Sitting of 9 March 1970

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Disabled Persons (Motor Vehicles)
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) whether he will now make the necessary regulations to allow the new three-wheeler vehicles for disabled to carry a passenger;
    (2) if he will now extend the categories of disabled to whom four-wheel vehicles can be issued.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will now make a statement about the provision of two-seater of four-seater vehicles for the disabled.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. John Dunwoody): I cannot at present add to the answer I gave in reply to a supplementary question from the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) on 15th December, 1969.—[Vol. 793, c. 904.]
    Mr. Marten: On the first of my two Questions, does not the Minister agree that companionship is one of the most important things for a disabled driver? As the new three-wheeler is quite capable of taking a passenger and also of stowing the wheelchair, why cannot he arrange this?
    On the second of my Questions, cannot the Minister make a modest start in giving an option to the 100 or so severe haemophilic cases, which would cost only about £3,000 over and above the cost of providing three-wheelers?
    Dr. Dunwoody: I can assure the hon. Member that the two points that he has raised, about companionship and an extension of the vehicle service to certain groups, are among those taken into consideration in the review that I announced on 15th December.

    Disabled People (Survey)
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he received the information relating to the Survey on the Numbers and Conditions of Disabled People; and why it has not yet been published.
    Mr. Astorasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will publish the information relating to eligibility for the constant attendance allowance obtained from the survey of disability which his Department is carryout.
    The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals): We obtained from the survey, which covered only adults living at home, preliminary information on which to base an estimate of the total number of people likely to qualify for the attendance allowance. I will circulate a short summary in the OFFICIAL REPORT: copies of a fuller version have been placed in the Library. The full survey report is not likely to be completed until the autumn, but if sections of the information can usefully be published in advance they will be.
    Mr. Ashley: Is my hon. Friend now in receipt of the information relating to this survey? If so, what is happening to it between now and the autumn? Can my hon. Friend also say whether the Government are prepared to pay a constant attendance allowance to disabled people before 1972?
    Mr. Ennals: The information from the survey does exist, but only in the form of raw material which is being processed by computers at the moment. I can promise my hon. Friend that I will consider publication when I get the information in an intelligible form. I have nothing to say about the timetable for introducing the attendance allowance. My hon. Friend will notice that the National Superannuation Bill provides different appointed days for different purposes.
    Mr. Astor: Does not the Minister agree that the figures so far published reveal that a high proportion of the people who are eligible for constant attendance allowance are aged 65 or over? Will he bear that fact in mind in considering whether this allowance can be introduced ahead of the main provisions of the Bill?
    Mr. Ennals: It is true that the survey information shows that a substantial proportion of those who are likely to qualify for the allowance are elderly people. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the question of the date of the introduction of the attendance allowance is one on which I have no further statement to make at the moment.
    Mr. Dean: Will the Minister bear in mind that it will inevitably take time for the proposed board to do its work? Does he agree that this emphasises the need for a much earlier date for the start of this part of the Bill than the other parts?
    Mr. Ennals: I can appreciate the case made by the hon. Gentleman. There is a great deal of work to be done, not only in establishing the board and the principles on which it will work, but also in processing the initial applications, which will almost certainly be far greater in number than those eventually granted. That will be a major job for the board and the boarding doctors.
    Following is the information:
    SEVERELY DISABLED ADULTS LIVING AT HOME WHOSE ATTENDANCE NEEDS WERE BROADLY THOSE COVERED BY THE DEFINITION IN CLAUSE 17 OF THE NATIONAL SUPERANNUATION AND SOCIAL INSURANCE BILL
    Total Number: 25,000; of whom 20,000 were women and 5,000 were men. (About 70 per cent. of the men and 85 per cent. of the women were aged 65 or over.)

    Marital Status

    Men (percentage)

    Women (percentage)

    Married

    …

    …

    60

    38

    Single

    …

    …

    20

    17

    Widowed

    …

    …

    20

    45

    Proportion (per 1,000) of men and women in different age groups.

    Age

    Men

    Women

    Men and Women

    16–29

    …

    …

    0·1

    0·1

    0·1

    30–49

    …

    …

    0·1

    0·1

    0·1

    50–64

    …

    …

    0·1

    0·3

    0·2

    65–74

    …

    …

    0·7

    1·9

    1·4

    75 and over

    …

    …

    2·6

    8·0

    6·2

    All Ages

    …

    …

    0·3

    0·9

    0·6

    Note: Some people were suffering from two disabling conditions which they rated as being of equal importance.

    BROAD DEPARTMENTAL ESTIMATE OF THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE LIKELY TO QUALIFY FOR ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE

    Adults living at home

    …

    25,000

    Adults in residential care*

    …

    15,000

    Children*

    …

    10,000

    * There is no firm basis for these stimates.

    Voluntary and Professional Organisations
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will now call a series of national and regional round-table conferences with voluntary and professional organisations to discuss their rôle in the proposed reorganised health and social service structure.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): Comments and suggestions have been invited on the proposals made in the Green Paper on the future structure of the National Health Service and its co-ordination with local authority services and meetings will be arranged to discuss them.
    Mr. Judd: I thank my right hon. Friend for that very encouraging reply, but will he confirm that in his view many voluntary and professional organisations have a vital contribution to make to the future of our social services? Can he therefore state that high priority should always be given by the Government to the question of full consultation with them on matters affecting the future?
    Mr. Crossman: I can say that, in preparing the Green Paper, I have consulted at length a whole variety of organisations. I should add that we have now reached the point where we should

    885
    rapidly finalise our decision, and I want to get the White Paper out before the end of the summer.

    Water Supplies (Fluoridation)
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the cost to his Department during the current financial year of propaganda to promote the case for fluoride in water supplies.
    Mr. Crossman: As to expenditure of finances through the Health Education Council, most of whose income is provided by my Department, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply on 9th February to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin). About £300, excluding cost of staff time, has been spent directly by my Department.—[Vol. 795, c. 237–8.]
    Mr. Judd: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Would he agree that a number of local authorities throughout the country are making half-baked decisions on the basis of totally inadequate information? Would his Department give higher priority to making sure that proper and authentic information is available for local authorities when considering this vital subject?
    Mr. Crossman: I suggest to my hon. Friend that, however much money, time and trouble one takes, eyes which are determinedly closed cannot be opened.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Fortescue: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that practically every dentist is enthusiastically in favour of the fluoridation of water in the interests of patients?
    Mr. Crossman: I am aware of that. I must admit that, while in respect of public education I am an old-fashioned Liberal, I am being gradually but inevitably driven to the view that we may have to legislate to deal with this problem.
    Mr. Rankin: Despite all that my right hon. Friend says, will he agree that sodium fluoride in itself is a poisonous substance?
    Mr. Crossman: I think that it would be dangerous, even on that extremely attractive suggestion, to agree with my hon. Friend.

    Mass X-ray (Bromley)
    Mr. Huntasked the Secretary of State for the Social Services what reply he has sent to the letter addressed to him by the Bromley Tuberculosis Chest and Heart Care Committee following his decision to end the mass X-ray scheme.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: As previously requested by the hon. Member, a copy of the reply sent to the Bromley Tuberculosis, Chest and Heart Care Committee has been sent to him.
    Mr. Hunt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the reply has done very little to reassure the committee or people who fear that the great majority of those who at present take advantage of the mobile scheme will be reluctant to go to hospital for similar X-ray checks in future? Would he speculate on what he might now be saying if the sort of cut-back in National Health facilities he is making had been carried out by a Tory Government?
    Dr. Dunwoody: First, nearly 40 per cent. of the active cases picked up in the last year or so by the mass X-ray service have come through family general practitioner services. Secondly, I regard this, not as a cut-back, but as a more effective and rational use of resources of which we are short—skilled manpower and equipment.
    Mr. Hooley: Is my hon. Friend aware that this decision has also created disquiet in Sheffield? Does it represent a change of emphasis away from preventive medicine in favour of a sickness service rather than a health service?
    Dr. Dunwoody: No. This decision certainly does not suggest a move away from preventive medicine. The whole National Health Service is concerned with preventive medicine. What it means is that we shall use radiographers and X-ray equipment far more effectively than we have been doing in the last year or so throughout our mass X-ray service. But there will be special areas and groups in the community for which some sort of mobile service will be required.

    Supplementary Benefits Commission (Members' Letters)
    Mr. Brooksasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will take steps to ensure that hon. Members who raise constituents' problems with the Supplementary Benefits Commission receive replies expeditiously.
    Mr. Ennals: I have no evidence that in normal circumstances there is any avoidable delay in replying to hon. Members' letters. The Chairman of the Commission and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State have already expressed regret for the delay in replying to a letter from my hon. Friend, at a time when the load of work was more than double the normal rate and as a result of the 'flu epidemic, many of the staff were absent sick.
    Mr. Brooks: I thank my hon. Friends for the very full and helpful letters which they have sent to me explaining this quite exceptional delay. Would not my hon. Friend agree that in a case like this, in which an ailing and elderly lady has been kept waiting for roughly three months, some system of priority treatment might be effected?
    Mr. Ennals: I am sorry that my hon. Friend was kept waiting for a reply. In November and December, there were twice as many letters as usual sent to Ministers or to the Chairman. But perhaps I could say to my hon. Friend that there is no need to write to a Minister on these questions. Often very good and rapid service can come by writing direct to the social security office.

    Population Forecasts
    Mr. Brooksasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of the total population of Great Britain forecast in 1980 he estimates to be unproductive; what proportion of this unproductive sector will be retirement pensioners; what percentage of the total working population will be aged 16 to 25, 26 to 35, 36 to 45, 46 to 55 and 56 to 65 years, respectively; and whether he will now introduce legislation to permit individuals to work as long as they are able and willing.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Brian O'Malley): In 1980
    888
    between 55 per cent. and 60 per cent. of the total population of Great Britain are currently expected to have no earnings, or earnings of not more than about £2 a week. About one quarter of these will be retirement pensioners. Among those with earnings it is estimated that the percentages for the age groups mentioned will be about 22 per cent., 22 per cent., 20 per cent., 20 per cent., and 15 per cent., respectively.
    As to the last part of the Question, there is no need for legislation, because there is nothing in the social security scheme to stop those who are able and willing from continuing to work as long as they like.
    Mr. Brooks: Would my hon. Friend confirm that there are certain deterrents to people working beyond minimum pensionable age, not least in the provision of unemployment and sickness benefits? As well over one-fifth of the whole population above school-leaving age will be above minimum pension age by 1980, is not the time coming when a Royal Commission might look into this problem of retirement activities?
    Mr. O'Malley: It is true that men working over the age of 65 do not receive earnings-related supplement to sickness or unemployment benefit, but my hon. Friend will have noted that as a result of the Government's new scheme the sharp distinction between earnings-related sickness benefit and the retirement pension will be narrowed very much. But this is an important subject, and I take my hon. Friend's point.
    Mr. Dean: Dealing with the aspect of older people, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a strong case for improving the earnings rule and the increments to encourage people who wish to go on working after the normal retirement age to do so?
    Mr. O'Malley: The hon. Gentleman will know that the amount which can be earned under the earnings rule was increased only a few months ago. He will also know that concerning the increments elderly pensioners will be far better off under the new pension scheme which we are proposing than they are at the moment.

    Family Planning Services
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects replies from local health authorities and regional hospital boards to his request for information about the extent of their family planning services.
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on his request for information on family planning services, addressed to local health authorities and regional hospital boards
    Mr. Crossman: The first returns from local health authorities should be available in the early autumn. Replies from hospital authorities are already reaching me.
    Mrs. Short: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that but for the Abortion Act another 20,000 illegitimate, unwanted babies would have been born last year? Does not this indicate the greatest possible need for help, advice and the supply of contraceptive devices under the National Health Service without charge as soon as possible? Therefore, instead of waiting for all the replies to come in, will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that this is done for all women seeking this advice?
    Mr. Crossman: Part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question was very remote from the matter about which I was asked. I should like my hon. Friend to note that in the Green Paper we propose transfer responsibility for family planning from the local authorities to the new health services. I am sure that this will create a far more effective service. If we had unlimited money, there is nothing better that I should like to see than the principle of a free Health Service applied to family planning.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall saying in July that he was on the warpath in this matter? Who has won the war? Is it not a crazy social policy to make family planning difficult and abortion easy? Will the right hon. Gentleman dissociate himself from his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) in her new Victorian prudery in condemning illegitimacy in the terms in which she has spoken?
    Mrs. Short: Typical.
    Mr. Crossman: I do not want to intervene in the internecine war on the back benches on the pros and cons of illegitimacy. However, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is right in rebuking me on the subject of my reply last July. I have been disappointed by the response of the local authorities, but I cannot blame them because they are very short of money. I am therefore driven to the conclusion that the solution in the Green Paper is right. This matter should be part of the National Health Service and provided for out of taxation.

