go more hand in hand and should not be forgotten in discussing the future of the South-West.
6.22 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, who has made an excellent and well-informed speech. I can say from personal knowledge that he is regarded in the West as an absolutely first-class landlord and agriculturist. I take greater pleasure in congratulating him because his grandfather was my godfather. I must apologise to the House that I shall not be able to stay until the end of the debate, because I am due to take the chair at a charity meeting in less than a quarter of an hour. For that reason I shall be brief.
Many of my points have already been covered by other noble Lords, but there is one thing that I should like to reiterate. It is that communications are the only thing that can bring real prosperity to the South-West. I speak mainly for Devon, but this applies also to parts of Somerset and Cornwall. There is no good railway going farther than Exeter; and branch lines all over the area have been abolished. That has driven all the traffic on to the roads—and the roads are lamentable. We hear about a motorway going to Exeter; but that is a long
1132
way off, and it is a very long way from Exeter to Penzance.
An outstanding feature of the West Country is the magnificent port of Plymouth. I very much question whether enough has been done to develop that town as an industrial area. In the day,, when we had a bigger Navy the Naval Dockyard absorbed the local labour; but nowadays big business is not going down to Plymouth as it should. Good roads and an improved railway would go a long way towards helping that. The other feature of the peninsular is on the North side, the Bristol Channel where the high ground goes up to the sea in many places. There are few ports: Bridgwater, Bideford, and Padstow—that is about the lot. There is not much development from the sea to be had on that side. Also, the hills go up to the sea and this makes good beaches rare—and on those good beaches bathing is more hazardous than it is on the South Coast because of the suck of the tide up the Bristol Channel. This, as I learned to my terror on at least one occasion, makes bathing most hazardous.
The development of the tourist industry presents difficulties. Until you get to South Devon, there is not much scope for the big glossy-type hotel. The small intimate one is much more suited to the neighbourhood and money for developing that type of hotel is hard to come by. There are grants to be had, but those grants are not paid until the money has been spent. In these days it is very difficult to get money from the banks for the extension of an hotel merely on the prospect of being able to repay it if and when a grant comes along. Making North Devon a development area has not really done the area very much good.
A certain amount of light industry has been developed; but there has always been some light industry there. Its development now has attracted labour away from the farms, and there is one conspicuous case where a very large market gardening and nursery business has had to close down entirely because all the men were going away either into local light industry or further East where they thought prospects were better. Farming is very much held up by want of suitable labour in the South-West. Many of these farms, as we have heard, are family farms and as the owner or tenant gets older he probably finds that he cannot

1133
get around so well as he could; the rest of the family have gone off elsewhere; and that is doing fanning no good over large areas. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, said, the development of forestry in the less productive areas seems to be the answer.
In South Devon there is undoubtedly considerable scope for the tourist industry if only communications could be made a good deal better. Climate plays a part, and the climate in South Devon is definitely equable and suitable for people who go there in the winter. But the climate in North Devon is much harder and winter resorts there would be more difficult to develop. Also, the proximity of the mountainous country to the sea makes it difficult to find congenial occupation in other fields of sport in North Devon in the winter. I would conclude by again congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Clinton.
6.30 p.m.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, it is with some diffidence that I follow the previous four speakers in this debate, all of whom hold such distinguished and ancient West Country names. I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, who obviously is able to bring to your Lordships' House very expert knowledge in the field of agriculture and forestry. I should like to thank him for his contribution to our debate. I am not going to attempt to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, and try to review all the manifold problems which beset the West Country; though I was glad that he recognised that the Liberal Party is one of them. As one who has, I hope, made some modest contribution to exacerbating the problem presented by the Liberal Party in the past, may I assure him, and I hope that he will take it from me, that this problem of the Liberal Party in the West Country is likely to become more intractable and more tiresome as time goes by.
I also do not feel able to follow the noble Lord in the way he approached the problems and difficulties of the South-West, because, as I understood him, he was attributing most of them to the neglect or wickedness of this or preceding Governments. I do not share that point of view. I think that the problems—and they are very real—which beset us in the South-West arise not from any
1134
wickedness or ineptitude on the part of Governments but from the nature of the area. This morning I looked at the Maud Report to pick out certain particulars and figures about the South-Western area. As your Lordships will know, the Maud Report proposes that there should be a South-Western Province which would extend from Land's End up to Gloucester and as far, I think, as Bournemouth in the South. I looked at the figures of the population and the square mileage of the area and I think that they disclose and identify the problems of the South-West.
The population figure for this proposed South-Western Province is some 4 million. The square mileage is not far short of 10,000. Those figures contrast dramatically with the figures for all the other proposed Provinces given in the Maud Report, apart from the South-East, which stands out by itself. May I take, by way of comparison (I do not want to weary your Lordships with a lot of figures and these are the only ones with which I shall trouble you) the figures for the North-Western Province, where we find that the proposed square mileage is something like 5,500 and the population figure is close on 7 million. Therefore if you compare the South-Western Province with the North-Western Province you find that the South-Western Province is almost twice as big in area but has a population of not much more than half as much. It seems to me that it is figures of this kind which identify the problems with which the South-West is faced, because our problems arise fundamentally from the size and shape of the district and from its geographical relation to the rest of the country.
I should like to try to illustrate to your Lordships how it is that the size and shape of this area create our problems for us. First, its shape and size results in its not being a homogeneous area. The distances within the area are enormous. For example, the distance from Land's End to the North of Gloucestershire is roughly comparable, I believe, to the distance from London to the Scottish Border. That is the length of the area with which we are trying to deal as a single unit. Not only is it shaped like that and is it of that extent, but it cannot really be said in any common-sense way that there is any identity of interest between people living in Bristol and people living in Cornwall, or between people in Plymouth

1135
and those in Swindon. There is no sort of identity of interest between these extreme ends of the region. Indeed, I would say that Devon and Cornwall are a quite distinct entity in the South-West and have problems and difficulties of a kind which are quite different in general from those presenting themselves in the area as a whole.
The only real point of identity of interest between Devon and Cornwall and the rest of the South-Western Province or region is simply an interest in having a right of way by good communications up into the North country and up to London. That really is the only interest that we have in what planning is done in the counties of Somerset, Wiltshire, Dorset and Gloucestershire. That is the second reason why we have these particular problems. The third reason is, as I said just now, the extreme isolation of Devon and Cornwall from the rest of the country. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, who quoted the figures of comparative distances between Land's End and the eastern border of Devon and the eastern border of Devon and London. It is further from Land's End to the eastern border of Devon than it is from the eastern border of Devon to London. That is an illustration of the peculiar problems which arise in this area and which will arise and be with us for a long time, whatever sort of Government are in power and whatever measures may be taken to try to alleviate them. I hope, therefore, and it is my wish, that when we are considering the South-West we shall not ask for special preferential treatment; but rather that we shall ask that the Government and those in authority should realise that we need different treatment; and that in particular the problems confronting the extreme South-West of Devon and Cornwall are not necessarily at all of the same nature as those that trouble the rest of the region.
The particular problem to which I wish to draw attention is this. Everybody is agreed that the first difficulty and problem besetting the South-West is that of communications. I agree that it is only when we get an adequate system of road communications that we shall be able to see the economic and industrial development which we all want to see, par-
1136
ticularly in Devon and Cornwall. But this question of the improvement of communications has another aspect. One of the other great interests of the West Country, particularly in Devon and Cornwall, is tourism and holidaymaking. In Devon and Cornwall, and partly in Somerset, we have two National Parks and a vast coastline which is the great magnet for holiday visitors every summer. After agriculture, and, I should have thought, possibly in economic terms before agriculture, tourism is the biggest industry in Devon and Cornwall.
As we improve the communications—and improve them we must—and as we open up this new spine road from the Midlands down into the heart of Devon, use will be made of it not only by people for economic and industrial purposes, but also by the holidaymaker. And what will follow in the wake of the opening of that road will be an increasing invasion of the West Country by the holidaymaker—that is to say, the motorised holidaymaker —and already in the West Country, in looking after the National Parks and these holiday areas, we are confronted with the problem of being choked up by the motor car. This is a grave problem, particularly in the Dartmoor National Park.lb/>
The dilemma is that if people pour into these areas in great numbers in their motor cars, spreading all over them, they will destroy the very thing which they go to see; that is, the natural beauty of the countryside, its isolation and so on. We are in that dilemma already, but once you open up a great spine road which will make it possible for people from the great populated Midlands to descend upon Dartmoor and Cornwall in their millions, and be able to reach the West Country within two hours of leaving their Midland homes, then you will be confronted with a problem of considerable magnitude. That is one of the things that I think we have to anticipate.
If I may say so, when I first read the way in which the noble Lord had phrased his Question:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the need to keep under review the problems of the South-West",
I thought that, on the face of it, it was a little naive in its expression. I thought that we might get from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, when he came to reply to

1137
the debate, the simple answer, "Yes". But I am not at all sure that the Question is not rather well framed, because it seems to me that the problem of the invasion by tourists, with which we are already confronted in the West Country, will become an increasingly urgent problem and one that Her Majesty's Government should keep under review; indeed that they should be taking what steps can be taken to try to anticipate the difficulties which it will create.
6.43 p.m.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, as the first speaker in this debate from this side of the House I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clinton. When we hear sincere speeches of the quality of his speech, made by one who is an expert on the subject, one wonders what inducement we could offer to a noble Lord of this calibre to attend the House more frequently. I should not have liked to miss this debate, and I wish to thank the noble Lord for the scope of his questions. I am going to speak chiefly of problems affecting Cornwall. We have heard about the problems of Wales and Scotland, but seldom about the third of the Celtic fringes which bind this island. I have lived in Cornwall twice as long as I have lived in Wales, and I therefore claim on this occasion to be a Cornish Welshman and not a Welsh Cornishman. I agree with Lord Foot's description of the difference between Cornwall and Devon and the rest of the country, especially in a political sense.
The Question before your Lordships' House is whether the Government
"are aware of the need to keep under review the problems of the South-West."
If our telepathic faculties were greatly developed we should, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, suggested, hear a great shout of, "Yes" from all Government Departments, and perhaps from many Ministers. But using a different wavelength, we should hear the Cornish: "Me dears, down West yon, we be thinking zum different." Thank goodness! my wife is not present, as she is Cornish, and I am sure she would question my accent.
It is true that an affirmative could be accepted, with few qualifications, from some Ministers, but not from others. For instance, we have been appealing for
1138
over twenty years for a more enlightened policy to encourage base metal mining. At last I hope there is a ray of light, now that the Ministry of Technology have taken over the responsibility for base metal mining. Twenty years is a long time for any industry to feel frustrated. There are several other matters which fall within the scope of this Question, and I will leave that one to the last.
Human nature being what it is, negotiations with any Ministry can vary according to the nature, the training and the experience of the people involved. We are also further handicapped by the fact that too many Ministries each have some degree of control over one industry. We have the same trouble with trade unions. The Fulton Report will, I hope, provide greater facility for fitting pegs in the right holes, so far as the Civil Service is concerned. It is extremely frustrating for an industrialist to explain his views to the technically illiterate, who are often charming people but who are obliged to become sublimely evasive. If I may use a term which a noble Lord used yesterday, they use "figleaf language". There are others, especially in the Board of Trade whose attitude is helped by the fact that they are familiar with specialised vocabularies. I had one delightful experience recently. Not only did this official understand our problem, but he was technically very literate. This, together with natural charm, altered the whole picture. He was not hidebound by Departmental philosophy; he was eager to solve our problem, and he did. The setting up of the Parliamentary Commissioner's Office, and its further expansion, is an event to be welcomed by the dedicated civil servant, as well as by his counterpart in industry. The hindrance to better understanding is the natural bureaucrat in both spheres whose life is bound by the rule book. In order to bring the millennium nearer for all those who carry the can, and for all who strive in political life to achieve a better existence, and who are frustrated by the machinations of all who misuse power, I should like to see your Lordships' House become known as "the House of the Ombudsmen". I suggest that the very first Ombudsmen were the Barons who extracted Magna Carta from that patron saint of bureaucracy, King John. My historical knowledge is rather sparse, I

1139
admit, but that is how I look at it; and every time the itch to air the idea comes over me it becomes more convincing. Now that I have aired it, I find no remorse. The idea, you will find, is one that grows on one.
Perhaps that feeling of fruitlessness, and even of masquerade, which we sometimes feel will disappear. We shall no longer make careful but futile speeches. So many are masterpieces of prose, and the time spent in preparing them and in their delivery is very precious. Secretly, and very cautiously, I have tried out this idea of the House of Ombudsmen on the few top men I know in Government service and industry. The first reaction was a chuckle, and then a roar of approval. When getting down to the question of how to do it, I admit that we got bogged; but if any idea is sound, it is only a question of time before it is accepted. If it were accepted, we could then say that the House of Lords is amply justified. In your Lordships' House at the present time we are wasting precious assets. We have a galaxy of experience and talent which would be hard to match anywhere. We do not have to look over our shoulders and wonder what we have done or said that will affect our majorities. Our scope is not confined to a parochial constituency; we can discuss regions. Some weeding out will be necessary, we know that; but to be proclaimed as the modern inheritors of those who stuck their necks out at Runnymede will be sufficient to inspire us to safeguard democracy against Communism or any other bureaucratic control system.
The noble Lord, Lord' Clifford of Chudleigh, quoted an example of bureaucracy in the case of a farmer who was deprived of his rights to obtain electricity unless he paid £6,000. You may rightly ask, "Why this outburst?" It is the result of a rapidly growing feeling by those of us who live on the fringes of this Island. There is a strong resentment from the years of frustration. We educate our young people, and they have to leave their homes in order to earn that which their training and ability justifies. They help to cram even more the overflowing industrial towns. No wonder we feel second-class citizens, and no wonder we are joining organisations which it will
1140
be hard to disperse! Regional government may be the solution, but it is already too late for any further justification of the ostrich tactics which Whitehall found so good in the past.
My Lords, I think it is fair that I should now confine my observations more within the scope of the Question. Our object is to develop such industries in the South-West as to stop migration and, later, to provide for those who want to escape from the present overcrowded industrial areas. First we pray for the continuation of the Board of Trade's and local government's excellent efforts to bring light industry down to the West Country. I have the greatest admiration for the senior officers who have done so much good work. But we are fast catching up with a snag in maximising this type of development, and I should like to deal with this snag now as part of my first observation. It is the problem of transport, and I wish to suggest a short time solution to bridge the next ten years.
One of the big handicaps in developing the maximum light industry, for instance, in the South-West is communication, a matter which has already been referred to earlier. Many of the companies now setting up extra factories in Cornwall complain bitterly about the time it takes to travel to the West Country from the industrial Midlands and London. where their main factories are situated. One of the most disgraceful acts of bureaucracy posing as efficiency experts was the dismantling of our railway system, especially in Cornwall and Devon. It will be 10 years, 15 years or maybe 20 years before we see a 115-mile motorway from Exeter to Penzance, and it will cost at least £115 million if it is put in now—at least £1 million per mile.
Recently I had occasion to talk with one of the managers of B.E.A. Helicopters, and we began to play around with figures and times. First, we found that the time to fly a helicopter from Exeter Airport to Penzance is 53 minutes precisely. It takes over three and a quarter hours by through train and more by nerve-wracking travel over narrow roads, especially in the summer. Two Sikorsky helicopters would cost, with spares and amortisation. over £1½ million.

1141
The running cost per annum would enable passengers to make the return journey for £12 per head on a 60 per cent. loading. This would be paid usually by business executives: the money would not come from their own pockets, but their time would be very precious. The machines would enable the business executive to leave Birmingham or London, change to a helicopter in Exeter, do six hours work in his Cornish factory, and be back the same night, all for the capital cost of less than two miles of motorway. B.E.A. Helicopters pioneered the service to the Scillies and it is a success. Why cannot they be encouraged to expand it to Exeter? Or are we to wait ten years for adequate roads? The helicopter has been proved ideal for this country. I have been able to use it myself on occasion. Small and medium-sized businesses, however, cannot afford the cost, as any big industrialist can.
My second observation is about the need to establish a polytechnic college in Cornwall instead of adding to the size of the one set up in Plymouth. This would be in line with the 50 per cent. increase we expect by 1981. There are strong reasons why a polytechnical college should be established in Cornwall. Educational facilities are an important consideration for industrialists, in addition to rapidity of communication. During 1968, 14 new firms started production. In addition, 11 firms have decided to establish undertakings, and six of them have factories under construction. Seven firms already established have proposed extensive expansions. I mentioned these figures under this observation to emphasise my admiration for the work done earlier by the Board of Trade and by local authorities. This means a rate of expansion which we have reason to believe will not only continue but increase.
There is already an established nucleus of higher education. We have the new Cornwall Technical College, the Cam-borne School of Mines, which has a very high international reputation—if not the highest reputation. There is the Falmouth School of Art, and I think they have a National Diploma course, and a St. Luke's outpost. The conditions are very favourable for the siting, staffing and housing of a high-standard polytechnic.
1142
This suggestion might be considered too early at the moment, but in twelve months' time the picture will be different. What we want to avoid is a hasty scramble when the need becomes not only obvious but urgent. The Department of Education and Science is another Ministry who have gone a long way to help Cornwall, and they still do so, and they keep the need for a polytechnic for Cornwall as part of their programme.
My next point is to draw as much attention as possible to the South-West's ideal position in catering for the need of our youth to satisfy their inborn urge to indulge in trials of the kind which increase their self-respect. They must have an outlet for their energy and one they can respect. The country which can treat this increasing need as of major importance will emerge as one of the major leaders of the future, and the most respected leader. The coasts of Devon and Cornwall can provide all the adventurous sailing anyone can experience. Sailing, either alone or with a crew, arouses the best in one. I would call it one of the most cleansing exercises and I bracket it with climbing. We have splendid estuaries, of which the Fal is world-famous. We have the moors where there are sites for all sorts of adventure camps to suit all ages. This problem of diverting energy and providing leisure occupation is a growing one, and its importance is not yet assessed.
The next subject is one which affects the one I have just mentioned and is the last subject, which is mining. I ask the Government to keep under review their priorities when judging the claims of the more vociferous members of amenity preservation organisations. It is quite true that these people can produce dangerous reactions from others of us who have different priorities. First, we must earn our wealth from the earth before we can enjoy any glorious views. Compared with the need to promote economical security, the claims of a small minority can be of very secondary importance. We have to provide work, and adequate relief from its boredom, in the computer age which lies ahead by ample facilities for leisure. Of these, work comes first. We shall have to decide whether winning the metals on Dartmoor, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, for instance, has a higher priority than its use by the