    Nurses' Pay
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress made towards a settlement of the problem of nurses' pay.
    Mr. Barnesasked the Secretary of State for Social Services, if he will make a further statement about the negotiations concerning nurses' pay.
    Mr. Crossman: On 17th February, the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council reached agreement on the main outline of a one-year settlement to operate from 1st April, 1970. Negotiations are continuing on the details of the settlement and the Council meets again tomorrow.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House and the country will compare this award very, very favourably with the award of 2½ per cent. which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) insisted on imposing on our nurses when he was Minister of Health? Can my right hon. Friend give the real increase in purchasing power of the average nurse's salary compared with what it was in 1964?
    Mr. Crossman: I thank my hon. Friend for what he said in the first part of his supplementary question. I agree that there is a striking difference between the two awards. On the second part, I cannot give any averages because we are at present working out the details of the settlement and breaking it down into different grades.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that a few weeks ago

    891
    I drew his attention to the fact that the award of £48 a year for student nurses' luncheon allowances was taxable? Has he taken any action in connection with my suggestion that they should be issued with luncheon vouchers like ordinary typists in offices, tax-free?
    Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman pointed that out to me, but I replied, I think, that it was done in response to a request from the Staff Side of the Whitley Council that they should be given a figure of money, and have it to spend themselves, rather than a voucher or an allocation. I have no reason to doubt that that is the considered view of the Staff Side, which I take more seriously than does the hon. Member.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what a 22 per cent. increase in pay represents in money terms to a staff nurse, net per week, in a large general hospital; and what are the comparable figures for a first, second, and third year student nurse, and a ward sister
    Mr. Crossman: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the original offer made by the Management Side of the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council of a two-year settlement giving increases of about 15 per cent. from 1st April, 1970, and 7 per cent. from 1st April, 1971, amounting overall to about 22 per cent. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the terms of this offer as it would have applied to the grades concerned from 1st April, 1971. I cannot say what the net figures would have been because these depend on variable factors such as the tax coding of individual nurses.
    Mr. Hamilton: I am obliged for that Answer. Can my right hon. Friend say how far ahead this award is compared with the cost of living index, and can he give an assurance that the increases, particularly for student nurses, will not be wholly taken away by increases in the cost of living in?
    Mr. Crossman: Yes, I can certainly give an assurance on the second part of the question about the increases for student nurses. I cannot give a detailed answer to the first part. I ask my hon. Friend to await the results of the meeting of the Whitley Council tomorrow
    892
    which will break down the average 20 per cent. into the increases for the actual grades.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Has the Secreretary of State taken account of the needs of physiotherapists?
    Mr. Crossman: I think the hon. Member will find that there is a later Question on the subject of ancillary services apart from nursing in the Health Service.
    Following is the information:

    RATES ORIGINALLY OFFERED FOR CERTAIN GRADES OF NURSE IN GENERAL HOSPITALS FOR SECOND PART OF PROPOSED TWO-YEAR SETTLEMENT TO OPERATE FROM 1ST APRIL, 1971

    Weekly Pay

    Present

    Proposed

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Staff Nurse

    Minimum

    15

    0

    6

    18

    2

    6

    Maximum

    18

    18

    0

    22

    19

    0

    New Pointed Rates

    Age under 25

    Age

    1st Year

    8

    10

    0

    18

    9

    18

    0

    2nd Year

    9

    11

    0

    19

    10

    17

    6

    3rd Year

    10

    2

    6

    20

    11

    11

    6

    Age 25 or over

    21 or over

    13

    7

    0

    1st Year

    10

    16

    6

    14

    2

    0

    2nd Year

    11

    7

    0

    14

    17

    0

    3rd Year

    11

    17

    6

    Ward Sister

    Minimum

    18

    12

    0

    23

    9

    6

    Maximum

    25

    4

    6

    30

    7

    6

    Social Security Payments
    Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will commission an independent inquiry to determine the extent to which the present scope and scales of social security payments are affecting the levels and distribution of employment and to assess how much abuse there is of social security payments.
    Mr. Ennals: No, Sir. But we shall continue to pay close regard to the economic effects of social security payments while taking vigorous action to keep down abuse.
    Mr. Biffen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the numbers of wholly unemployed who have been out of work for over a year almost doubled between 1966 and 1968 and at the later period were about 95,500? We all recognise that there are complex reasons for this, but is not this subject of such magnitude

    893
    that Parliament deserves a great deal more analysis and information than has so far been available?
    Mr. Ennals: Quite a considerable proportion of those over the age of 60 who are on long-term unemployment benefit are, of course, those with substantial occupational pensions. I do not think that there is any reason to conduct a survey at the present time.
    Mr. Ashley: Will my hon. Friend agree that some hon. Members opposite are playing a very dangerous game with their obsessive concern with so-called abuses of the system, the result of which may well be to intimidate people who are in real need of welfare benefits?
    Mr. Ennals: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. There have been a number of hon. Members opposite who put a repeated series of Questions about abuse which can only give the impression to the public that there is a substantial degree of social security benefit abuse, which is quite untrue. My hon. Friend is quite right in suggesting that these repeated allegations, and sometimes newspaper reports, give to the genuine claimant a feeling that there is something a little unpleasant about making a claim. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said.
    Mr. Dean: Does the Minister of State realise that there is a feeling that there is abuse particularly of unemployment and sickness benefit and that that feeling is strongest among men and women who work on the shop floor? Whether this is right or wrong, it is bad for the system. Would it not be very much better, therefore, to clear up this matter by an independent inquiry such as my hon. Friend has suggested?
    Mr. Ennals: As far as that impression exists, part of it is due to the fact that there is a small degree of abuse but it is also due to the fact that it is constantly repeated by hon. Members opposite, who make a serious allegation. If the hon. Member suggests that the Government are not dealing effectively with the degree of abuse which exists, I think he knows that the facts which have already been given prove him to be untrue. In 1969 the number of prosecutions for supplementary benefit fraud was 4,658, or an increase of 980 over the
    894
    previous year. My Department is very vigilant in dealing with this abuse, but it is a very small proportion indeed of the number of claimants.
    Mr. Spriggs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that right hon. and hon. Members opposite who continually bring these charges should provide the evidence upon which he can act? Will he undertake to the House that if evidence is provided action will be taken upon it?
    Mr. Ennals: I agree with both points made by my hon. Friend.

    National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will now make a further statement as to the proposed date of operation of the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill.
    Mr. Crossman: I have nothing at present to add to previous statements on this subject. The target date remains April 1972.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not clear that the immense amount of work remaining to be done in industry, in the pension funds and in the Department makes that date completely unrealistic? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that by appearing to stick to an unrealistic date he is merely confirming the suspicion, which he well understands, that the scheme will never operate at all?
    Mr. Crossman: I find it difficult to understand the form of logic in the last part of that question. The facts are that within my Department there are at present no reasons to postpone the date. All the organisation and preparation is proceeding according to timetable and we can work to April 1972. It is true that I have received from the outside private schemes requests for a postponement. I am examining them very carefully, not least because of the political atmosphere injected into the debate by the Opposition.
    Lord Balniel: As it is clear to everybody connccted with pension funds and with public service pensions that even if a Labour Government are returned to office the scheme will not come into operation in 1972, will the Secretary of

    895
    State extract from the Bill the non-controversial parts dealing with the disabled, the sick and the widowed and bring them into operation immediately?
    Mr. Crossman: Again, I think that the hon. Gentleman is guilty of an inaccuracy. There is no evidence before me from the public sector of any great feeling that the Bill could not come into force in 1972. Nobody has suggested that. The representations come first from the life offices, who have written to me about it, and then from the National Association of Pension Funds. I have taken these seriously and I have replied to each of them asking for specific evidence why they feel that they cannot complete their labours by 1972. As I have a great respect for both those organisations, I am quite sure that despite all the efforts of the Opposition, they will reply to me objectively and non-politically.

    Unemployment Benefit (Occupational Pensions)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will now make a statement as to his intentions in respect of the contributions liability of occupational pensioners who will be excluded from unemployment benefit under his proposed regulations.
    Mr. Ennals: Those aged 60 or over with pensions of £25 weekly who do not satisfy the proposed test of further work will be in the same position as non-employed persons. Other occupational pensioners would be able to qualify for credits for unemployment in the same way as at present.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does not being in the same position as non-employed persons mean that they have to contribute as such? Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that his right hon. Friend undertook a few weeks ago to reconsider whether it was right not only to deprive these people of the unemployment benefit which is at present their right, but to add, as it were, by way of a second barrel a liability to pay heavily increased contributions?
    Mr. Ennals: It would certainly be quite wrong to treat people in the category that we are talking about—and they are those with substantial occupational pensions—in a preferred way to either the non-employed or others who
    896
    also have the obligation to make contributions.
    Mr. McNamara: Can my hon. Friend explain the distinction between people who are sponging on unemployment benefit who were mentioned earlier and these people who are sponging on unemployment benefit and who, if they are gainfully employed until the age of 65 or satisfy the conditions laid down by my hon. Friend, will qualify for proper substantial unemployment benefit?
    Mr. Ennals: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The National Insurance Advisory Committee, who gave very careful consideration to this matter—and they are an independent body—reached the conclusion that there was a considerable degree of misuse—not abuse—of public funds in that benefits were being paid to a substantial number of people with substantial occupational pensions who clearly were not in the field of employment.
    Lord Balniel: While agreeing that change is necessary, may I ask whether the Government appreciate that they are for the first time applying the principle of a means test to unemployment benefit and that it is a means test which is applied only to those holding occupational pensions? May we be assured that there will be a full debate on this subject—not simply a short debate on a Prayer?
    Mr. Ennals: I am glad to hear that the Opposition recognise that change is necessary. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be a substantial debate.

    Lea Castle Hospital
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is aware that the refusal of the management of Lea Castle Hospital for Backward Children to accept further new entrants has caused distress to parents and others resident in South Worcestershire and elsewhere; for what reasons, financial and otherwise, such restrictions have been enforced; what steps he is taking to alleviate consequential suffering; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Crossman: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) on 9th

    897
    February and to my reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) during the debate on mental hospitals on 11th February. My hon. Friend has also written to the hon. Member. Full admission procedures are currently in operation at Lea Castle Hospital.—[Vol. 795, c. 254, 1360–1.]
    Sir G. Nabarro: Neither of those Answers relate to the Question on the Order Paper. May I ask the Minister why the medical director of this hospital for backward children caused widespread alarm and gloom among parents throughout the Midlands by stating in the third week of January that there would be no further admissions; why the Birmingham Hospital Board ten days later rescinded his statement; why the Minister first supported that rescindment and then revoked it; and why we have this order, counter-order and disorder? Will not the Minister take responsibility for these matters?
    Mr. Crossman: I find the hon. Member's narrative a curious distortion, if not an invention, because it bears no relation to what happened. What happened was that the medical director—here the hon. Member is quite right—made a somewhat sensational statement which caused anxiety. But none of the things which he said would happen in fact took place. There was no closing down of the day service and there was no stoppage of any kind. As a result, the anxieties were largely removed by the facts. Secondly, we have had a multi-disciplinary committee going into the hospital. I would add that this is the finest hospital for the mentally handicapped in the Midlands and that it is a pity that the hon. Member should try to denigrate a hospital with such a great reputation.
    Sir G. Nabarro: In view of the most unsatisfactory reply to Question No. 14, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be here to answer that debate.

    Abortions
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will state the relative resources of medical, surgical and other skilled staff devoted to abortions, within and without the National Health Service; what is the
    898
    approximate division of resources between the two sectors for abortions, respectively state and private; and what part of each is concerned with alien females undergoing abortions in this country.
    Mr. Crossman: I regret that information about staff employed on this work is not available but about 62 per cent. of all abortions notified in 1969 in England and Wales were carried out in National Health Service hospitals and 38 per cent. in approved places. Abortions notified in respect of women resident outside the United Kingdom were about 10 per cent. of the total and about 98 per cent. of these were performed in approved places.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Has the right hon. Gentleman studied the weekend reports and notably the statement by the regius professor of midwifery at the University of Glasgow who said that 15 deaths occurred last year due to abortions and that we can look forward—using his words—to an increasing number of deaths on that account? Is he aware that he called for an end to the racket in abortions? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to meet the views of the experts—not my views, but their views—in this field?
    Mr. Crossman: I would respectfully point out that that is a totally different question from the Question which the hon. Gentleman put on the Order Paper. I am nevertheless prepared to answer it in relation to his initial Question. He is right in the number of deaths which he quoted, but he must remember that there has been a great increase in the number of abortions performed and that 20,000 illegitimate children would be alive today—with all the consequences of that—if it were not for the Act.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Will my right hon. Friend bear in the mind the cost to the National Health Service of maternity cases compared with the cost of terminations? Will he also bear in mind that most of us are delighted that an increasing number of terminations are being carried out in good conditions in National Health Service hospitals? Will he further bear in mind that before the Act was introduced there were 50 deaths from illegal abortions every year?
    Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all those three points, which are highly relevant to this controversy. I have no doubt whatever that the result of the Act as it is at present being administered is socially beneficial, and I am surprised that the hon. Member cannot see that fact.