1143
Army or as a holy sanctuary for minorities, and thus contribute nothing to the national economy.
Too many people are jumping on this bandwaggon in the South-West. There must be an overriding priority. The accusation that industry does not care about despoiling the countryside was very true in the last century—there was plenty of it within three miles of my home. That accusation is no longer true. Neither is the one which accuses the industrialist of being profit mad, of having thoughts only for his shareholders. To-day we have different priorities. We are first responsible for the welfare of all the men and their families within our organisation. Time after time we hear of this consciousness in speeches by those involved in industry in your Lordships' House. There are too many suspect interests involved in this emotional powder keg, and the effect of these continual explosions, whether justified or not, must be minimised.
I come now to my old grouse: the development of our base metal industry, especially tin—the subject of my maiden speech on March 18, 1965, and pursued in detail and in various ways and speeches ever since during the last four years. I speak on behalf of professional organisations and mining companies of the highest standing and of international reputation. My first involvement was in 1937, some 32 years ago, as President of the Institute of Cornish Mining Engineers. I became involved again immediately after the last War. The first Cornish Mineral Development Association's Memorandum of Policy was addressed to the Government in August, 1948. The bombardment has continued and been increased by the Cornish Chamber of Mines, the Cornish Institute of Engineers and the Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, besides the efforts of individual international mining companies and mining journals throughout the world; articles on the subject have been written all over the world. We also had a Mineral Development Committee's Report in 1949. I was a member of the Committee.
The fight has always been with the Treasury. All we ask for is that base metal mining risks should be treated here as in other mining countries. We were
1144
accused of seeking a "tax holiday". These two words have stuck in the gizzards of all of us who are connected with mining. They imply that we seek total relief from taxes for producing priority minerals for industry which can be bought from other countries. It is a distortion of the truth. All we seek is a mitigation of high initial risks, the terms to be comparable with those of other countries. It will not cost the country one penny more than it does now. I want to emphasise this because we have been accused in a snide way of seeking some favours which we are not entitled to. In your Lordships' House I could not use language strong enough to express my own views about it.
Let us now examine the risk run by a mining company and compare it with that incurred by, say, a machine tool company. First of all, the mineral has to be located at varying depths, down to 2,000 ft. This means expensive geophysical and geochemical surveys and the investigation of all geological characteristics from records and reports, and then diamond drilling starts. It is a very expensive operation. This can take three years and easily cost half a million pounds for a moderate set of mines. Then the shaft is sunk and cross cuts are driven to the lode. The whole period between prospecting and production will take some eight to ten years and will cost around £5 million before it is certain that it is a profitable venture. If it is not, it will take at least another year of expensive diamond drilling to prove that it is; otherwise, the whole of the £5 million is lost and perhaps another £1 million as well.
Has anyone at any time ever succeeded in selling a hole in the ground—just a hole, lined as it might be with concrete and reinforced with steel? It is not only the shaft and its equipment which cost money. From the bottom of the shaft extensive tunnelling in solid rock has cost a huge sum. If the mine fails, there is a whole series of holes to sell, plus special machinery and equipment of little, if any, use but for scrap. I emphasise the words "if the mine fails". I should not like to tell your Lordships the number of failures I have seen in my life.
There will be for ever a demand for minerals and the men to find and win

1145
them. So far as we can see, there will also be a long-time demand for machine tools. But here the risk is one of management in assessing the supply and demand and then producing, at a competitive price, an efficient tool. The great difference lies after the machine tool manufacturer has made his market survey. He builds a factory and equips it with modern machinery, all valued at, say, £5 million, in one year. If he fails—and it might be solely due to market conditions, or bad management, which may not be foreseen—he still has the factory and equipment, both valuable assets and readily saleable. They are real, tangible, saleable assets; not holes in the ground. But if the machine tool company is situated in a development area the manufacturer can claim, while the grants exist, a 40 per cent. investment grant, and therefore his very saleable factory costing £5 million has been built and equipped for £3 million, although as a realisable asset it may be worth Over £5 million.
The mining company also have their prospecting, drilling, shaft sinking and development costs cut to £3 million, because they also enjoy the 40 per cent. investment grant in a development area. But if they fail, all they have to sell are holes which can be partly proved only after a year's production. This is a high risk capital. Machine tool production, which I have taken as an example, like other industries outside mining, is not a high risk. Yet both enjoy the same 40 per cent. grant.
I referred in my maiden speech in March, 1965, to the Prime Minister's brilliant analysis of the position in base metal mining in a speech in another place in 1961. I do not think for one moment he altered his mind about the analysis, but I realise that some time might elapse before the effects of some eight Ministries who had their hands in the pie could be eliminated. Now it has been done. The Ministry of Technology are responsible for the development of base metal mining. The first essential step has been taken, to be followed soon by the second essential step in the proposed legislation on mineral rights, which should solve some of the prospecting problems referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. I hope that at last we shall be able to start on investigations to precede nego-
1146
tiations on incentives needed for a longterm programme and comparable with those existing in other base metal mining countries. The Ministry of Technology can rely upon the utmost and enthusiastic co-operation from those who know that the development of the industry is one of the greatest importance to our economy. I have been asked to state that very definitely in your Lordships' House.
The terms need careful negotiation, and there should be no reference to the 40 per cent. investment grant being comparable with terms long established in other countries. That 40 per cent. can vanish overnight once other industries reduce the unemployment figures. We want to build a permanent base metal mining industry to attract redundant mining labour from all over the country, not only to solve our own labour problems but to help to reduce others and to safeguard vital base metal supplies.
We are now producing some 1,500 tons of tin per annum, and we in this country use over 20,000 tons per annum which we buy from other countries that could become politically unstable in less than ten years. And if that happened where should we be? We could develop tin production in Cornwall to 6,000 to 7,000 tons, but it will take time to bring mines into production. I have not made any assessment of other minerals, such as copper and wolfram, all of which we buy from overseas. It is therefore essential that we base our incentives on a twenty-year programme.
My Lords, I hope that a new dawn is now approaching and that the Ministry of Technology will achieve that which others have failed to do. The first two important steps have been taken, and I hope that it will not take long. Time is not on our side. Before I sit down,, I should like to declare that I have no financial interest in tin mining, either as a shareholder or as any kind of adviser. The same applies to any other industry which might be concerned with the suggestions I have made. I am concerned only with the future welfare not only of Cornish people but of our country as an economic unity.
7.14 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, we must all be grateful to the noble Lord,

1147
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, for having introduced this subject to-day in such a wide-ranging and interesting speech. He said that he was once in my house which subsequently had to be pulled down. I think this was typical—he was in a unit called the Northumberland Fusiliers, whose nickname was the "Fighting Fifth". He said that in his speech he would make vulgar noises. In fact, he did not make any vulgar noises, but he lived up to his soubriquet of the "Fighting Fifth".
I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, on such a very good maiden speech. It was short—something that I have never been able to achieve. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton, is a large landowner in Devonshire and there is no one better qualified to speak on Devonshire and its problems. He really knows about farming and forestry there, and we hope that he will address us again on many occasions.
If I may, I should like to refer once more to the Report of the South-West Economic Planning Council. Nobody has yet quoted its title, A Region with a Future. I believe it is important that we should not forget that that is the conclusion they came to. This Report, I may say, was produced in March, 1967. Another Report which is of great interest was the Report of the National Parks Commission on the coasts of South-West England. This was produced as a result of a conference in July, 1966. Time is running on, my Lords, and many of the figures and statistics in these Reports are now getting out of date.
It is interesting to see which figures are getting out of date and which are not. The figures that are increasing are those of the population, and the number of motor cars and tourists. The figures that are decreasing are those relating to the amount of land still left, either for agriculture or its natural purposes, or for amenity. The figure that remains constant is the area of the region—9,000 square miles. This is an enormous region, larger than the whole of Wales. And this surely poses the problem very fairly: how do we develop this vast region, which is larger than the whole of Wales, so that we can produce work and standards of living for the people living in the region, comparable with those in other parts of the country, with-
1148
out destroying what in the long term may be its greatest asset, its amenity value? The competing demands of residents, tourism, industry and mineral exploitation create the problem with which we are faced. It is easier to state this problem than to suggest a solution to it. Many a politician starts off his speech by stating a problem very clearly but he finds it difficult to solve it.
However, before I state the problem I should like to go back to this Report and very gently take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, because in a way I believe that his Question could almost have been phrased:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the need to keep under review the problems of the far South-West".
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, also made the point that this is a region that is far too large to talk about as a whole or in terms of averages. Those who prepared this Report realised this and they divided the region into four sub-areas. The Eastern end of this region and the Western end are utterly dissimilar and need utterly different treatment. One always has tremendous suspicion about averages and statistics, and about mathematics. If you take the temperature of the North Pole and that of the Equator, and then add them together and divide them by two, I suppose that you have the average temperature of the world; but it really does not do you much good. If you take the population and industry in the Bristol area and then that in the middle of Dartmoor, add them together and divide them by two you likewise have an average which is meaningless. I do not think that point can be overstressed.
Despite the lateness of the hour, I should like to ask your Lordships to look at Appendix 4 in this Report, which is an interesting one, on the population of this area. We see from this that the population has continued to rise until in 1961 (the latest figure we have) it had reached 3½ million, but as a percentage of the population of the country the figure continues to fall. Whereas in 1821 the population of the South-West was 14 per cent. of the whole country, in 1961 it was only 7 per cent. The absolute numbers are rising but the percentage of the country as a whole is falling all the time. I think that is most

1149
interesting. If you go through the figures given in those regions— although it is much too late to go into figures now—you will see that this is borne out all the way as you go further from the East to the West. Of the employed population in manufacturing industry, 38 per cent. is in the Northern region, 26 per cent. in the Central region, 22 per cent. in the Southern region, until you get down to 13 per cent. in the far Western region. And only 5 per cent. of the manufacturing employment as a whole in the region is in this far Western sub-region.
Therefore it is difficult to talk about this region as a whole, for it really falls into two halves. You could draw a line from Gloucester in the North down to Poole and Bournemouth on the English Channel and call that your Eastern boundary, and your Western boundary would be somewhere like Minehead to Exeter. In your Eastern region just think what you have. You have Bristol, the eighth largest city in the country, the Gloucester-Cheltenham complex, Bath, two universities, Avonmouth, the Severn-side development, one of the most exciting things that has ever happened; it has not yet happened but it is beginning to happen, and we are tremendously looking forward to the Severnside Report. You have what I may call old Bristol, with its aircraft, tobacco, paper and shoe industries, and you have what I might call new Bristol, out on the Channel side, with its oil-based chemical industry, its gas-oil industry, and I.C.I. and Fisons. It is all laid out and all brand-new. You have this complex of roads coming in from the Midlands and London. Whether or not we get the new port at Portbury, we at least have a bridge being built over the Avon at Avonmouth. There we extend the whole strip that goes down to Portishead and beyond, and you will not have to go up to Bristol to go further West. This is an exciting and interesting part of the world. I would suggest that this area running from Gloucester and Cheltenham out to Swindon, the new town, North Wiltshire, North Somerset down as far as Avonmouth and Portishead, Bristol, is perhaps one of the most exciting developments in England, perhaps in Europe.
Therefore, you cannot talk in the same language of this area, of this great region, as you can of the far more remote areas, the culm measures around Barnstaple
1150
or the moorland areas and so on. I do not think I need stress the point any more, but it is an interesting one and I commend the Report of Professor Tress to people who are interested in this problem of the development of the South-West, because as he divides his Report up into these regions you see how the character changes and how very important the distinctions are.
I live in the Eastern area—on the Mendips, which is quite close to Bristol. That is my centre of gravity, although with other things with which I am connected I go right out to the Scilly Islands. I have to deal with the Duchy of Cornwall and other things which take me through the whole region. But I live on the Mendips, and "Mendips" is of course "mine dips". We have been mining there since Roman times: lead, zinc—perhaps we will find nickel, I do not know. We had some coal, but not much is mined now. North of that, on this new Severnside development and all round this area, we are not going to reconstruct some tumbledown relic of 19th century laissez-faire mismanagement. We do not have back-to-back house slums to pull down or old factory chimneys, with the smoke and grime and bitterness and past troubles to wash out. We are starting on a virgin site, and the people are going to live in a carefully preserved Green Belt roundabout it. The Cotswolds of the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, are just behind on the higher ground, and I am sure they will be most carefully preserved. My own country, the Mendips, is now an area of special beauty.
We have a great problem. We are not mining lead now, but we are extracting limestone. The limestone from the Mendip Hills is going out as far as Kent; it is going on roads all over England. I believe our region produces something like 20 per cent. of the road stone for the whole country; that is about 10 million tons, and something like 7½ million tons are coming from the Mendips. Yet we have somehow or other to keep that an area of natural beauty, and I think we are doing so.
As you move down the slope further West to the foot of the Mendips, you suddenly come on perhaps the most wonderful mediæval gem that still exists in England, the Cathedral City of Wells, a quite tiny city which is surely an

1151
educational and cultural and touristic centre. This is what makes one feel that the Maud approach may not be so far off, because it would be quite wrong if the worthy citizens of Wells had to look for rateable value—that awful phrase—by trying to get industry into that little city. Industry is already in the surrounding cities which are small industrial towns; Street, where they make shoes, Shepton Mallet, where they make Bahycham; Keynsham and North Radstock, where they used to mine coal. That is why those unpopular fellows, the planners, are so important to-day, and we must back them up. This is where the industry should go while we try to preserve in the middle somewhere where we can shop, somewhere the tourists can go and see, somewhere which is worth preserving, and in this struggle for extra rateable value we must not try to turn the whole thing into something else.
What a city like Wells needs above all else is a by-pass. But we cannot afford it. It is absolutely useless to take all the traffic going to Penzance, and all the road stone going all over the place, through a little tiny high street in a small cathedral city—because it is not a big industrial city which can have a great by-pass round the side. This is a problem we must tackle and I think it will be tackled. As we go further West a little (I hope that your Lordships will bear with me for one moment) we see that an important and interesting thing is happening in that part of the country which I know so well, the centre of Somerset. Many people do not realise that, other than East Anglia, the centre of Somerset is the largest peat area in the country, and that the whole of this area was under water from Roman times. Then there occurred one of the great tidal surges. Down under the peat, and before you get to the blue clay, you often find Roman remains. This huge peat area is now being worked most admirably by one of the great companies, whose name one ought not to mention in this House, but its chairman is often to be seen here sitting on the Cross-Benches. He is not here at the moment. This is admirable development. This peat is being worked for the horticultural industry. Ultimately it will cover thousands of acres and. we believe, will leave a large 15 ft. hole
1152
which will fill with water to make a large recreational nature conservation reservoir (I am a waterworks director among other things) which would be most useful.
This is the kind of development that is needed in the West, in an area of great natural beauty, where it is possible to bring about industrial development without spoiling the natural habitat—in fact, almost improving it by developing the archaeology by ultimately having a recreational reservoir there and not taking any good agricultural land. This is all 30 years in the future, because peat goes slowly. But it is a place where boating and sailing could take place.
Continuing still further West, I am bound to say that, coming to the moors and to the culm measures— to Dartmoor, Exmoor and Bodmin Moor—apart from the ball clay and the tin (if that comes back again) we must surely rely on the wonderful coastline for tourism, and agriculture and forestry. I think we must have more forestry. This is a most difficult matter, because the natural forest there is the oak scrub, which is very beautiful but which does not pay. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, said, we shall have to have more conifers. Then if we are to have more conifers, we shall need a pulpmill to utilise the conifers.
Agriculture will be difficult, as it is everywhere in the country, because the area is a long way from markets. In many places upon the moors there is not the best of soil, there is a lot of rain, and the crop which must be grown there is the crop in which we are behindhand throughout England—that is, grass. Grass is the best crop of the West Country. We must learn to grow the grass and turn it, not only into milk but into beef and into sheep. In fact, we must turn it into meat as well as milk. But it must be a grass-based farming. Of that, I am quite sure. If you have a grass-based farming and forestry you can keep your rural population, and you are not inimical to tourism. The two fit in together. Grass-based agriculture and good forestry fit in together. This, I think. with fisheries and horticulture in small warm patches. like Mount's Bay, and so on. will more and more be the pattern of development there.
But, my Lords, let us remember that this, as a whole, is a region with a