    National Health Service (Green Paper)
    Mr. Croninasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what his policy will be with regard to the arrangements between the area health authorities and the local authorities for sharing or exchanging services in the new administration proposed in the recently published Green Paper.
    Mr. Crossman: As I have said in the Green Paper, close collaboration between the area health authorities and the local authorities will be essential, and I shall be discussing with the local authority associations, and the professional and other bodies concerned the detailed arrangements for sharing or exchanging services.
    Mr. Cronin: Do not the Green Paper arrangements involve an undesirable separation between the health and the welfare aspects? Do they not also involve a rather tight and remote central control of the National Health Service? Will my right hon. Friend attempt to persuade the medical profession to overcome their prejudices and to agree to some integration of the area health authorities with a reformed local government?
    Mr. Crossman: I hesitate to say this to my hon. Friend, but if, in his unrivalled position in our party, he could use it to influence his colleagues, the whole world would be different, and if he would concentrate on that work for the next 50 or 60 years he might find it crowned with success.
    Mr. Fortescue: Does the original reply mean that under the proposed arrangements it will be possible for National Health Service money, taxpayers' money, to be transferred to local authorities for the building of old people's homes, say, instead of hospitals when such a course is desirable?
    Mr. Crossman: Yes. The main reason for the arrangements was for the agency
    900
    services. For example, a health authority which did not want to have its own lawyers could possibly use the lawyers of a local authority. But I do not exclude the second possibility, particularly with regard to such provisions as old people's homes and hostels for the mentally handicapped, which are areas of ambiguity between the two sides. I want to get on with building the homes and the hostels, come what may, and I know the difficulties for the ratepayers.

    Invalid Tricycles
    Mr. Croninasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further consideration he has given to improving the design of the invalid tricycle.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: It is expected to introduce an improved and more powerful vehicle with automatic transmission at the end of the year.
    Mr. Cronin: While I welcome that statement, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he does not agree that any invalid tricycle, even with these improvements, may still be uncomfortable, unstable and rather unreliable? Is it not by modern standards something of a freak vehicle? Will he give serious consideration to replacing all invalid tricycles by a converted four-wheel vehicle?
    Dr. Dunwoody: I have driven the prototype of the new vehicle and I can assure my hon. Friend that it is a very great improvement on the present vehicle. I do not think that users will find it uncomfortable or unstable. A considerable proportion of our invalid drivers can never use ordinary vehicles, however they are adapted, because of the nature of their disabilities, which means that they drive more easily in the invalid vehicles we are at present producing.
    Mr. Marten: I, too, have driven the prototype and I agree with some of the Minister's comments, but may I ask whether in this design sufficient space is available for the wheel chair on the back of the vehicle so that the invalid may take a passenger when the Government get round to that?
    Dr. Dunwoody: The question of a second seat gives rise to much larger considerations than the cost of putting a second seat in the vehicle. But there is

    901
    a great deal more room within the vehicle for carrying not only an invalid chair but also other equipment which may be necessary for the individual disabled person.
    Mr. Dean: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there will or will not be room for a passenger in the vehicle when, as we all hope, it will eventually be decided that the disabled person can carry a passenger?
    Dr. Dunwoody: There would be room to put a second seat in the prototype vehicle, as it is at the moment, but the decision to do this involves many more considerations than just the expense of putting in a second seat. It would involve greater expenditure in other respects, because of the greater use which might be made of the vehicle, as well as other reasons. One has to take this fact into consideration with other possibilities of extending the service in terms of providing better vehicles for those who have them today and providing transport for those who today are completely denied it.

    Petworth Cottage Hospital
    Mr. Hordernasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will refuse to sanction the closure of the Petworth Cottage Hospital.
    Mr. Crossman: The South West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board has consulted local interests about the future of this hospital and it has not yet made any recommendation to me.
    Mr. Hordern: Is the Minister aware that if the hospital is closed before 1973 there will be a serious shortage of accommodation for the elderly in Petworth? In view of the recent report of the West Sussex County Council on the problems of the elderly in West Sussex, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the matter very carefully when he gives his decision?
    Mr. Crossman: Yes, I shall consider it seriously. I shall try to consider it before the formal consultations take place. This is the kind of issue which I have tried to impress on regional hospital boards as being relevant to their consideration of the question of closure.
    Mr. Pavitt: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the central point of the hos-
    902
    pital building programme was the saving of money on cottage hospitals in order to extend district hospitals? As this policy has failed in the last few years, will he review the whole matter of hospital building approvals?
    Mr. Crossman: This is a wider question than that of Petworth Hospital. Nevertheless it arises on this issue. I would not say that the policy has entirely failed. I would say that this is to over simplify the situation, to say that eight or 10 local hospitals can be closed down automatically to save money. It has been found that the value of some local community hospitals has been so high that mass closure has not been a satisfactory solution, and, therefore, all the economies expected from building large district hospitals have not been automatically obtained.

    Low Income Families
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to alleviate the problems of poverty among the families of low wage earners in London.
    Mr. Ennals: The Government have done much to help families of low wage earners and we are making further investigations in order to judge whether extra provision is needed.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he favours the payment of family allowances to the first child?
    Mr. Ennals: This would be an extremely costly operation, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He will also be aware that since the Government came into power we have more than doubled the value of family allowances for the second and subsequent children.
    Mr. Winnick: Should not the review of poverty in London be set against the Tory campaign of the alleged abuses in social security payments? Is it not disgraceful that in a society where 1 per cent. of the population owns over 40 per cent. of the country's wealth, such. poverty should continue to exist?
    Mr. Ennals: The field work in the survey was carried out between February, 1965, and April, 1966. Since then

    903
    there have been a number of improvements by the Government, including increases in family allowances, the introduction of earnings-related short-term benefits, and other benefits to meet the plight of these people. I could not accept that statistics produced of the situation in 1965 could be assumed to be true today.
    Lord Balniel: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that since the survey in 1966 showed that there were 500,000 children in poverty, a recent survey has shown that there are 750,000 in poverty? Does he accept the statistical picture as shown by the Child Poverty Action Group?
    Mr. Ennals: It is typical of the noble Lord that he doubles his own figures. The study concerned shows that there are 250,000 families with five or more dependent children today. I really cannot accept the noble Lord's figures. I do not accept the conclusion of the Child Poverty Action Group who base their conclusions on figures published more than two years ago. As the House knows, we are hoping shortly to publish figures based on the family expenditure survey relating to the situation at the end of 1968.
    Lord Balniel: On a point of order. It is quite improper for the Minister to misquote entirely what I said. I referred to the number of children in poverty—not the number of families in poverty.
    Mr. Ennals: If I have misunderstood the noble Lord I will certainly apologise to him, but I repeat my point that any figures that are based on a survey carried out in 1965 cannot possibly be applicable to the situation today. In fact, they are much more applicable to the situation which we inherited when we came to power in 1964.

    Unemployment Benefit (Administration)
    Mr. Milneasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what machinery of administration has now been decided between his Department and the Department of Employment and Productivity to deal with the payment of unemployment benefit; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will seek to make arrangements for
    904
    the payment of unemployment benefit through offices of the Department of Health and Social Security.
    Mr. Ennals: Unemployment benefit is being calculated and paid by my Department's computer centre at Reading on behalf of a small number of employment exchanges. It is intended to extend this arrangement in the London area, but we have no present plans for any general transfer of unemployment benefit work to our local offices, which are very fully occupied.
    Mr. Milne: Is my hon. Friend aware that his answer will give some satisfaction to those of us who would like to see the Department of Employment and Productivity used more for job seeking and job obtaining purposes, and that if this experiment can be extended throughout the country with a view to leading to full employment, with the Department playing a useful rôle in it, it will be beneficial?
    Mr. Ennals: This operation is very useful. As I said, there are six London exchanges on the computer, and it is hoped to take on another 19 exchanges in the London area by the end of the year. I agree that it is very important that the work done by the Department of Employment and Productivity should be seen as being concerned with much more than merely paying out benefit. It has the task of trying to secure employment for those who are unemployed.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: After the triumph of common sense which has led to the introduction of this experiment in London, may we hope that the Minister will now amalgamate the computer work of his Department with the computer work done in connection with the P.A.Y.E. system?
    Mr. Ennals: To merge the two operations in one computer is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but I will certainly look into it.

    Office Facilities (Blyth)
    Mr. Milneasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what arrangements have been made in regard to the siting of a central office of the Ministry of Health and Social Security covering the areas of Blyth, Bedlington and Seaton Valley; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. O'Malley: Arrangements are being made for the whole range of the Department's Social Security work in the Blyth, Bedlington and Seaton Valley areas to be administered from one office in Blyth. This office, which will occupy a central site in the town, will be shared with the Department of Employment and Productivity and should be ready for occupation towards the end of 1970 or early in 1971. Offices for personal inquiries will be maintained in Bedlington and Seaton Delaval.
    Mr. Milne: Is my hon. Friend aware that we are grateful to him for this reply and to his regional and local offices for the way in which this work has been carried out in relation to the change? Will he ensure, as he has already done to some extent, that the review period will be used for examining the new position in Seaton?
    Mr. O'Malley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his earlier remarks. On the latter part of his question, I have assured a delegation from Bedlington and Seaton Valley that if the new arrangements should be unsatisfactory I will be willing to listen to them again. Certainly we shall keep the situation in the area under continuous review.

    Ford Motor Company (Disputes)
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the total amount paid in supplementary benefit to the families of men involved in the recent industrial disputes at Ford Motors Limited; and what has been the total cost to public funds of additional work undertaken by his Department in connection with these payments.
    Mr. O'Malley: Nothing was paid during the disputes, but about 900 payments of supplementary benefit, totalling nearly £7,500, were made to the men involved after the strike had ended to tide them over until they received wages. The total administrative and staff costs involved in making these payments are estimated to be £700.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: While the motor car industry workers are entitled to endanger their future employment by striking and so driving international companies to switch investment to countries which have better labour rela-
    906
    tions than we have, does it make sense for the taxpayer to be obliged to subsidise this form of industrial masochism?
    Mr. O'Malley: I know from what the hon. Gentleman has said previously that on this subject he is in a pre-Selsdon stage of development. If he is saying that the Government should not be prepared to help the families of men on strike I will give him the same answer now as I gave him some time ago.
    Mr. Brooks: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that there are always two sides to every dispute, as there are indeed to this one? If it is logical to argue that supplementary benefits should not be paid to men involved in a dispute, is is not equally illogical to pay regional employment premiums to firms involved in a dispute?
    Mr. O'Malley: I would add something which the hon. Gentleman apparently has not noticed, that Clause 110 of the Bill which is now under consideration in Committee restricts the amount of payments of which he complains.

    St. Albans City Hospital
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he proposes to authorise the building of the two new operating theatres at St. Albans City Hospital.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: The assessment of priorities and the planning of capital developments within its region are matters for the North West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board.
    Mr. Goodhew: That is exactly what the Minister told me in a letter which arrived on the notice board a few minutes before I arrived here this afternoon. Is he aware that the two existing operating theatres are totally inadequate for a hospital of the size of St. Albans Hospital and that sometimes there are long delays leading to considerable unnecessary suffering in orthopaedic cases and the waiting list continues to extend?
    Dr. Dunwoody: I said exactly this in the letter because I do not think it appropriate for my Department to issue central directions with reference to an issue such as this. The regional board appreciates that there is a need for more

    907
    operating theatres in this hospital and is having discussions with the hospital management committee, but I cannot say what the outcome of those discussions will be.

    Dental Services (Central Hertfordshire)
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether his Department has now completed its study of the Central Hertfordshire Consumer Group's report to him on the subject of National Health Service dental services; and when he expects to make known his views.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 9th February to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason). My right hon. Friend will decide whether further action is called for in the light of the discussions I shall be having early in April with representatives of the Hertfordshire Local Dental Committee.—[Vol. 795, c. 879–82.]
    Mr. Goodhew: The hon. Gentleman wrote to me on 23rd October last year saying that he was investigating this report urgently. How urgently do this Government deal with anything which is urgent?
    Dr. Dunwoody: The delay in arranging the meeting I referred to—which will be an important meeting—is not entirely the responsibility of my Department. There have been difficulties in arranging a time and date acceptable to both sides.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that I wrote to him on this subject some time ago pointing out that my constituents were compelled to go outside Putney for Health Service dental attention? Has there been any improvement?
    Dr. Dunwoody: I think the question of services in Putney is a different matter, but if my hon. Friend cares to write to me I shall only be too pleased to answer on that particular point.

    Wellingborough (Community Hospital)
    Mr. Fryasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider siting a pilot scheme for a community hospital in Wellingborough, and
    908
    in the interim ensure that existing hospital and ancillary services are not reduced.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: Study of the community hospital concept is at a very early stage and it is too soon to say whether a trial scheme will be undertaken at Wellingborough. I understand that the Oxford Regional Hospital Board has consulted the hon. Member on a proposal to transfer the existing services of the Highfield Hospital, Wellingborough to the Park Hospital, Wellingborough, but it has not made any recommendation to me on this.
    Mr. Fry: I am grateful for not having a completely negative one from the Minister. Is he aware that there is real concern in the town—that where we have an officially expanding town there is great danger of its hospital and ancillary services contracting? Many of my constituents are asking if this is the way Labour Government works.
    Dr. Dunwoody: I appreciate that there Is concern in Wellingborough about this issue, but the hon. Member will know that there are special problems because of the size of the community and its proximity to larger hospitals with the services they offer, but I will bear the point in mind in any decisions taken by my Department.