1153
future. It has a great industrial future; a modern industrial future at its Eastern end, as I have tried to explain. It has a great recreational, amenity, agricultural and forestry future in the West. It is most interesting that the present Reith Lectures on the radio are about man's environment. Fraser Darling is giving those lectures now. We must learn to develop our country to-day so that we do not outrage the environment in which we live. I believe that we have great hope of doing this in the West Country. We have it all before us. To end, I would say simply that the one thing we must never do in this development of the West is to give way to short-term expediency.
7.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, of late there has been some impression that a move to restore the heptarchy is in full swing; and to-day it is a pleasure to come and support the Thane of Chudleigh (if that is a sufficiently respectful term) raising in this House the standard of Wessex, or at any rate that part of it which we have so far recovered.
I join previous speakers in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, on his speech, particularly on having chosen to mention the pulp or chipboard factory as a key factor in forestry management in that part of the country. I remember how painfully at the end of my forestry activities I struggled to find a place to take chipboard from the Devon border in the North. I delivered all the way by road to the hardboard people in North London and to the paper people at Rochester. Even then, they would not take any conifer. We are still in that position. This is a key factor.
My approach to this subject to-day is, for the whole of the Wessex region, almost entirely on one subject—roads. Almost without exception, every speaker—even those who deplore the loss of land which dual carriageways and motorways necessarily involve—has stressed the need for them. The Wessex boundary stretches from North of Cheltenham to Poole Harbour, 80 miles away from us and 100 miles in depth. So far as I understand them, the Minister's plans are to push through from London, or from somewhere nearby, strategic roads of high quality, four of them pretty well spaced evenly apart as they cross the frontier
1154
of Wessex. There are the A.40, which goes via Oxford, Cheltenham and Gloucester; the M.4, as it is to be, which I think is to start somewhere neat Kew, to go to Reading. Swindon and Bristol; the A.303, from Basingstoke, Stonehenge and Exeter; and, fourth, a road which it is harder to trace precisely at the London end, because it may branch off at Basingstoke or go down to Portsmouth and then connect up the big South Coast resorts and then, finally, reach Exeter.
All these roads will go into a motorway, the M.5, which I hope is to connect up with the M.6. Until lately there has been a great hiatus at Wolverharnpton, but I hope that the new motorway will connect with the M.6 somewhere near Birmingham, so that there will be a continuous motorway running right away through to the South-West, having its terminus at Exeter and dual-carriageways continuing thereafter down to Penzance.
I want to digress for one moment to refer to Brentford, which might become another terminal of a new and exhilarating method of transport that could possibly be of the greatest service to us in the peninsula of the South-West. I refer to the lighter-aboard ship, "Lash", or its modification, barge on board, called "Bob". I understand that the first "Lash" ship delivers its tenders, barges, in the Medway before long, and that the furthest point it can get to up-river is Aylesford. What are the prospects, I should like to ask, of this brilliant idea of distributing barges from a bigger ship all around the smaller ports of the South-West peninsula, thus saving something in roads and railways?
May I now go back to the motorway, the M.4, via Swindon to Bristol. I was going to call attention to what is obvious when you get to Bristol, but the noble Earl. Lord Waldegrave, has brilliantly expounded what is there—an area of intense development on a great scale. Nothing compares with it elsewhere in Wessex. It is the cross-motorway place; it has industrial hinterlands in Wales as well as in Wessex; it has this great arterial way. Our main traffic line these days is not with London, but with the North or the North-West. The railway comes down, and there are three nuclear power stations not far away. It is an area of power, communications, and people,

1155
without compare anywhere else in the West.
Now we turn down the motorway, as it goes along the popular kind of amenity that is Weston-super-Mare and other places, to Taunton, the small administrative capital of Somerset. There it leaves the North coast and goes down to Exeter, where it is to be met by two more dual-carriageways at Exeter. That is the last great focal point on the way down to Penzance: there is no other. Exeter is incomparably a better centre of communications than Plymouth. The Tress report suggests that Plymouth must cease to look outwards and must look inwards. Plymouth, it seems to me, is in the wrong place, while Exeter is in the right place. However, we go on with the two planned dual-carriageways, one North of Dartmoor and the other through Plymouth, meeting at Bodmin and going on in a single final carriageway to Penzance.
What does all this amount to, if and when it is done? It amounts to this, my Lords. We get in a motor car at Brentford or Kew, or whatever is the terminal of the motorway. If it is a true motorway it will be properly connected up with the M.5 at Bristol, and we shall drive comfortably in the afternoon from Brentford to Penzance in five hours—because 60 m.p.h., hour after hour, is comfortably possible in a 1,500 c.c. car—no 3-litre vehicle required. In Italy some of the lorries go at the same pace. So a motorist will be able to leave after a snack luncheon and have dinner with the pirates in Penzance at 8 o'clock. On one occasion I had to do most of the journey by night, and it took me nine hours. If I had done the whole journey it would have taken 11 hours or more. It was so difficult, such a strain, that I spent the whole of the next day and night sleeping, trying to get over it. This motorway movement is relaxing, comfortable, and involves no strain. Unless it is overcrowded—as is possible—we can hardly dream of the consequences, the effect and impact that it will have on the way people move. What American would not go from Park Lane to Penzance, stop off for the night and come back again? That is the kind of thing they like to do.
How near is this prospect, or any part of it? I have tried from my small posi-
1156
tion to find out. My most down-to-earth contact is the chief engineer of the construction unit on part of the road in Somerset, and referring to the M.5 between Bristol and Exeter and the dual carriageway onwards to Plymouth, he said: "Everything is in the pipeline. No political action, no prods at the Ministry, will hasten this by one single day or hour. Everything is in train, and I shall be very disappointed if the whole thing is not finished by 1975". That, I believe. He is a man I have known and relied on for 15 years and more, and what he says is the truth—so far as one can predict the future, of course. I would not ask confirmation from the Minister unless in transmitting this man's words to me I have got it wrong, which is always possible. But what I should like to ask is, first, how near that date will the motorway from Kew to Bristol and the connecting links upwards from Bristol to Tewkesbury and that hiatus at Wolverhampton be completed? Once that is through we shall have a stream of traffic which will come upon us; and all the traffic coming down that pipeline, if you like to call it that, will focus upon Exeter.
I find myself in entire agreement with all these plans of the Ministry. It is not so much that I find fault, as the noble Lord. Lord Clifford of Chudleiah, rightly did, with the past all the way from Dan to Beersheba; I find that a brilliant future is opening up for us in roads if they are built. I have asked the question about the motorways, and I am sure that the answer regarding the rest of the strategic ways is that they will be completed later than 1975. Can the Minister give us any sort of date such as the chief engineer gave me for these particular sections of motorway so that we may have some idea when this will be completed? I agree with what everybody has said, that communications by road are vital to any successful development of the area. It seems to me that a motorway from here to Penzance is not many years ahead, and that most of it is in the pipeline, and that some of it, unless there is some national disaster, is virtually irrevocable. The deed is virtually done, so I am looking into the future rather than complaining of the past. But knowing something of administration, I am aware how long it takes, with our procedure of public

1157
inquiries and heaven knows what, with hundreds of objectors, to get things through.
There is one omission in what I believe are the Minister's plans which saddened me, although I see the reason for it. He has not chosen to follow the recommended North Devon "strategy" road, the A.361, which runs from Taunton to Barnstaple and Bideford and all the way down the coast. I am wondering whether, as a start, some tee-off to that magnificent area of Barnstaple and Bideford—that really choice area of river estuary, sand dunes and surfing bays, which amount to a real place for an enjoyable holiday—could be made from Okehampton or Exeter. I have no interest in the place. I occasionally bathe in one of the bays, but I do not own any property. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, did not ask for it, but perhaps somebody else will support me in thinking that that area of North Devon should have one dual carriageway running from the dual carriageway that is going down, if not one from the motorway. Okehampton is the nearest spot. and I was thinking of possibly taking it up by Torrington and Bideford.
The part which invites some criticism is this. When you have got to Beersheba, what do you do? There are many A roads, and A roads are principal roads if not trunk roads. I can think of one A road in particular close to where I live—although I would not ask to have any priority given to it—where there is not only no dual carriageway but no single carriageway; there is only half a carriageway. Between Minehead and Porlock there are eight places where motor coaches cannot pass, and that is an A principal road. There are two hairpin bends, and at one part the traffic going up the hill swings into the carriageway of those coming down, while at the other end those coming down the hill swing into the other carriageway. On the other side of the village there is a hairpin bend—again, on a one-in-four hill—where half the motor coaches cannot get round on one lock.
I am not asking that anything should be done to this area. I am quite content to leave matters to our own county people, although I do not think that they will give us priority. Indeed, I entirely agree with the Minister's having by
1158
passed the A.39, the coastal road between Bridgewater and Barnstaple, because it is an utterly impossible road from an engineering point of view, and it could be spoiled. Therefore the by-passing is a most satisfactory negative in the Minister's actions. But we want something else. What. I understand happens is that the Minister contributes 75 per cent. to these A roads and the local authority contribute 25 per cent. But again and again the local authority are willing to contribute their 25 per cent. for their various schemes and cannot get the rest of the money.
Then there are the internal relief roads for some of the major towns. They are not major in any industrial sense, but they are sufficiently large to need an internal relief road. I understand that such a road is one which goes outside the town and produces internal relief. It is a kind of ring road or by-pass, as the case may be. I am informed, I believe reliably, that a reasonable improvement of these bottlenecks is not likely to occur, at the present rate of allowing county councils what they want, in the lifetime of anybody present. Therefore, I think there is going to be a thrombosis in all the veins, when the arteries are flowing swiftly and smoothly down upon them. It is a problem. I hope that the Minister can confirm dates a little better than has been done. In conclusion, may I say that there is something brilliant in the planning of our road system; something which inspires me anyway.
7.56 p.m.
LORD DIGBY: My Lords, so much ground has already been covered that I shall restrict myself to considering the problems of the South-West from the point of view of Dorset, and I am reminded of the old song, "I'm just an in-between". Officialdom does not know where to place Dorset. We were in the South-East Study, but Maud places us firmly in the South-West. The weathermen call us "Central Southern" and the Milk Marketing Board call us "Mid-Western". The I.T.A., with its policy of pleasing all people, gives us Southern, Westward and Harlech. Economically also we are in-between. We do not have the heavy industry and high employment of the Midlands, and we are not a magnet for office and light industry like the South-East, but also we do not have the