    Congleton War Memorial Hospital
    Sir A. V. Harveyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement as to the future use of Congleton War Memorial Hospital; and if he will have it enlarged to meet present-day requirements.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: The Manchester Regional Hospital Board does not contemplate at present any change in the use of Congleton War Memorial Hospital, nor its enlargement.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, under successive Governments, the future of Congleton Hospital has been in jeopardy for 10 years and today there is a requirement for at least a dozen more beds? How does he expect future manning by staff for this hospital when its future is always in jeopardy?
    Dr. Dunwoody: In view of the Answer I have given, I cannot accept that under

    909
    this Government this hospital is in jeopardy. On the question of additional beds, it is up to the regional hospital board to take local issues and local problems into consideration, but the occupancy rate was 65·4 per cent., which is not so high as in some other hospitals in the service.

    Agency Nurses
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many agency nurses are employed in the hospital services at the latest convenient date; and what is the present cost.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: 2,057 agency nurses and midwives were employed in National Health Service hospitals in England and Wales at 30th September, 1969, and approximately £1,050,000 was paid to nurses' agencies in the year ending 31st March, 1969.
    Mr. Lewis: Does that figure include the figure given the other day for the London teaching hospitals, which is 1,000? Is this not a rather wasteful way of employing nurses? Could we not do something to make sure that the terms and conditions for nurses in hospitals are such as will not encourage people to seek better terms and conditions outside through agencies?
    Dr. Dunwoody: I confirm that the figures I quoted include the London teaching hospitals. Indeed, this is almost peculiar to London because 90 per cent. of these nurses in England and Wales are employed in the Metropolitan region. Questions of pay and conditions are of paramount importance and I hope that the pay settlement will be applied in the near future. The Briggs Committee which my right hon. Friend announced the other day should go a long way towards meeting those points.
    Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: As the hon. Gentleman said this is very largely a London problem, can he say whether the recent awards will take cognisance of that fact by giving a special London weighting?
    Dr. Dunwoody: No, I cannot prejudge what might come out of the final discussions in the Whitley Council. Nor do I accept that there is a very strong argument for London weighting. It is remark-
    910
    able that some hospitals in the London area do not face any problem whatever and they do not employ agencies.

    Spectacle Frames
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many complaints he has received about the quality and limited choice in spectacle frames under the National Health Service; what estimate he has made of the proportion of adults and children, respectively, who chose to pay for their own frames; and if he will take steps to improve the quality and choice of frames available under the National Health Service.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: The number of complaints made to my Department is currently about a dozen a year. About 53 per cent. of adults and 28 per cent. of children have their National Health Service lenses fitted into new private frames. All frames supplied under the National Health Service have to comply with British standards; within the broad specifications of the range, there have been considerable advances in detailed design and the possibility of further advances is kept under review.
    Mr. Roberts: Would my hon. Friend accept that I must be getting a high proportion of the complaints? Is he aware that many parents are buying frames which they can ill afford to protect their children from the sort of formalised taunt which can sometimes occur about wearing National Health Service frames? Will he accept that in these terms the National Health Service must always provide the best service and never a second best?
    Dr. Dunwoody: My hon. Friend will know better than I the proportion of the nation's complaints which come from South Bedfordshire. I accept that there is a special problem here with children, and we take into account the feelings of children when they are provided with spectacles. It is nevertheless striking that it is among adults that private frames are more frequently sought than among children patients.
    Mr. Will Griffiths: Is it not true that for 22 years there has been no change in the design of frames under the National Health Service and that less public money

    911
    is being spent on general ophthalmic services today than 22 years ago? Is it not time that the Government commenced negotiations with the professions concerned with a view to giving people an opportunity of having a wider choice of frames at fixed charges?
    Dr. Dunwoody: I cannot accept what my hon. Friend says, that there has not been any change. I think there have been changes and a wider range is available to patients. Nevertheless, we are keeping closely under review the possibility of a further advance, and if any were to take place we would consult with the professions concerned.

    Housewives
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to introduce an unemployed housewife's benefit at the standard rate of unemployment benefit for a single person available to housewives with at least one child under school age, if they are not in employment, and to all disabled housewives; what is the estimated cost of such a proposal; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ennals: A benefit to compensate for loss of earnings from unemployment is not appropriate to people, including housewives, who are outside the employment field, and it would cost something of the order of £700 million a year. I would remind my hon. Friend that very severely disabled housewives will be eligible for the new attendance allowance for which the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill provides.
    Mr. Roberts: Although I accept that the cost of this suggestion would make it prohibitive in the near fututre, would my hon. Friend accept that urgent steps are required to make the profession of housewife an honourable profession, which is not even conceived in the new social security Bill which is to come before the House?
    Mr. Ennals: With some experience, I should have thought that the rôle of housewife is an extremely honourable profession. Normally the responsibility of looking after her welfare falls on her husband, and that should remain, but family allowances and tax relief help the husband to do his duty towards his wife.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is there such a person as an unemployed housewife?
    Mr. Ennals: This was largely the question I had in mind when replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts). Certainly housewives are very fully engaged, but they are not unemployed unless of course they are actually searching for employment for which there is better remuneration than their husbands can give them.

BRITISH UNITED AIRWAYS
Mr. Corfield(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement in regard to the proposed take-over of B.U.A. by B.O.A.C.
Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. Before this Private Notice Question is answered, Sir, may I draw your attention to the fact, your having given leave for this Question to be asked, that an identical Question is on the Order Paper in my name, on page 4517, tabled on Friday morning last within minutes of the news having arrived in the House.
Is it correct for another hon. Member to supersede me in getting a Question for answer specially by a Minister, with precedence over mine?
Mr. Speaker: It used to be an absolute rule that Mr. Speaker refused a Private Notice Question if there were a similar Question on the Order Paper at all. If the hon. Gentleman looks up the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, on Private Notice Questions, he will see that the House instructed Mr. Speaker to use his discretion. I have done so today.
The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): The answer to the Question is as follows:
The proposed purchase of British United Airways by B.O.A.C. results from an initiative by the principal shareholder in B.U.A., the British and Commonwealth Shipping Company. The negotiations took place between a willing seller and a willing buyer.
B.O.A.C. sought the Board of Trade's approval for this investment. The Board of Trade came to the conclusion that the

913
proposal was acceptable in principle, subject to its being satisfied on a number of financial points.
The Government's policy remains as set out in their White Paper of last November. This was to welcome a merger of independent airlines that would have strengthened the industry. The Government could not, however, accept as a condition of such a merger the transfer of a significant part of the air corporations' routes.
Following the issue of the White Paper, B.U.A. sought from us a guarantee that such transfers would take place, on the lines of the applications it had already made to the Air Transport Licensing Board to take over by stages all of B.O.A.C.s African routes. We could not, consistently with the policy in the White Paper, give a guarantee for this or for any substantial transfer.
In view of the British and Commonwealth Shipping Company's apparent unwillingness to participate in a second force airline without such a guarantee, and its decision instead to offer B.U.A. for sale to B.O.A.C., there was no ground of policy for the Board of Trade to make any objection of principle.
It has now been reported in the Press that Calendonian Airways proposes to make a competing offer to purchase B.U.A. and it has applied to the A.T.L.B. for B.U.A.s routes to be transferred to it. It is for the shareholders in B.U.A., in the first instance, to consider any such offer and for the A.T.L.B. to consider in the usual way any applications that are made to it. I shall, of course, be glad to consider any point that Caledonian may wish to make to me.
As far as the proposed purchase by B.O.A.C. is concerned, the Government are awaiting further financial information before reaching a final decision.
rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is customary for the Chair to have a copy of the statement. It helps the Chair in taking supplementaries.
Mr. Corfield: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, parallel to the negotiations between B.U.A. and B.O.A.C., B.U.A. was also negotiating with Caledonian and was on the point of an agreement which would have entirely
914
fulfilled the Government's policy as set out in the White Paper?
It is all very well for the Minister to say that the Government's policy remains that set out in the White Paper, but does he not realise that the President of the Board of Trade's approval of this proposal completely and utterly contradicts his own policy?
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the current borrowing powers of B.O.A.C. have been sought from, and afforded by, the House on the understanding that they are required for re-equipment of B.O.A.C. and not for the purchase of potential competitors. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the use of this money for any such purpose as he has in mind will be regarded on this side of the House as a gross breach of faith.
Finally, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman for his assurance that the hearings by the A.T.L.B. will be left to the board, a body set up by Parliament for this purpose, and that the licences will not be made the subject of a political diktat by the Board of Trade? I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the attainment of a powerful, one-force independent airline remains, and will remain. Conservative policy.
Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions. If I do not remember every one that he has asked, perhaps he will forgive me.
The last point but one that the hon. Gentleman made related to the A.T.L.B. Of course, the proceedings of the A.T.L.B. will not be subject to any political diktat. The Board will consider the application on its merits, and the procedures already laid down will be fully followed.
On the first point the hon. Gentleman made about B.U.A. having approached Caledonian and, as I understood the hon. Gentleman to say, gone a long way towards reaching an agreement with Caledonian, this is not the impression B.U.A. gave when it met my right hon. Friend and myself. The impression B.U.A. gave was that it had decided to make this offer to B.O.A.C., and it justified its decision in a manner which did not seem to us to leave room for any assumption that it thought that an arrangement could be made between itself and Caledonian.

915
On the hon. Gentleman's third point, namely, that the White Paper looks to the emergence of a merger of independent airlines, that remains the policy. If there is a firm, considered bid by Caledonian, it is still for B.U.A. to entertain such a bid and to proceed on the lines of the White Paper.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Was it not originally the Conservative Government that formed B.O.A.C. in 1939 because private enterprise just could not cope? Is not B.O.A.C. now a very successful and competitive airline? When the proposed take-over of B.U.A. by B.O.A.C. goes through, will it not finally render the whole concept of a second-force competing private airline unnecessary and superfluous?
Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend anticipates a decision which is still not finalised. It will be for the House, no doubt, to consider the situation which will emerge. We have heard of another bid. I have said that that bid will in no way be invalidated by any scrutiny that the Government have given to the first offer. It is for B.U.A. to entertain that bid or not to do so.
On the question concerning control of investment, raised by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), investment by B.O.A.C. is controlled by the Government.
Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not the Government's policy, manifest in their support for this bid by B.O.A.C., to create a single State monopoly in overseas civil airlines without the competition of independent airlines, as suggested by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield)? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm to the House that it will ultimately be the purpose of the Government to refer this transaction, or any other transaction that takes place affecting B.U.A., to the Monopolies Commission?
Mr. Roberts: Reference to the Monopolies Commission is made when the Government seek advice on a proposal to merge. The Government have already concluded that the proposed purchase by B.O.A.C. is acceptable in principle, subject to examination. This is the provision under the Monopolies
916
Act. There is nothing to prevent the Government from seeking the advice of the Commission.
Mr. Cronin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that B.O.A.C. is subjected to powerful competition from foreign airlines and that, therefore, it is in the best interests of British aviation that it should take over an airline which competes on foreign routes? What possible objection is there to B.O.A.C.'s having the ordinary commercial freedom to take over another company, apart from the unreasonable prejudices of hon. Gentlemen opposite?
Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is right. It would be unreasonable to deny to B.O.A.C. or any other airline—we have heard of an independent one today—the right to make a bid. The fact is that B.O.A.C. did not make a bid; B.U.A. approached B.O.A.C. Once that had happened, it was reasonable and right that the Government should take an attitude, and they have done so after the most stringent examination, particularly of the finances. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] It is not rubbish. The finalised approval has still to be made, and will be subject to further scrutiny of information coming to us from B.O.A.C. and B.U.A.
Apart from four countries—the United States, Canada, France and ourselves—every country in the world has decided that international competition is best met by national airlines.
Mr. Lubbock: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct in saying that up to the moment of the deal being announced there was no sign whatever of a merger between B.U.A. and Caledonian, however unfortunate some of us may think that.
On the question of competition, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) may be right with regard to the international routes, there is some anxiety about the elimination of competition on the domestic routes which, under the proposal to create the Airways Board, will be operated entirely by the nationalised corporation? What proposals will the right hon. Gentleman have if the deal goes through for ensuring that the consumer on the domestic routes does not suffer?
Mr. Roberts: I agree that domestically a situation will arise which will have to be very carefully examined. I agree that we do not wish to see a situation created here in which consumer choice and the results of competition are not available. This is a matter for very careful study, but the situation is created not by the Government but by the action of B.U.A. in offering itself for purchase to B.O.A.C.
Mr. Rankin: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that before B.U.A. went into the South American route it was operated by the nationalised corporation? Does not it seem logical that B.O.A.C. having taken over B.U.A. it should also take over all its obligations and undertakings?
Mr. Roberts: If the deal goes through that will be the position. It will be a comprehensive arrangement and there will be other details to be hammered out between B.O.A.C. and B.U.A.
Sir A. V. Harvey: Why has not the Edwards Report, which was published almost a year ago, not yet been debated, in spite of prodding of the Leader of the House? Why has the House not had an opportunity to express its view? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall, in particular, what his hon. Friend said, that B.O.A.C. had the opportunity to operate, and did operate, a route to South America and lost millions of pounds and gave it up? Britain did not have a route, but B.U.A. has made a profit.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is Government policy that has driven the company into the ground and that in the eyes of the public this whole matter stinks to high heaven?
Mr. Roberts: I had expected better of the hon. Gentleman. He understands the industry and knows that the White Paper lays down very clearly the Government's policy if the independent airlines—the two big ones, for example—were to come together. They could break into new markets, subject to certain obvious conditions in the public interest.
As for a debate, the hon. Gentleman should address himself to his Leader as well as to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. His side of the House might have chosen a Supply day for such debate.
Mr. Sheldon: If it is intended that B.O.A.C. operates as an independent corporation, surely my right hon. Friend should allow it to take part in these mergers that so much of private industry is also engaged in? Is not it absurd that the party opposite should try to shackle the State corporations whereas they do not insist that the free enterprise companies of which they are such proponents should have similar shackles?
Mr. Roberts: I hope that everything I have said this afternoon shows that neither was ever shackled by Government policy and B.O.A.C. and equally an independent airline were free to make an offer. In fact, B.O.A.C. would not have made an offer had not the offer been made to it; and that is the position now.
Mr. Amery: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that B.U.A. has saved British airline positions in South America and that if the merger now proposed should take place this would greatly strengthen the case for selling off some of the B.O.A.C. equity to the public on British petroleum lines?
Mr. Roberts: That is an entirely different question which should await a larger debate.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is not it abundantly plain that the objections of hon. Gentlemen opposite and their friends in the Press are not to public monopoly, but to the fact that their interests are not being served in the matter? Is not the case here that they are trying to serve private interests and putting them above the interests of the public at large? Should not my right hon. Friend resist attempts by hon. Gentlemen opposite to make him take a different view of the matter from that which he has already taken?
Mr. Roberts: I am resisting that attempt and propose to continue to do so. If B.U.A. continues to negotiate with B.O.A.C. I see no reason why that should not come about if it is consonant with Government policy.
Mr. Maudling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware by now that we regard his answers as totally unsatisfactory? He has not dealt with the point about the use of money granted for buying aircraft for buying shares in a private company, nor with the need for reference to the

919
Monopolies Commission in circumstances where, by his own admission, the problem of monopolies is particularly difficult.
Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that we believe that the matter should be debated in the near future, and in Government time, because it represents the collapse of the Government's policy, on his own admission?
Mr. Roberts: The right hon. Gentleman makes a direct attack on B.U.A. If the White Paper is in danger it is because of B.U.A.'s initiative. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is the Government's inaction."] The Opposition do not want to understand that it is not a Government initiative that has led to the situation, but an initiative by an independent airline.
As to the use of public money, I have already said that Government control of investment by nationalised undertakings is very well known to right hon. Gentlemen opposite and that this will govern what is done financially in regard to the merger if it comes about.
As to a debate in Government time, I wish the right hon. Gentleman luck in pressing my right hon. Friend on the point.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House.

BILL PRESENTED
  ELECTRICITY
  Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn, supported by Mr. Secretary Ross, Mr. Secretary Thomas, Mr. Harold Lever, Mr. Dick Taverne, and Mr. Alan Williams, presented a Bill to provide for changes in the organisation of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales; to amend the law relating to charges for electricity and the powers of Electricity Boards; and for purposes connected with those matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 118.]

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

ORDER OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [15TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

  NAVY ESTIMATE, 1970–71, VOTE A
  Mr. Speaker: The Amendment standing in the names of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott Hopkins) and the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles)—
  That the Vote be increased by 5,000 men—
  is out of order and, therefore, cannot be selected.
  The hon. Member and the hon. and gallant Gentleman will find from page 759 of Erskine May that Amendments to increase the proposed numbers of men have always been ruled out of order.
  3.50 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Dr. David Owen): I beg to move,
  That 90,000 Officers, Ratings and Royal Marines be maintained for Naval Service, for the year ending on 31st March, 1971.
  Although this Motion is in the same form as in past years, the House will observe that the detail of Navy Vote A is to be found in a slim volume, H.C. 109, separate from the money Estimates. This is one of the consequences of the change in the form of Defence Estimates.
  This year, for the first time, there is no self-contained set of Navy Votes. Provision for the Navy is made in Votes 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7. The first of these is the naval pay vote; the others contain elements for all three Services. However, the House may find it convenient to refer to page 88 of the Defence White Paper, which compares 1970–71 Estimates with those for the current year on the basis of the old Navy Votes.
  This shows an increase of £17 million. However, this is only a crude comparison. The 1970–71 figure includes £30 million for ration allowance improvements which are part of the military salary package. In addition, there have been pay and price increases amounting to another £30 million. Both these factors should be discounted to give a true comparison.

  921
  At constant prices, therefore, there is a drop of £43 million compared with 1969–70.
  In last year's debate I enjoined the House and those outside who have the best interests of the Navy at heart to look forward and to learn from, rather than vegetate in, past controversies. Hon. Members opposite might well take that into account. Against a background of stability, we have been able to achieve during the last year an immense amount. We are now building two new classes of surface ships, the Type 21 Frigate and the Type 42 Destroyer.
  The cruiser's rôle has been announced and irrespective of whether the V/STOL option is taken up, a through deck for the cruiser will be needed to allow the most effective operation of the cruiser's complement of large anti-submarine helicopters, one of its primary functions. A through deck will also, of course, increase the flexibility of the cruiser which will be in service with the Royal Navy for many years; and it would offer significant advantages if the V/STOL option were to be taken up at any time in the future.
  We have always made the point that, in designing new ships, we try to take account of possible developments in weapon systems that may take place during their operational life. These are the new ships which with our submarine forces will shape the Navy's rôle for the 1970s.
  Most people now see that the development of a primarily European defence strategy offers a challenging rôle for the Navy. Though one still encounters a few who have a depressing tendency to look resolutely backwards. It is, I believe, vital, however, that this in some aspects changed rôle should be better understood both within the Navy and outside.
  Anyone who attempts to define rôles treads in dangerous territory, but without some coherent view of the future it is hard to retain credibility with a general public which, on occasions, seems only too prepared to underplay the rôle of the Navy in the context of modern warfare. They may be over-influenced by some writers on naval strategy who argue that as we orientate ourselves towards a European defence strategy and, in particular, land defence, so we will have to reduce our investments in naval forces
  922
  Yet our own history teaches us that not only have the Navy's most famous admirals won their greatest victories in N.A.T.O. waters, which stretch, incidentally, from the North Pole to the tropics, but that a European commitment which is not matched by a credible maritime strategy has historically failed to meet the country's vital interests.
  There are two major issues arising from a European maritime strategy which cause concern, namely, the effect of our European orientation on our worldwide maritime trade links and the difficulty some people have of envisaging a Second World War type war at sea in the current N.A.T.O. context.
  I will try to deal, first, with the Navy's rôle in relation to trade, particularly outside the N.A.T.O. sea area, though it is worth remembering that in so far as our trade flows through the N.A.T.O. sea area it is to this extent already covered by a permanent maritime presence. It is true that the greatest proportion of our trade is seaborne and that the merchant fleet that carries our trade also carries foreign trade and at a profit to this country.
  The Navy clearly has a responsibility for trade protection. It is true that trade flourishes where there is stability, but I do not accept as part of this argument the completely unproven contention that the effective protection of merchant shipping requires a continuous deployment of maritime forces outside European waters.
  This does not, however, mean that we will cease to be an ocean-going Navy, nor that we will not deploy maritime forces outside the N.A.T.O. sea areas, as and when we think it appropriate. Indeed, the exercising of a general capability worldwide is one of the rôles for which the Navy, with its well developed system of afloat support, is uniquely well equipped to provide. No one would wish to deny that maritime power can be used to apply political, economic or military pressures worldwide.
  The sea environment contains many uncertainties that are not encountered to the same extent on land. For example, there is no international agreement on the limits of territorial waters and this can give rise to disputes or misunderstandings. The Gulf of Aqaba and the Cuban blockade are by any standards significant

  923
  events in considering any modern maritime strategy and a possible outcome of the Cuban incident has been the now worldwide deployment of the Russian Navy.
  All these facts can and should form the background to the development of our future naval strategy. It must and does form the basis of our wish to maintain naval forces capable of operating in the multitude of rôles which the Navy performs day in day out, whether it be the deplyoment of our frigate force to the West Indies, ships operating in N.A.T.O. exercises on the south flank in the Mediterranean, or indeed on the northern flank using in many exercises the Royal Marine Commandos now specialising in cold weather warfare and the amphibious ships which make up our amphibious forces.
  In his speech during the defence debate last Thursday, the Leader of the Opposition stated that naval forces were to be pushed into the Mediterranean where they were not necessary. This is a travesty of the truth. There has been mounting pressure from the responsible authorities for an increased naval presence in the Mediterranean and considerable pressure from hon. Members opposite. The N.A.T.O. commanders have stressed the need for enhanced forces levels and last year it was announced that an on-call allied force was to be established in the Mediterranean area. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there has been a substantial increase in Soviet naval activity in the Mediterranean during the last two or three years, so any suggestion that allied naval forces do not need to be strengthened in that area is highly misleading.
  The major rôle for the Navy, and its most controversial one, is—and this too often tends to be forgotten—a wholly new rôle. The maintenance of the strategic deterrent which passed from the R.A.F. to the Navy last summer is an onerous and exacting task which is of major significance in any assessment of the modern Navy. The Navy, by using what Professor Martin has called
  "the shrouding quality of the sea"
  is able to deploy a hidden dissuader of considerable importance to N.A.T.O.'s strategic deterrent not solely in terms of
  924
  punch, though this cannot be ignored, but as much because it represents the only European contribution to N.A.T.O.'s strategic deterrent and underpins the multinational and interdependent nature of the alliance.
  As our maritime strategy develops so we see that this strategic deterrent rôle is becoming inextricably linked with other elements of the Navy. The Fleet nuclear-powered submarines, anti-submarine surface ships, anti-submarine helicopters all have an important rôle for themselves, but also they have a rôle in ensuring that the deterrent's whereabouts remain hidden.
  It is extremely important to comprehend the specific make-up of the Soviet Navy. The fact that the Russians have no carrier force is well known. What it is necessary to appreciate is the emphasis which they are currently placing on the building of nuclear-powered submarines and primarily anti-submarine warfare surface ships.
  No one can look to the future without attempting to assess the significance of this development and sometimes I wish that in the legitimate debate on defence priorities within a particular defence budget we heard a little more about this aspect of the Navy's rôle rather than our current obsession with bemoaning the phasing out of the carrier force at the end of 1971.
  The submarine has, as the present Controller of the Navy wrote in a personal viewpoint in this year's Janes Fighting Ships, greatly diversified her rôles with the advent of nuclear propulsion. He said:
  "The effect of this dramatic improvement in performance and diversification of capabilities is that, at this present moment, the nuclear powered submarine has far outstripped the ability of other forces to combat it; in its varied forms it is becoming the most formidable unit of the maritime power game.
  The precise balance between this and other essential ships and aircraft will vary over the years and in different navies, but as advanced methods of detection and reconnaissance, by satellite or other space body, of the earth's surface become more and more effective and continuous, the possibility of concealment will become exclusive to the submarine and the balance of the largest navies will certainly shift towards the deployment of a greater proportion of their weapon systems underwater."
  This is a judgment with which I whole-heartedly concur.
  Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: Is the Minister aware that the Opposition also wholeheartedly concur with that, and that, so far from its not having been raised in the defence debate, we drew attention to the cutting of the hunter-killer submarine programme.
  Dr. Owen: Is it now the Opposition's intention to restore it?
  As the House knows, although it was necessary in January, 1968, to reduce the rate of construction of Fleet submarines the current programme is still a very significant one, not only in terms of its place in the new naval construction work but also in the number of these boats which will be equipping the Navy.
  It is not the practice to give details of the rate of future construction of Fleet submarines, but I can say that expenditure in 1970–71 will be more than three times that in the mid-60s, when expenditure on Polaris boats was at its highest. This is sufficient indication, I suggest, of the importance that the Government attach to the place of these Fleet submarines in the striking power of the future Fleet.
  A strategy to meet a situation short of all-out nuclear exchange in the N.A.T.O. sea area is one of the most difficult naval roles to explain, not because it is of any less importance than other naval roles but because its implementation and theory is firmly based on deterrence and not the offensive rôle to which many naval writers seem to cling with some nostalgia.
  The concept of limited war at sea, at one stage an unfashionable theory with military strategists, is one that we are bound to consider. Yet the respective weight which one puts on various theoretical scenarios is open to question. The harassment of shipping, whether merchant or naval, in N.A.T.O. waters could, some argue, be so gauged as to reflect a whole range of initiatives in a calculated phase of escalation. It is argued that the deployment of such tactics in a period of tension offers a potential enemy scope to exert political pressure in a situation where some believe that the risks of uncontrolled escalation are much slimmer than on land.
  The N.A.T.O. maritime environment has been described by some as politically neutral in comparison with the land
  926
  environment. Thus, they argue, there will tend to be slower pressures to resort to nuclear weapons than on land. Whatever our views are as to those theories, N.A.T.O. strategy rests on the principle that provided the alliance maintains an evident ability and determination to counter any level of aggression, potential enemies will be deterred from initiating any action which could lead to major hostilities.
  It is, therefore, vital that within a N.A.T.O. strategy we should be able to deploy forces at sea capable of matching each phase of any potential escalation.
  Those critics, however, who find the strategy unconvincing should contemplate the complete absence of any such forces. There would be a very much higher degree of risk in not having available a graduated maritime response to a maritime situation, even to the extent of having no choice but to escalate on land or in the air, with all the consequences that this could entail.
  Captain Walter Elliot: The Minister has been talking about a war at sea. He will recall that in the defence debate the Secretary of State said that N.A.T.O. would not use her nuclear power on the Western frontier unless there was a major attack by the Soviet Union, an invasion by the Red Army—I think that those were his words. Would the Minister consider the deployment in an attacking rôle of, say, 200 of the submarines in the Russian western fleet, as a major attack?
  Dr. Owen: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must know that I am not going to be led into a detailed discussion on strategy. I have given the House a more comprehensive account of potential maritime strategy than I might have done, and I cannot go further.
  I had hoped that I would not have to cover again the case for not running on the aircraft carriers in their existing rôle of flying fixed-wing aircraft after 1971, but it seems that hon. Gentlemen opposite are quite incapable of doing the necessary arithmetic. As I stressed in Portsmouth in December, in terms of manpower alone it would pose an almost impossible burden, demanding sacrifices in the manning of the remainder of the Fleet—already a difficult problem—which would totally unbalance its carefully calculated structure and shape.