1159
fading industries and unemployment of the development areas. Dorset has a high rateable value per head of the population and an economically viable county council. We have a prosperous farming industry, prosperous light industry and prosperous market towns catering for the agricultural population and for those who wish to retire to the beauty, peace and welcome which Dorset can give them.
Is it then surprising that Dorset does not wish to be carried, kicking and screaming, into the 20th century of high-density housing and industrial giants? We feel we are already an essential part of the 20th century and are moving forward steadily to keep our economy strong. This does not mean that we want to stand still. We want to continue our steady progress, but without the traumatic effects of huge doses of industrial legislation and overspill housing. Our agriculture will continue its increase in productivity, which has outstripped industry in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Our very efficient local building industry will continue to expand to meet the necessary demand, particularly by newcomers to the district who, though not individually wealthy, have done so much to beautify and improve the housing of our villages. Finally, our light industry must continue to develop to provide employment for the young working population of the county and for those Dorsetmen who become redundant owing to the increased productivity of agriculture.
This is where I would ask the Government to help: by providing industrial development certificates for light industry. At present industry is deterred by the belief that I.D.C.s will not be available outside development areas. In fact, very few have been refused, but the belief still exists. I am not asking for a large diversion of new industry from development areas, but only for a very few firms to provide a reserve of employment. A typical firm of this type is Marglass, which came to Sherborne some years ago and draws its work force from a radius of some fifteen miles. Working on a basis of the traditional rural silk industry, they have trained local unskilled labour and have doubled their work force and trebled their output in the last three years. This firm alone puts more than £1 million per
1160
annum into the economy of Dorset by way of salaries, rates and payments for services. In particular, this type of firm provides employment for married women whose children no longer require their full-time attention, and for their sons and daughters on leaving school. A handful of such firms spread over the county would deal with Dorset's employment problem for several years. The Hunt Committee on intermediate areas recommended selective granting of I.D.C.s, and I urge the Government to reconsider their rejection of this policy and to give us the small development we require.
Another facet of industry that would be welcome in Dorset would be industrial research units which employ highly-skilled and paid scientists, engineers and technicians. The attraction to these men of being able to live and bring up their families in beautiful countryside, without the horrors of commuting, will ensure to any such establishment the best men available. The Plessey Research Unit at Templecombe is a most successful example of this, and they have found that the ease of recruiting has given them the pick of top-class men. Although only one-third of their staff are local, the spending power they bring is a very important factor.
Dorset County Council was a pioneer in local government computer development and is now operating the first of the new generation of computers. We can provide the clean air so essential for computers, and a peaceful environment to attract the highly-paid ana highly-skilled staff required. But all these developments require good communications. The county council is doing its part by acquiring and developing Hum Airport in a joint venture with Bournemouth, and I hope their enterprise will be rewarded by the establishment of this aerodrome as a gateway for the South-West. With regard to railways, the electrification of the Bournemouth line has given a boost to South and East Dorset; but it is in the realm of roads that most needs to be done. The recent Green Paper, Roads for the Future, provides for the improvement of two East/West roads, but no North /South link which is so much required to connect Dorset to the motorway system of the Midlands. This link is essential to the long-term prosperity of the county.

1161
Another area in the field of communications is causing us grave concern at the present time. I refer to the B.B.C.'s plan for broadcasting in the 1970s. Since the end of the war, the South and West of England have been admirably served by the B.B.C. Regional Broadcasting Service based in Bristol, to which we have looked for news, views and entertainment of a very high standard, entirely free from political and commercial pressure—a standard which has made the B.B.C. the envy of broadcasting services throughout the world. It is through our region that we have been able to make our voice heard at national level, and many of our programmes— "Any Questions?" and "Going for a Song". for example—have achieved great popularity and have entered the national network. Now we are told that this invaluable medium of communication is to be swept away and replaced by a few local broadcasting stations run on shoe-string budgets. The subsequent lowering of standards and usefulness which will result is little short of a disaster for communications in the South-West, and I would therefore press very strongly that the B.B.C. should look again at their policy in this respect.
Dorset is a prosperous county which needs to develop to retain its young men, on whom our future depends. At present they end up in the tourist industry, with its seasonal unemployment, or leave the county. So I ask the Government to take action on three points: first, to assure employment for our young people by granting selected I.D.C.s for light industry; secondly, to revise the Green Paper Roads for the Future to include a North/South road link; and, thirdly, to retain our regional broadcasting system, to foster the identity and pride of the South-West.
8.5 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I rise to make a few observations—and at this hour they will be very few—upon the mundane and unromantic topic of water supplies, and in particular the affairs of the North Devon Water Board. I regret to say that there is among persons engaged in the waterworks industry a widespread sense of apprehension that the procedure which is followed in this House and by the Minister in determining the powers of water undertakings is unduly protracted, involved and expensive. An
1162
application is made for powers to construct works, weeks turn into months, months turn into years and still no decision is forthcoming.
I think I can illustrate very well what happens by recounting the experience of the North Devon Water Board. May I give your Lordships a brief chronology of what happened? In 1962 the Board decided to construct a new reservoir at a place called Meldon, which is in a corner of Dartmoor—not, I think, a very beautiful corner, but a corner of Dartmoor—and that undoubtedly aroused considerable opposition and apprehension. I need not say anything about that to-night, because all that has been set to rest by the Minister's having made his Order. In 1962 the Board decided that they required further supplies of water—and indeed they did; they were about one million gallons a day short of their requirements. Accordingly, they decided that they would construct a new reservoir at Meldon. The first thing that happened was that they were refused town planning consent on the ground that the town planning authority did not like certain bore holes which had to be constructed during the course of the preparation of the site. The Board decided to appeal against that decision, and in 1964 the appeal was heard. The decision given by the Minister was in favour of the Board.
In the following year, 1965, the Minister held a local inquiry into the Board's application for an Order. The Order was objected to by, I think it was, eight societies which represented different forms of amenity, so it was quite a complicated procedure. The inquiry took place in 1965, and the Minister gave his decision in 1966. He decided to give consent for the construction of the reservoir. In 1967 the Order was laid in Parliament, and there were Petitions against it; but it was held that the Petitioners had no locus standi. When that decision was given, the Petitioners moved to annul the Order, and eventually the Order was withdrawn by the Government. The terms of the Standing Orders in your Lordships' House were then altered so as to enable the Petitioners to have a locus standi and to be heard. There was a Joint Select Committee in 1968, and they were accordingly heard. The Joint Select Committee decided to confirm the Order, but they suspended its

1163
operation for, I think, about eight or nine months. The purpose of suspending the operation of the Order was to enable an alternative site to be investigated. That was done. At the local inquiry the Minister rejected the alternative site as being too expensive; it was going to cost about £1 million more than the reservoir at Meldun and it was felt, rightly, that the expenditure on the alternative would not be justified.
I think I have said enough about the affairs of the North Devon Water Board to show that the procedures we follow can be very protracted and very delayed. Meldon is not the only place where works have been caught up in our intricate and involved procedure. There are a number of other cases in fairly recent history in which the delay in getting a decision has been protracted and involved. What I have said to-night will not, I hope, be interpreted as reflecting on anybody, least of all on the officers of the Ministry of Health or of this House.
There must be some way in which we can escape from the net of our present procedure without unnecessarily or needlessly infringing upon the rights of individuals who may be affected by our procedure here. I am not suggesting any change which should be made which would have that effect and which would perhaps shut out somebody who desired to make an objection. That does not seem to me to be necessary. But there must be some way by which we can escape from the present arrangements for our procedure, leading to a more expeditious and more effective procedure than that which we follow to-day. It may be that the Minister of Health could telescope some of these inquiries which in this case were two, but which sometimes run to three. I should have thought one would be sufficient, but I do not know. It is a matter that calls for consideration. It may be that we should make greater use of Joint Select Committees than we have been accustomed to do in the past. Again I do not commit myself; I do not know; but it seems to me a matter that ought to be investigated.
All I am going to do tonight is to invite the Minister to say that he will bring the attention of his right honourable friend to this matter and invite him to give it consideration. I hope that it may also be considered by the Lord
1164
Chairman of Committees. I hope that this may result in our existing procedure being substantially amended—at any rate amended so that decisions can be given with greater expedition than is possible at present. I hope that the Minister will give us some assurance that this matter will receive consideration.
8.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: My Lords, at this very late hour I will try to be as brief as possible. First, I should like to say how glad I am that my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh put down this Question to debate this very important part of England. I should also like to take the opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, on an admirable maiden speech. His estates and forests are a byword in the South-West of England. I know that his opinion will always be given great value in this House.
My home is in Cornwall, and it is largely of Cornwall that I am going to speak. Set right out into the sea, we have developed a unity through the ages; but what I shall say touches on a number of diverse points. This is because we are so often bewildered by the volume of Government proposals in so many fields. I must declare an interest first as a farmer and landowner, and I start with the subject of farming. Our farmers are obviously a long distance from the markets of Covent Garden, the Midlands and the North. They fear, naturally, that if we enter the Common Market we shall be further handicapped. I therefore make this plea to the Government: that they will do all they can to see that no action of theirs will directly or indirectly lead to increases in freight charges which are so costly because of our distance from the markets. Furthermore, because they cannot make up for the increased costs at each Price Review, our farmers also fear that the standards of husbandry are falling. Cornwall is a land of hedges, farm roads, ditches, gates and roofs at risk to the strong West winds. The less our higher costs are recouped the more neglect there is in this sphere.
In Cornwall last month I was at a presentation of prizes won in a competition called "Farm Buildings in the Landscape" run by the Country Landowners' Association. Farmers in Cornwall won three prizes out of the 12 awarded for the