  927
  To run "Eagle", "Ark Royal" and "Hermes" through the 1970s would require between 9,000 and 10,000 uniformed men in the ships themselves, in their air groups, and on air stations ashore—or 8,000 if only "Eagle" and "Ark Royal" were run on. Of these, about 4,200 would be ships' company—enough to man about 8 County Class guided missile destroyers or about 16 Leander Class frigates. The question that the House will ask hon. Members opposite is: do they suggest that we should make these sacrifices in the planned shape of the Fleet—yes or no? Since they will not answer, what are the alternatives?
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: What about the 52,000 Royal Navy personnel ashore in the United Kingdom?
  Dr. Owen: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows better than most hon. Members in the House, it is vitally necessary to keep, for an operational fleet, a back-up ashore. One of the things causing us most concern is that people are spending too much time afloat, so that we do not have a reasonable sea-to-shore ratio.
  I shall deal with this question in some detail. Hon. Members opposite should contain themselves. I suppose that they will argue that they can find this increased manpower, but I see no immediate prospect of an increased recruitment on a scale sufficient to meet this substantial increase. Does the party opposite claim to be able to increase recruitment to meet this manpower requirement? The only other alternative is conscription. The policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is true.
  These happen to be the facts. Hon. Members opposite will get them whether they like it or not. They may have shouted down my right hon. Friend during the closing stages of the defence debate, but they will now hear the facts as they affect the Navy. The policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite would carry more conviction if they faced the fact that this is the logic of some of their proposals—conscription in the Navy, as in the other Services.
  In addition, we should forgo the savings in civilian manpower and money which will accrue at the Royal Naval air stations that we now plan to relinquish, and the
  928
  savings in dockyard staff and stores, and afloat support ships, which will accrue from the phasing-out of the aircraft carriers. In money terms, running the carriers on would impose a financial burden that would inevitably postpone the vitally necessary new construction and new equipment programme. It is said by some that by virtue of their refits the two carriers "Eagle" and "Ark Royal" could continue in commission with minor refits for most of the 1970s. That is wishful thinking.
  In fact, more than minor refits would be needed to keep "Eagle" and "Ark Royal" running throughout the 1970s. "Eagle" would require at least one long refit. If "Ark Royal" were to be retained in service beyond 1975 as an aircraft carrier she would need a further extended refit by 1976.
  The cost of running on the carrier force for this decade was given by my right hon. Friend as being £70 million a year for three and £60 million for two aircraft carriers. These figures have been carefully costed; the £13 million costs for this year of the aircraft carriers allows for no refits, and for "Hermes" to stop fixed-wing flying in the summer. It also takes no account of aircraft costs or additional supply ships and tankers.
  The utter unreality of so much of the criticism that still continues over the carrier decision needs to be exposed.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: On aircraft costs, surely the same aircraft would be provided for cover for our ships if cover were provided by land-based aircraft? Therefore, would not the cost be the same whether they were shipborne or land-based, and would they not be more effective if they were an integral part of the naval force?
  Dr. Owen: The difficulty for us in costing the Opposition's defence policy is that we never know what it is. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] The Leader of the Opposition is reported in The Guardian of 13th January as saying that he would get what use he could from the existing carriers, particularly "Ark Royal", but we assume that he means that he would run on the existing carriers as an addition to the force levels and not as a substitute for other forces, to ensure, wherever possible, that one of the carriers is deployed east of Suez in support of the military presence which

  929
  he plans, mistakenly in my view, to maintain in that area.
  In those circumstances, we have taken it that the Leader of the Opposition would choose to adhere to present plans for transferring aircraft to the Royal Air Force after the carriers go out. To do otherwise would be to deny N.A.T.O. aircraft which would otherwise be available to it, because of the deployment of carriers east of Suez reducing our air capability west of Suez. If the Opposition have other guidance to give, we shall be happy to listen to it and can then cost their new proposals.
  Mr. David Lane: Will the hon. Gentleman be saying more later about naval recruiting? Otherwise, this is merely a smokescreen to hide the Government's failure during the last three years.
  Dr. Owen: I assure the hon. Member, who takes a serious interest in these matters, that I will discuss naval manpower and will do so as honestly and frankly as I have done over the past year and a half that I have held office.
  There were good reasons that persuaded the previous Tory Government continually to put off making a decision over building the new carrier CVA01. The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) has honestly reiterated the position which he adopted as Tory Secretary of State for Air in saying last Wednesday that he
  "fought a fierce and satisfactory battle to see that these carriers were not built."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1970; Vol. 797, c. 498.]
  That should dispose of the myths that it is only my right hon. Friend who had doubts about the cost-effectiveness of aircraft carriers.
  By the time we came to power in 1964—
  Mr. F. A. Burden: What we want to get at is the real position. My hon. Friend asked a perfectly straightforward question that would clarify the point. Have the Government costed into the aircraft carriers the cost of the aircraft that will have to be deployed from land bases?
  Dr. Owen: I answered that as clearly as I possibly could—
  Mr. Burden: I am sorry, but I did not hear it.
  Dr. Owen: —and the answer is, "Yes". I explained that if the Opposition wish to put forward different proposals, we will have to cost those as well.
  I shall go back to the decision about carriers. By the time we came into power in 1964 the plan was to build not one, but three carriers, at a total estimated cost of £197 million at 1964 prices. In January, 1966, the decision was made to phase out the carriers in the mid-1970s. When, in my view, the historic and correct decision was made in January, 1968, to withdraw from the Far East at the end of 1971, it was a sensible and logical economy to phase out fixed-wing flying once the carrier force had completed the task of covering the withdrawal.
  As I said in Portsmouth—and I say it here again—there is now a real need for the Navy and those who have its interests at heart to put this issue behind it—to tackle instead the real task of forging a new Navy in many respects quite different in size and shape from the past. We have enough problems in terms of recruitment and image without our friends constantly raking over old issues and often, in passing, making damaging assertions about the Royal Navy's relationship with the Royal Air Force.
  In actual fact, in Whitehall and outside, the two Services are working together in a quite remarkable partnership both determined to work out a viable system of maritime air support to take over when the carriers phase out.
  Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: Does the hon. Gentleman honestly say that aircraft carriers have no application in Europe, in particular, Norway?
  Dr. Owen: I have never said that they have no application. As the hon. Member is well aware, our American allies have a force of carrier aircraft which make a useful contribution to N.A.T.O. I am saying that in our circumstances we do not think that they are cost effective.
  The important issue to stress in dealing with the question of maritime air support is the open-mindedness with which

  931
  we are all exploring together the possibilities of organic V/STOL opened up by the decision to develop an unrated Pegasus 11 engine Harrier. The future holds immense possibilities and with further developments in V/STOL aircraft technology, as in other weapon systems, one can envisage a pattern of maritime air support emerging that could offer a flexible and effective method of providing strike, probe and reconnaissance.
  There is no doubt that if they were cost-effective these would be useful additional capabilities to be able to deploy at sea, but I must reiterate the words of my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Equipment that a great deal of further work will have to be done before any decisions can be taken.
  During the defence debate, hon. Members opposite referred on a number of occasions to the capability of the Royal Navy to operate effectively against surface ships, particularly surface ships armed with missiles, and they urged the introduction into the Fleet of guided weapon systems which would be effective against surface ships. It may help hon. Members if, in referring to those observations, I place the present position in perspective of the developments which have taken place during, say, the past four years.
  The development of a guided weapon for use against surface ships has been considered on a number of occasions carefully and objectively and as the House was informed in 1967, during the Estimates debates and later in a debate on the Adjournment, this examination ranged widely—from ship-launched missiles with a capability comparable to that of the Norwegian Penguin missile through surface-to-surface guided weapons of greater range, to surface attack missiles launched from aircraft.
  The decision taken at that time was that we needed a capability for light strike deployed in a large number of ships. That was why we chose an air-to-surface missile to be mounted on helicopters. The AS12 missile, with which our helicopters are now being armed, entered service last year and the helicopter light strike weapon system will be widely fitted in our surface ships.
  932
  The helicopter system which I have been describing is, as I have emphasised, a light strike system only, directed primarily at the threat posed by missile-firing fast patrol craft of the Komar type. It is not intended—and this has been made quite clear in the past—as a counter to more heavily armed ships, which, as hon. Members have rightly said, may deploy long-range missiles of the cruise type.
  These vessels—and they could include submarines, which at present must expose themselves to detection by surfacing to discharge their missiles—pose a threat of a different kind to which a different response must be made.
  The principal counter to these larger ships will be the shore-based strike aircraft of the Royal Air Force and allied N.A.T.O. air forces and our growing force of nuclear fleet submarines. But it must be remembered that besides direct engagement of the missile ship, a counter to long-range missiles will be provided by the surface-to-air missile systems now fitted in our warships and by the improved systems which will succeed them. We shall also have at our disposal electronic counter-measures which can confuse the enemy's missile direction radar and distract the missile, once launched, from its course.
  We are also looking forward towards future generations of weapons that will improve still further the effectiveness of our naval forces in this area of operations. As an indication of one of the many areas in which we are currently conducting research, the Statement on Defence Estimates says that studies are in hand on naval anti-ship guided missile systems. Until these studies are completed and evaluated, it would be premature to speculate about the type of equipment which may eventually be produced and introduced into service as a result of them. I can, however, assure the House that the studies are detailed and will cover all the options open to us, including ship-launched and submarine-launched anti-ship missiles.
  During our studies we shall also be considering what opportunities there are of entering into collaboration with our allies in N.A.T.O. in the introduction into service of any new types of weapon for which we may see a requirement. I

  933
  hope that I have said enough to convince hon. Gentlemen opposite of our seriousness in looking at this area, to which, I know, they attach importance.
  Dr. Reginald Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how long these studies have been going on?
  Dr. Owen: They are part of a continuing process. These particular type of studies were looked at the same time as the initial decision in 1967, and they have been looked at constantly since.
  My hon. Friend dealt in the defence debate with other aspects of the equipment side of the Navy. I will be happy to cover, if I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, any points hon. Gentlemen raise in the debate when I wind up, and I will, of course, be dealing in some detail with the Mark 24 in the Adjournment debate this evening.
  I now wish to turn to two important areas—first and foremost, naval manpower, which I stress, once again, will, I believe, be the main limiting factor on the size of the future Fleet; also the Royal dockyards—of prime importance in assuring the increased availability of our existing ships.
  The shortage of recruits is still one of the most important problems facing the Navy, and I have no wish to disguise my concern from the House. At the beginning of 1969–70 recruiting was continuing to give us cause for serious concern, bust towards the latter part of the year there has been a modest but welcome improvement and I hope that the new military salary will reinforce this. It is estimated that about 5,300 R.N. ratings and R.M. other ranks will be recruited against 4,700 for 1968–69. Officer recruitment is, however running still about 22 per cent. below requirements, which is little changed from 1968–69.
  A new engagement was introduced last August for men aged 18 or over in the Seaman and Electrical Mechanic Branches which gives them the option of transferring to the Reserve after only four years' service. It is, however, too early to judge the success of this scheme, but I think that it is implicit in our approach that we do recognise that some people find a long engagement initially a daunting prospect.
  934
  One bright feature of the manpower picture is the steady and consistent improvement over recent years in the re-engagement rates for Royal Navy ratings and Royal Marine other ranks. The rate for men on nine-year engagements rose from 31 per cent. in 1968 to 33 per cent. in 1969, whilst for men completing 12-year engagements the figure rose from 51 to 57 per cent. We hope to do even better in 1970. Once again, this illustrates the attractiveness and satisfying nature of a full career that many men find when in the Navy and the Marines.
  I would like now to cover some of the changes we are making which indirectly all affect recruitment and job satisfaction.
  I have already stated that officer recruitment is below requirements. I would now like to outline an important new initiative which we hope to take in the sphere of officer training. At this stage I cannot, since negotiations are still continuing, do more than report general progress, but I felt it important to let the House know the present position regarding a possible in-service degree.
  In last year's Statement on the Defence Estimates, we announced the start of discussions with a university on introducing a degree course for young men entering the Navy straight from school for a career in the Royal Naval General List as Seamen or Supply and Secretariat specialists.
  The aim is that, in addition to the existing university nomination scheme, we should provide a voluntary degree opportunity for other seamen and supply officers of the General List who have degree potential and to provide this opportunity in the form of a course which is directly relevant to the naval profession with a degree at the end point. It is hoped that the first year will be able to be designed as a self-contained academic year for naval students who do not take the full degree.
  I can now say that the university concerned is the City University at London and that the discussions are going well. Progress has been made in working towards a syllabus mutually satisfactory to the Senate of City University and the Navy, but much remains to be done before we can reach final conclusions. There are also practical problems of administration, including the location of the naval students.