1165
whole of England and Wales. A very good effort. In our beautiful county a proper blend of farm buildings with fields and trees needs the greatest care. Undoubtedly those prizes in Cornwall were won because there was the right choice of materials. This is an age-old problem. In the old days in Cornwall, one simply opened a quarry and got one's mason to build a farmsteading from the local materials. Nowadays it is not so easy to hide a tower silo or the sharp outlines of a grey asbestos shed. But by taking much care a great deal can be done by properly planning the site and using the right materials. I have been told, strange to say, that the right colour for a tower silo is yellow.
This is a problem; but I do not think we ought to solve it by total planning control over all farm buildings. Far better is the system of voluntary control linked with applications for grants under the Farm Improvement Scheme. Cornwall leads in the number of applications in schemes for farm amalgamations under the 1967 Act. We have a very large number of smallholdings; but on this subject I would make two points. First, the administrative work for one amalgamation scheme roughly equals the time and administrative work involved in five farm improvement schemes. The second point is that the continuing farmer, when he has bought the land from the man going out, may have spent nearly his all. It may be that there is a case here for his having recourse to a cheap form of borrowing for stocking the enlarged holding.
I now turn to the subject of minerals, which has been dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Arwyn. Here I must again declare an interest. I am a mineral owner and also the chairman of a china clay producing company. Your Lordships will all know the definition of a mine: a hole in the ground anywhere in the world with a Cornishman at the bottom of it. Cornwall is a very old mining field with a large number of rights of all sorts. A mining company operating or prospecting in Cornwall cannot expect to have the same degree of freedom as obtains in the virgin reefs of South Africa, Australia and Canada. I shall not enlarge further on that beyond saying that the present law is the very recent 1966 Act and I submit that at the
1166
moment no new legislation on this subject is necessary.
I pass to the great china clay industry —and it is a great industry. Perhaps we should call it the paper clay industry, for as well as the china in your Lordships' tea-room the glossy magazines in the Library are all coated with china clay. This industry must surely be among those that are doing their very best in the export drive. In the first nine months of the year 75·6 per cent. of our products were exported—a most magnificent record. The granite hill which, in geological parlance, forms the matrix for the clay is very near our ports in Cornwall, and I hope that no hastily thought out scheme, arising from the Government's declared intentions as to the ports, will in any way affect our industry by increasing dock charges and freight costs. It is vital to transport. this bulk cargo as cheaply as possible to compete in European and American markets. There are other sources of foreign supplies in America, Czechoslovakia and other places.
The noble Lord, Lord Arwyn, spoke about the taxation of minerals and I do not intend to go into that subject beyond saying that the depreciation allowances for the exhausting of minerals for new and long established companies are very small compared with those abroad. The 1963 Act gave small allowances which compare most unfavourably. We have not heard much to-day about the report of the Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, and about their Report I have mixed feelings. We are delighted to read in the Report that the highly distinctive character of the Cornish people is recognised; and Cornwall. with its history, traditions and geographical position, and a population of over 300,000, should be a strong and effective unitary authority. We are worried, I must confess, that if Provincial Councils are given executive powers we shall have little or no control over provincial action in Cornwall, for we should have only three votes out of 29 in the Provincial Council.
I will not talk about the wholesale slaughter of our local councils, but I will say that we are very worried at the possible loss of part of Cornwall to Plymouth. At the risk of being compared

1167
with that most famous American backwoodsman, Henry Thoreau, about whom it was written that he was worse than provincial, he was parochial, I must say that there seems no reason for the loss of Saltash, Tor Point and part of the rural district of St. Germans to Plymouth, on the other side of the River Tamar. I think that Governments should do their best to foster local loyalties which are good and, as in Cornwall, are rightly focused on our own famous counties. In the words of a former Lord Falkland (an ancestor of the noble Viscount who is about to address your Lordships' House) speaking in another place at another time, "When it is not necessary to change it is necessary not to change".
8.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT FALKLAND: My Lords, most of the problems to which I wished to draw attention concerning the South-West have already been dealt with very fully by noble Lords who have spoken before me, so I can cut out two-thirds of what I intended to say. All I seem to be left with are a few grumbles—and very old ones at that. They underline much of what noble Lords have already said. I have lived in the South-West, on and off, for more than thirty years, and for a great many of them have had an interest in the tourist trade, mostly as a boarding-house keeper or as a proprietor of a guest house, to use the more refined phraseology of the day.
I have to complain, first, about the overcrowding of the roads in the summer months. The pressing need is for a motorway down the spine of Devon and Cornwall. That is very "old hat", and your Lordships know all the pros and cons as well as I do. But perhaps one more voice crying in the automobile wilderness may do some good for the future. Tourism has become one of our chief sources of income and it is getting increasingly difficult for visitors to get there and back without delays and discomfort. As time goes on, I feel that we are up against the vast inertia and bumbling of uninspired bureaucracy, and we must have some imaginative longterm plan now or, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, we shall come to a grinding halt, in the not very distant future. At present, the only amelioration seems to be piece-
1168
meal and haphazard plans for fiddling with short stretches of road, as for instance the Honiton by-pass. These leave serious bottlenecks on either side and do little good.
I can give an example of the present frustration and delay. One day last summer I was foolish enough to try to drive from near Newton Abbot to Exeter along the new dual-carriageway, I think for some 20 miles. I was stuck for two hours before I could reach a turning to the lanes and by-ways that I know and which I should have taken. I must say, my Lords, that the newspaper men and ice cream merchants did a very good trade while we waited. I eventually arrived at my destination more dead than alive. These delays were caused by bottlenecks further North, between Exeter and the Honiton by-pass; and North of that, on the A.303 and the A.30. Much has been said and written about the A.30 and the A.38 roads and, in all fairness, priority must be given to the A.38 from Bristol to the West, since it serves a greater population: the South Devon resorts and bigger industries. This road continues into Cornwall over the Tamar Bridge and joins up with the A.30 at Bodmin. Roads in Cornwall are reasonably adequate for everyday traffic, but with the huge influx of visitors in the summer they are totally inadequate. So a first priority should be a trunk road into Cornwall, leaving intact all the side roads to the South and the North.
Another complaint I had from visitors last summer was about the "take it or leave it", "couldn't care less" attitude of many garages in Cornwall. I feel that the abolition of selective employment tax or some help, as for hotels, boardinghouses, and so on, could put this matter right. In a great many cases boardinghouses are family businesses and can give service early and very late at night. Most garages are not family concerns and cannot afford to employ staff for round-the-clock service in the same way. I myself have no complaint about garages, as I live only 35 miles from Plymouth and usually travel towards London. But visitors do not always realise that the distance from Plymouth to Penzance is 79 miles, which is a very long way to travel on crowded roads in summer, with the garages overworked and often, because of S.E.T., under-staffed.

1169
Among my friends in Devon the particular grumble is about the lack of service and the expense of the railways. lf, for instance, someone—not an important customer, by commercial standards—wishes to send flowers to London, the railways cannot say to a day or two how long it will take; and it is quicker and cheaper, and more reliable, to send them by road. When I was living in South Devon before the nationalisation of the railways, the Great Western Railway and the Southern Railway vied with each other to give good service for the conveyance of flowers to London from the point of view of both price and speed of delivery. Because of railway closures, large communities in the West have to travel long distances at unnecessary expense. My own station is a case in point. People who live in Fowey are now dependent on buses or taxis to get to St. Austell. Could not there be a "re-think" in respect of rural areas? I understand that the Western and Southern National bus companies are both applying for fare increases—and fairly substantial ones at that. And these, if granted, will cause further expense and hardship.
An air link is needed in the South-West and must be planned; but more industry is required before it can become a viable enterprise. Why not have a hovercraft service on the disused railway tracks in the meantime? That is the only original.suggestion that I have to make. Perhaps it may be worth looking at seriously. I know nothing about the likely expense—it is probably prohibitive. Another way of easing congestion on the roads would be to make more use of various ports in the West Country. Many of the huge loads carried by road could easily be water-borne and the authorities who give permission for the conveyance of these loads by road should be encouraged to look into the possibility of routing them by sea. It might be more inconvenient for a load to be sea-borne but this must be weighed against the present inconvenience caused to road users.
I see that Southampton has been selected as a container port. Plymouth has been allowed to become sadly neglected and, no doubt, could be better utilised. I also feel that, for the good of the economy, publicity should be stepped up, especially from the point of view of boarding-house keepers and the tourist
1170
trade in general. More effort to advertise the area should be made by the West Country Tourist Board. The librarian at Plymouth library has been flogging the historical interest of the area for some time now, but so far as I can this aspect has been completely ignored by the tourist agencies. Out of the large number of foreign visitors to this country each year only a very few, in proportion, visit the West. I think it important that a tour should be made of all hotels and boarding houses in Devon, Somerset and Cornwall, and a register compiled containing a full report on their advantages. The better publicity would produce a larger increase of foreign visitors and a greater turnover in cash. We have visitors from all over the United Kingdom, but it seems that these clays they are not spending the money that they did in past years.
Finally, I should like to give my three priorities which might go a long way to improving the amenities and to solving some of the more pressing problems of the South-West. First, the pollution of the rivers in Cornwall by English China Clays, Limited, and other industries should be cleared up within the next twelve months. Secondly, I urge the abolition of selective employment tax for hotels, boarding-houses and garages and, thirdly, much more use of broadcasting and television to advertise the area. In the past. the coastal scenery of North and South Cornwall has never been nationally advertised, and greater emphasis should he placed on international photographs.
8.31 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, we have had a long and interesting debate marked by many extremely worthwhile speeches. Let me say at once that everything that has been said will be studied by me when it is my business, and by other members of the Government when it is their business. Of that I can assure the House. Having said that, I think I must remark that just about half of those who have spoken have thought it worth while to remain until the end of the debate. and the number of noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and are still present is precisely equal to the number of officials who have been in the Box