  935
  Our current thoughts on this are that they will be housed at the Royal Naval College, Greenwich, and if further negotiations show that a final solution on this basis is, in fact, practicable much of the future rôle of the college would be settled.
  Sir Eric Errington: Will that opportunity be open to ratings?
  Dr. Owen: Inasmuch as it is already open to ratings, either through Upper Yardsman or through the S.D. list to become officers, it would be extended to them. But, as the House knows, the Navy offers immense opportunities for a young man wanting to advance himself to become an officer. In that way he would be able to benefit from the opportunity of an in-service degree.
  The House has taken a continuing interest in the future of Greenwich, and, in particular, of the Royal Naval Staff College, which we had thought of moving to Minley Manor. We shall be giving further consideration to the possibility of moving the Staff College when the prospects for the in-service degree are clearer, and I would not rule out the possibility that we may wish to reconsider the case for a move at all.
  In the meanwhile, Minley Manor is to be adapted as the Officers' Mess and Brigade Headquarters for the Royal Engineer Training Brigade as an alternative to new buildings to save both time and money: and a guaranteed site in the same area at the Army Staff College, at Camberley, has been reserved for the Royal Naval Staff College, should it be needed.
  The middle range of officers are the people who have perhaps been most affected by changes in defence policy and they are a group to which we must give considerable attention.
  It has always been the aim of the Royal Navy to ensure that outstanding young long-service officers should progress rapidly through the promotion zones, and, by careful appointing, gain the necessary experience to fit them for flag rank.
  However, in order to give longer careers to the majority of officers and to maintain their promotion prospects, there has been a tendency recently for the average ages of promotion to rise. In due
  936
  course, this could be reflected in the ages at which officers might reach flag rank.
  To correct this, it has been decided to lower the age of entry into the promotion zones to both commander and captain in the Seaman specialisation by one year, and to commander in the Engineering and Supply specialisations by two years.
  I must say personally that I look on this as only a first step, for it is all too easy to forget that most currently serving senior naval officers all won promotion at a far earlier age than is now possible.
  Last month, I announced the new rate of warrant officer. I believe that this change, strongly urged in the House by my hon. Friends, will help in the running of the Fleet and shore establishments, and that it will give proper recognition to the talents of the best of the ratings.
  A recent attitude survey has shown the need to look at the present uniform of ratings. Design studies have now been put in hand at the Stores and Clothing Research and Development Establishment to produce prototype uniforms in radical new styles for comparison with the modernised square rig uniform already developed. Although not significantly different in appearance, the modernised prototype incorporates, amongst other refinements, a jumper with integral scarf and easily detachable collar and slimmed trousers with vertical creases. The new, more radical designs will include jacket and trouser suits to be worn with ordinary shirts, collars and ties. Fleet trials of new uniforms considered practicable are likely to be undertaken in 1971 and will take about a year to complete.
  Many people have argued that the Navy needs a seagoing allowance to compensate for the nature and restrictions of life afloat. The recent pay review excused those who live on board or in the field for more than two days from deductions for lodging and food. This is very welcome, and was welcomed by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) in the defence debate.
  The efficient use of manpower is a major objective in the Navy, and one source of economy in this field is through rationalisation of support facilities in the United Kingdom—hence cutting down the tail. Here we have reported further progress in the Defence White

  937
  Paper. In the area of general naval shore training we have approved a radical long-term plan under which, over a period of years, training will be rationalised in five major centres with the closure of a number of existing establishments. Under the plan we shall save nearly 500 live posts, both naval and civilian, and at least £1 million a year.
  In naval air support, too, we have planned major economies through the closure of the Naval Store Depot at Perth and the Store Depot and Air Workshop at Llangennech. The eventual saving from these measures will amount to about 1,300 civilian posts and about £2 million a year. But it has also been our policy, as far as possible, to alleviate particularly serious effects which our rationalisation methods would have on development areas.
  In Scotland, we have retained the naval workshop at Perth and a new R.M. task found for Arbroath.
  In Wales, we have accepted the regional arguments and moved to Llangennech the Coventry Naval Store Depot. These are clear-cut examples of the Government's regional policy being put into practice by a Government Department.
  Mr. Ian MacArthur: Does the Minister recognise that, while the workshop at Perth will continue, the closure of the store depot will cost the locality nearly 500 jobs?
  Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am aware of this, because I have discussed it with him and with the Provost. I can understand his concern. But equally he must realise that people in Llangennech, who have had the air workshop and store depot closed, feel that they have had jobs taken away from them.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does not my hon. Friend find it odd that there are many hon. Members against public expenditure increases in general, but who, as soon as anything affects them, are the first to complain? Is not this a strange attitude?
  Dr. Owen: It has not escaped my notice that from time to time there is a firm constituency interest, particularly among hon. Gentlemen opposite, which
  938
  does not comply with their criticism of the Government's overall policy.
  Hon. Members will recall that when we announced, in the 1969 Defence White Paper, the forthcoming closure of the R.N. Air Station at Brawdy, Pembrokeshire, we said that the Army and the R.A.F. were actively engaged in a thorough examination of alternative uses for the establishment.
  I am now able to say that we have decided to move to Brawdy the Rotary Wing Element of the R.A.F. Central Flying School, at present located at Tern Hill, Shropshire. It has not been easy to find a defence task for Brawdy; but we have been very conscious of its position in a development area and of the impact which closure of the air station would have had locally.
  Following the announcement in the 1969 White Paper, as the House knows, a Chief Executive, Dockyards, was appointed in September, 1969, to be the responsible authority for managing all the yards. He is urgently examining the various problems concerned in depth, bearing in mind the recommendation of the Fulton Committtee on the importance of developing the concept of managerial accountability, but since this is, in effect, a major industry, we cannot, and should not, divorce managerial accountability from greater managerial freedom, and this freedom we are determined to achieve. I know that my hon. Friend from Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) attaches great importance to this.
  We need to extend the application of the concept of project management which has been used with conspicuous success in the refit of H.M.S. "Ark Royal", and also the development of a system of accounting in the dockyards which will enable the performance of individual managers to be measured in financial terms by creating a relationship between the resources they have consumed, and the results obtained.
  I am very anxious to obtain general acceptance of the use of the £ as the general unit of measurement. Once such a system is operating it should be possible to give individual managers targets in financial terms against which their performance can be measured, no matter how technically abstruse the field may be in which they are operating.

  939
  Where possible, commercial pricing standards could be adopted for this purpose. Where this is not possible, accounting conventions would have to be developed, and for this reason it might take some time to develop the system as a whole, but I believe that the twin application of principles of modern technology and modern accountancy to the unique problems of the dockyards will do a great deal to raise the existing standards of management.
  We are also making appropriate provision covering the next 10 years for the most extensive programme of development and modernisation in the history of the Royal dockyards. These developments will mainly be concentrated at Portsmouth and Devonport since Chatham and Rosyth have already been equipped for their principal rôle—the support respectively of nuclear fleet submarines and Polaris submarines.
  Some of the developments have already been announced, such as the construction of a covered Leander complex at Devonport, and we hope to announce soon a similar type of complex for the refit of guided missile destroyers at Portsmouth. The House is also aware that we intend to develop Devonport as the third nuclear dockyard, involving a substantial capital investment over the next few years.
  Additionally, expenditure will be required to provide more sophisticated maintenance facilities than now exist for modern warships in the form of Fleet maintenance bases, and also to provide facilities in the United Kingdom for those ships which are at present supported in the Far East.
  One of the difficulties arising from the technical sophistication of modern warships is that it is no longer possible for the ship to tie up at a buoy and close down its power plants when it comes to port for maintenance or leave. Power and chilled water must be immediately available to keep its various systems alive, and this, in turn, means additional expenditure on berths. Further details of our development plans will be announced as they are worked out, but the House, at this stage, will wish to be aware that they are likely to involve the expenditure of many millions of pounds over the next decade in order to provide the Fleet with the support that it must have.
  940
  In the Defence White Paper last year we also announced that we must plan for reductions in the dockyard labour force and for greater output in the dockyards. The developments I have just described are an essential element of this programme.
  Mr. Burden: The Secretary of State for Defence said during the defence debate that considerable reorganisation of the dockyards would be taking place. I am sure that the House would wish to have these proposals in the form of a White Paper as soon as possible so that we can consider them. When is the Prices and Incomes Board likely to report on the wage structures in the dockyards?
  Dr. Owen: The reorganisation of the dockyards to which my right hon. Friend referred concerns mainly managerial changes. He mentioned the introduction of a dockyard board. The decision on investment will come to the House for approval in the normal way. In the last Defence White Paper we gave a detailed indication of the way we were reorganising the typing of the dockyards and repair by replacement. These things have been happening over the last year, and will continue to take place, but they take time to work their way through.
  On the second question, the report will be a recommendation to the Government, and we shall consider it as soon as it comes.
  This last year has seen many changes in the Royal Navy, and I have been able to mention only a few. It is my firm belief that we are all of us witnessing the emergence of the most modern and effective Navy that this country has ever had. The Navy's traditions and history are, we are often told, its very foundations. I agree, but they can only ever be our guidelines. They will not, nor should they ever be, changed lightly, but to be the slave of history and tradition is something that no fighting Service can ever afford.
  The country needs to be told loud and clear that they have a modern and well equipped Navy, of which it can be proud, and this is the message that, I hope, will emerge from this debate.
  4.36 p.m.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I had thought, when the Minister rose to speak, that we would have a calm,

  941
  well-argued, objective speech explaining the position of the Royal Navy, and most of us on this side were sorry that for five out of the 45 minutes of his speech the Minister followed his right hon. Friend in what turned out to be a blatant bit of party propaganda. It is unusual for Ministers of Defence to start the General Election campaign perhaps a year before the election. If any Minister can quote a blatantly political speech or a White Paper of comparable inaccuracy issued by any Minister of Defence during the Tory regime of 13 years I shall be glad to hear of it.
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that two years ago his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made two proposals on defence policy which he said he would put to the British people at the next General Election? First, there was the proposal to maintain a lasting presence east of Suez. Second, there was his proposal to restore cuts made by the present Government in defence forces. The Tory election campaign on this issue started two years ago. Is it not the case that, whereas the Government have costed the Opposition's proposals, the Opposition take refuge in vulgar personal abuse?
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I remember the speech opening the defence debate. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman remembers a reference to a cat with a plastic smile? Was that a pleasant and constructive way to open the debate? Was that not personal abuse? That was the standard set by the right hon. Gentleman, and, once a debate has started, and the standard has been set, we are entitled to hit back.
  "This animal is dangerous, and if attacked it defends itself."
  I could go through all the misinterpretations of the opening paragraphs of the White Paper. Some of them were repeated, and I shall deal with some of them.
  It is right to say that the nation is not tending, or wishing, to be "backward looking". It should be more seaward looking, and what worries us about the cuts in the Navy is that they are a disproportionately large share of the cuts made in all three defence Services. It was said that the Leader of the Opposi-
  942
  tion had objected to the deployment of naval craft in the Mediterranean. I think that what we criticise is that of all places the Mediterranean does not seem to be the ideal area in which to deploy an aircraft carrier. It is Government policy to provide air defence for naval ships from shore bases, and there can be no sea which is better equipped on its perimeter with shore bases and N.A.T.O. bases than the Mediterraneon. If we are to have an aircraft carrier, this does not seem to be the ideal area in which to deploy it.
  Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting what was said. On 5th March his right hon. Friend said:
  "… the Government are to push naval forces into the Mediterranean where they are not necessary, and will do so to get them out of Singapore and the Far East."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March 1970; Vol. 797, c. 642.]
  We have made it clear that we would not run on carriers in the strike rôle after withdrawal from east of Suez. The right hon. Gentleman was objecting to the build-up of naval forces in the Mediterranean after 1972. If the right hon. Gentleman had explained why he took that view, the House would have been interested to hear it.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: We have had two long speeches from the right hon. Gentleman and I cannot give way again.
  I was glad that we did not have any reference in this debate to the fact that the N.A.T.O. area had been strengthened by a run-down in the Far Eastern fleet. I have looked up the numbers in Cmnd. 2902 and found that we had a Royal Navy deployed in the Mediterranean and home waters of 22,520 on 1st January, 1966, and virtually the same on 1st January, 1970. So any argument that we have strengthened the Navy in home and Mediterranean waters as a result of the withdrawal Is fallacious.
  I also want to correct one small piece of history. The Minister in opening said that we had planned three new aircraft carriers. I remember listening to Lord Thorneycroft, as he now is, on 30th July, 1963, when he made a statement about this to the House. He said:
  "A decision has, therefore, been taken to build one carrier replacement".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1963; Vol. 682, c. 237.]
  He went on to make it clear that the "Hermes" and "Eagle" could be run