1171
throughout, advising me on the answers which I could give to the questions that have been asked. I think this may be something of a record in the annals of our House, and, that being so, I take it that what remains of the House will not wish me to detain it very much longer.
The problems of the South-West were, I think, well put by the noble Lord. Lord Foot. when he said that it is a difficult shape. Of course it is. His complaint was against God rather than against the Government, and that was a relief. It is one of the promontories. and it is difficult to maintain economic life on a promontory unless that promontory happens to be on the way to somewhere else, like Kent, which makes life easier there.
I would join with those noble Lords who have already congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, on his maiden speech. I hope he will speak many times on wider topics than this. I would take up only one point in what he said, when he asked for a three-year price fix for farmers. There is much to be said for that, but I know that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture will have to bear in mind being able to change quickly if circumstances change. He will have to weigh the benefit of farmers' remaining where they are during the three-year period with the fact that they may suddenly wish they were somewhere else if world circumstances change. The Government ought to be lightfooted and ready to meet them in their difficulties.
I suppose that if one topic has dominated another in this debate it is the matter of roads, and I should like to say a few words about them. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who is unfortunately no longer with us, though he apologised to me for it, asked when the links between the South-West and the rest of the world outside would be complete. He feared that they would be completed later than the road plans in the South-West. On this nobody need have any fear. The M4 from Reading to Bristol should be completed by 1972, and the M5-M6 link, which he also mentioned, should be completed by 1972. The overall road pattern is dominated by the proposal to carry the M5 as a motorway to Exeter and beyond to motorway standards, and all things being well, this road should
1172
be complete or in an advanced stage of construction as far as Plymouth by 1975. As all those interested in the South-West will know, from Plymouth westwards to Penzance there is a programme of dual carriaging, double tracking and bypassing which is to go forward at the same time.
I think the great question mark which hangs over all this is: What about roads to North Devon? That is something that has been recommended by many of those who have studied the matter and published reports, and it has also been recommended in this debate. All those recommendations are before my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, and he is considering them at the moment. He knows well the arguments in favour of adding this to the programme.
I now turn to agriculture. It seemed to me that most of what was said about agriculture in this debate could have been said about other parts of the country. Among the difficulties raised, I was struck by the lack of special difficulties in South-Western agriculture and by the prevalence of general agricultural difficulties. So far as that is concerned. I think we might remit a general discussion of the matter to a positive debate on agriculture at a later time. As to farm credit restrictions, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, raised, I would confine my reply to the point that although you get lower interest rates on the Continent of Europe you do not get grants in the way you get them here. That is an historical difference well known to all those interested in agriculture. On the Continent they do it by special concessionary loan interest rates, and we do it by grants. It is fair to say that most noble Lords mentioned agricultural difficulties, but not one mentioned the existence of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, which is in operation for this purpose and does quite a lot of business in the South-West.
The noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, touched on the uncertainties about the Common Market, and I will say what I know he would expect me to say; namely, that it would be wrong for anybody at this stage to think that he can make even the wildest guess at what effect joining the E.E.C. will have on farm prices, farm products, food prices,

1173
subsidies, levies and the rest of it. However fast we go, we are not going to join for a great many months yet, and during these particular months—more than has been the case in any months during the last ten years, perhaps—the Community countries themselves are going to be locked in negotiations on their own farm price structure, and it would be a wise man indeed who could say what will come out of that. So there is no point in our worrying about that until we know where they have got to before the time comes when we can join them.
Several noble Lords touched on the large numbers of old people in the South-West. On this point there is only one thing of which I would remind the House. If old people choose when they retire to go and live in the South-West it is because the South-West is a very nice place to live in. One may, on the one hand, regard this as a problem, because it gives a different age balance in the population figures from that shown up in other parts of the country. On the other hand, one may regard it as an indication that the South-West is doing very well; that it is a nice area for old people to live in, and probably nice for people of all ages to live in—as we know it is.
It may, of course, throw an extra burden on the hospitals. This is a point, true enough. But, equally, the mere presence of people coming to live there provides a source of revenue and of prosperity: they buy food, and they go shopping, like anybody else; it increases rateable value and increases the population. In other words, my Lords, it is far from clear that the fact that a large number of retired people live there because they desire to do so should be regarded as a disadvantage to that part of the country: it might be regarded as an advantage. It is true that there is also a loss of young people, and a certain exodus; and that you get a top-heavy age structure in the population returns. But if young people go out, that means less for children's education, and that is a relief on the rates burden which may to a certain extent compensate for the additional burden of looking after the old people and their health.
I should like to say how interested I was by Lord Waldegrave's wise and really enthralling speech about this region, and
1174
how much I personally thought he had an imaginative grasp of the whole sweep of the problems, from the top right-hand corner to the bottom left-hand corner. It is of course of the essence of the nature of the South-West that it is divided between a very rich bit, growing like billy-ho, and the bit down on the promontory where God, not man, has created problems, but problems which man is doing his best, in the form of central, regional and local government, to resolve.
Lord Ilford touched upon the point of the history of the Meldon Reservoir. I fully take his point, for it is a subject of which I am very well aware and seized of at the moment. I know that it is the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, to promote a general debate on how proposals for reservoirs should be advanced through the machinery from local to national level. I hope that Lord Ilford will agree with me that we might defer consideration of these difficulties until we can do so in a national context in a few months' time rather than in the regional context of the South-West. I would say only this about Lord Falmouth's intervention. I do not know who told him the right colour for tower silos, but it certainly was not the recent and, I think, admirable publication by my Ministry, the Countryside Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture together, which has some useful suggestions about what colour to make tower silos. Yellow is not on the list. They favour rather darkish greys, shading off toward, very pale greys, if the silos happen to be on the skyline. But whoever told him to make his silo yellow had no Government backing.
In the long run one must look at the record of what this Government, and Governments in the past, are doing and have done about the South-West; and one must look at the record of what the Government are doing for parts of the country which have special difficulties in general. This is only one such part among others. The difficult part, economically, of the South-West—that is, the extreme South-West, as it has been called, and North Devon—is and has been for three years now a development area. This means that in that part of the region they enjoy the full benefit of the preferential payments that are made by Government to industry in order to get

1175
it to go there and not somewhere else. Generally speaking, it is around 40 per cent. paid straight out of the Government's pocket for setting the industries up. They enjoy the preferential benefit of the negative treatment given to industry in other parts of the country by the operation of I.D.C. policy, which means you get a certificate much more easily if you are ready to go to a development area, and you do not get one if you want to go somewhere else. That is an outline of the broad policy, not the intricacies and details.
Not a single noble Lord has mentioned the fact that there is at present legislation before the House of Commons, following the Hunt Report, to make Plymouth an intermediate area. As you know, intermediate areas are something half-way between development areas and the rest of the country. They get preferential benefits, but not on such a scale as the development areas. This, I hope, will do a great deal for the future development and prosperity of the City of Plymouth itself, and the parts around it.
In the long run Government should probably rest—and I know of no better thing on which to rest—upon the record of the creation of jobs directly attributable to Government policy. Here I should like to give a few figures. I should like to quote the figures of jobs created by the issue of industrial development certificates in North Devon and Cornwall—that is, the development area in the South-West; not the region as a whole, but the really difficult development area—on a preferential basis to the development area in two contrasting periods. The first period is three years, 1960 to 1963, and the second period is three years minus one month, because that is as far as we have gone: 35 months, 1966–69.
In the first period, 1960 to 1963, the total jobs created in the development area numbered 2,760. In the second period, which was one month shorter, they were 10,260. I will be the first to admit that there is a long way to go in the scale of creating economic prosperity there. I would point out to the House that in a period the mean of which is only eight
1176
years, we have increased five-fold the rate of creation of prosperity by direct Government intervention in this development area. I believe that is a good record. I know there is a long way to go, I know that there are special problems in the South-West which even some of the other development areas do not share, but on the other side of that coin I must remind the House that the general difficulties, the general level of historically-determined depression, is very much worse in some of the Northern development areas, the Scottish and Welsh development areas, than in the South-West. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, who emphasised the title of the Regional Economic Planning Council's Report. He was right to do so; it has a bright colour on the cover—he has just shown it to me—and it has a bright title upon it. The Government are with the brightness, both of the cover and the title, and will pursue the policies which are already yielding such good results down there.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
Message from the Commons: That they have appointed twelve of their Members to be joined with the Committee appointed by this House on Consolidation Bills.
  EARLY MORNING ROAD ACCIDENTS IN LONDON
  EARLY MORNING ROAD ACCIDENTS IN LONDON