  943
  on into the 1980s and that during the 1970s the Government would make a decision as to what the replacement might be. It is ridiculous to try to cost the three new carriers, as the Minister tried to do. When the decision was taken to start £3½ million was spent on the CVAO1 partly in this Government's time and partly in ours. So we had started the design, building and ordering of long dated materials for that ship and that ship only.
  I was also perplexed—and we are all deeply perplexed—at the way in which the hon. Gentleman and his Minister use figures and costings. When the Minister addressed the R.U.S.I. he said at paragraph 20
  "What I ask you to recognise is that we could only have continued a carrier force through the 1970s if we had been prepared to spend what could well have been over £170 million a year …".
  Today we have a figure of £70 million a year. But all the figures are absolutely misleading. We do not understand. They are always exaggerated. I think that the hon. Gentleman dealt a little too lightly with the criticism whether alternative defences could have been provided for in this costing.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), a former Minister for the Navy, made exactly the same point in his resignation speech when he said, in relation to ten-year costings which had been put before the House by the right hon. Gentleman, that
  "This is misleading, because some of the carriers functions were essential and could not be replaced by other means, which the White Paper points out. What the White Paper does not do is to cost the reprovisioning of the essential functions of the carrier. If that is done the total cost of the carrier comes down to a small fraction of the £1,400 million; and it is a factor to be borne in mind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 258–9.]
  That is why we asked whether those costings take all that into account and we do not get a satisfactory answer.
  The Minister also gave us an announcement on the trial arrangements for alternative arrangements to the square rig. I wonder why this was done. From such soundings as I have made I do not find that it is unpopular. But let him do his trial. It will not cost a great deal, and I am sure that he will bear in mind the fleet reactions to it.
  Dr. Owen: It was in response to the reaction by the Fleet and as a result of an attitude survey. The hon. Gentleman has been repeating what I have been told on so many occasions—that it is popular. But on the basis of attitude surveys, many people are finding it unpopular. Surely, it is our job to try to take account of what ratings think of their own uniform, and not what we think ratings should think of their uniform.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: It is a passing point. I have taken my own Gallup poll and I found the reverse, but social scientists can find any result they want from any poll, and I have no doubt that when this is tested in the Fleet we shall get a sure and considered result.
  The Minister of Defence during the big defence debate accused us of bad housekeeping and said that we had not spent the full 7 per cent. in 1963 and 1964 which was the target, and that we had spent 6·7 per cent. of the G.N.P. in both the last two years of our 13 years. During those years the G.N.P. was expanding at just twice the rate at which it is now. I have the figures since then and I find that during our last four years the G.N.P. expanded by 11·2 per cent. and in the years 1965–68 expanded by 6·2 per cent. So we were getting an expanding G.N.P. and, therefore, the same percentage produced very much better value, whereas the Minister is getting a more or less static G.N.P. for many of his years. This makes these cuts in the G.N.P. much more harmful to our defence forces.
  The Minister also accused us of bad housekeeping. Surely it is keeping within one's estimate and producing the result which is the measure of housekeeping and not what percentage of the G.N.P. is absorbed.
  I have looked at the figures in the Command Paper, and I find that the Government set a record for over-spending in defence. In the year 1966–67 they overspent by between £22·25 million; in 1967–68 they overspent to a total of £62·27 million, of, which the Royal Navy was £27·9 million overspent; in 1968–69 the figure was £37·2 million, of which the Royal Navy was £27·7 million overspent. This year we have an overall figure of £2,280 million and then the Supplementary Estimate which came along six days

  945
  later of £121 million, which the Government did not incorporate because that would not have looked so good at the Press conference or appeared so good to the Left wing. No doubt there will be—as there has been in previous years—other Supplementary Estimates. I very much doubt that the Government will be able to fight the election on the cry that they have reduced the percentage of the G.N.P. below 6 per cent. When the 1969 G.N.P. figure is published I do not think defence spending will be very much short of 6·2 per cent.
  This cut since 1964 is, after all the turmoil and all the breaking of treaties, something between 0·4 and 0·5 per cent. of the G.N.P. This is ridiculous.
  This, I suppose, is the last Navy Estimates debate in which I shall speak. It has been an honour to be able to introduce and pilot through this House five previous Navy Estimates debates, and I only hope that my successor will enjoy himself as much as I have done in this capacity. I came into politics at the end of the war, and I was determined to do my utmost to see that the mistakes which were made in the 1930s on defence were not made again. It seems that I shall be leaving the House with the some mistakes being made. The Estimates of all three Services are being cut and cut again, and this really stems from that initial decision to peg at £2,000 million at 1964 prices. It does not seem to be related to the threat, nor to the firmness of our alliances; it does not seem to be related to anything except politics.
  I discovered a statement made by the Prime Minister on 16th January, 1968, after the devaluation cuts; this is in the Command Paper. It showed that in 1969·70 he was going to cut Defence Estimates at 1964 prices to £1,860 million and in 1972–73 the plan was to cut them to £1,600 million. I wonder, with the growth of the power of naval forces potentially hostile to us all over the world, whether this is a realistic appraisal, and if our economy is stronger, as the Government assure us, then surely that ought to be re-examined again.
  I want to know the source of the statement, which was used in the R.U.S.I. speech, that there would be a cut from 7 per cent. to 5 per cent. I cannot
  946
  trace it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will draw my attention to it. It was said "As you know, in the end we fixed 5 per cent. of the G.N.P. as our target." Where did that originate? I cannot find it in any statement in the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I must point out that this is a debate on the Navy, not a general debate on the Services and defence.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Absolutely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the senior Service, an important section of our defence forces, is most adversely affected by these issues. If the hon. Gentleman is not able to tell me, perhaps he will write to me and explain where that statement came from.
  Despite all the criticisms of setting a ceiling, whether £2,000 million or 5 per cent., this mistake appears to be continuing, and the repercussions on the Royal Navy, and particularly on Vote A, are serious. On 1st April, 1964, the Vote A strength was 98,000. On 1st April, 1969, five years later, it was down to 90,000. On 1st April, 1973, four years after that, it is to be cut by a further 12,000 to 78,000. The Army is having its manpower cut by 10 per cent. Over the same period, the Navy is to have its manpower cut by 20 per cent.
  Can this be in the long-term interests of Britain, an island Power so much more dependent than other Western European Powers on its raw materials and with half its food coming by the sea lanes? It must put those sea lanes at considerable risk.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Can my hon. Friend confirm that there are now fewer naval ratings than there are employees in the Inland Revenue? Can he explain on what basis of national security or priority it can ever be right to have more tax collectors than sailors in an island nation?
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point in his question, but, if I were to answer it, I might go outside the bounds of order. What is alarming is that the plans to cut our defence forces will take 75,000 away, but already there are 77,000 added to the number of our civil servants. It is not only in the Inland Revenue that one sees it; it is over the whole field. There

  947
  are many extra local government officers, too. It is essential that the people should be aware of these facts, and, no doubt, they will be when the election comes.
  Mr. Dalyell: Before his last controversial remark, the hon. Gentleman was dealing seriously with the question of numbers. Will he say what numbers he thinks we ought to have? Having criticised my right hon. Friends, will be give us a serious estimate of the level of numbers which he would like to see if there were a Conservative Government?
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I am glad to be able to respond in the terms used by a right hon. Gentleman opposite, when a year before the election in 1964 he said:
  "It is not our function in a debate of this sort to explain the Opposition's defence policy. This is, essentially, a time when we want from the Government a statement of their policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1963; Vol. 673, c. 146.]
  That was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley). I do not depart from that expression of view, and I have a lot of other quotations from the Prime Minister and others which I could use. That is not our object now. The Government are responsible. The hon. Gentleman must ask his own Front Bench if he wants his question answered.
  Now, the number of recruits. It is the deliberate run-down which, above all else, gives us cause for concern. I see on page 76, paragraph 5, of the White Paper that 2,840 people are to be made redundant in the Royal Navy. In relation to the rundown, the shortfall in recruiting is really alarming. The hon. Gentleman did not burke this issue. It is challenging and difficult, and one has to face the fact, as the White Paper in 1967 said—as recently as that—that recruitment for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines had been running
  "at a fairly steady rate of 7,400 per annum,"
  and now, only three years later, the total is only 5,091. This is a cut in recruiting of 33 per cent. in five years, and it is most alarming for the future.
  I notice also that the figures of recruiting are no longer expressed in man-years. As both commissions and periods of service tend to be shorter nowadays, I sus-
  948
  pect that if the figures were converted into man-years they would show an even more alarming downturn.
  What we fear is that the Government will tell us that they no longer have the men to man the ships, and, therefore, the ships will have to be put to reserve or, perhaps, not even be built. Such actions would affect the whole shape of our fleet for a decade to come.
  I turn now to that most important section of recruiting the juniors; 70 per cent. of Royal Navy personnel comes from juniors between 15 and 20 years of age. I concede that new methods of teaching and new ways of attracting young boys must be developed. What always alarmed me in my five years at the Admiralty was that something over 20 per cent. of Royal Navy personnel was always in the training machine. This is an alarming figure, and we must speed up our training. We ought to take cognisance of the fact that young men can assimilate training much more quickly now then they could ten or 15 years ago, and that teaching methods have improved.
  Captain Corbett, writing in the magazine Navy, for December 1969, said that the intelligentsia persistently knocks qualities such as tradition, service, loyalty, discipline and the maintenance of law and order as desirable ends, and this is having an adverse effect on recruiting for all three Services, not least the Navy. He went on to say that, as a consequence, too many young men will not commit themselves to a period of service but wish to float in and out of jobs, which is wholly undesirable both for the nation and for their own characters and well being.
  We must—this is said in the White Paper itself—go for worth-while qualifications which are of value outside if we are to attract naval ratings in sufficient numbers.
  There is a woeful shortfall in officer recruiting as well. As recently as 1963 there were 198 cadets at Dartmouth. That had run down in the 1967 White Paper to 182. In 1968, it was 175. in 1969 it was 159, and in this White Paper it is down to 112. The hon. Gentleman says that this is 25 short of the target. It is a substantial percentage down when taken with the shortfall in earlier years. Again, imagination and every method

  949
  available must be used to attract people to a worthwhile life.
  Now, the Fleet. The Defence White Paper of 1964 reads very differently in this respect from the present White Paper. In 1964 we had 181 operational ships and ships in trials and training. This year that figure has fallen to 143, and this despite all the assurances by the Prime Minister in the dockyard towns about strengthening the conventional forces and, in particular, the Royal Navy. It is woefully short, and if the right hon. Gentleman has any responsibility for drafting next year's Defence White Paper—
  Mr. Healey: I shall.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: —I mean the defence portion of their manifesto—I hope that he will do it rather more accurately than was done last time. I do not want to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman by quoting again. He has been quoted so many times. Perhaps he will do better next time, after five years of experience.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  An Hon. Member: Sit down.
  Mr. Dalyell: If the hon. Gentleman asks me to sit down, I can only conclude that he does not want to hear the point made. It is a simple question. We are rebuked for cutting down the number from 180 to 143. What is the optimum number? Is it 160 or 170? The hon. Gentleman speaks from the Front Bench, and he must have some idea. We are criticised for making cuts, and he ought to state a substantive figure; otherwise, he is dodging the issue.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is teasing; he is too wise a bird to expect me to answer that. We shall take the advice of the chiefs of staff, and we shall not impose a political solution when we come to power.
  Now, the question of aircraft carriers. Let us first have clear that a decision to make a contribution east of Suez does not necessitate the deployment there of an aircraft carrier. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made that plain. Sometimes, the Minister tries to cost our east of Suez policy and add the cost of aircraft carriers, but the two do not necessarily go together.
  950
  The sum of £9½ million was spent on H.M.S. "Hermes" between 1964 and 1969; £30 million was spent on "Ark Royal" between 1967 and 1970, and £31 million on "Eagle". That information comes from Janes. That amounts to £70 million on three aircraft carriers. The useful life of the "Ark Royal" is calculated to be until 1985, while the "Eagle" will last until 1980. Again I am quoting Janes, and I recognise that some refits would be necessary.
  One wonders whether it makes sense, after spending all this money, wilfully to retire both these ships. I recognise that "Hermes" is being kept in case it is needed as a commando carrier, but both "Ark Royal" and "Eagle" are modern, capable ships and are particularly valuable. The conditions in which they were to be phased out do not now apply. First, the economy is stronger; therefore, let us attend to this matter and spend on defence that which we could not afford to spend in more difficult times. Secondly, we were assured that the Fleet and the merchant fleet would be provided with air cover and a reconnaissance capability from long-range R.A.F. aircraft operating from land bases. This has become increasingly impossible, and the abandonment of the F111 makes it even more impossible.
  Lastly, we have not been provided, although we were assured that we would be, with an antidote to the Russian short-range or long-range surface-to-surface missiles, the short range being 20 miles and the long range about 150 miles. I want for a moment to give the House some of these facts, because they are alarming. Although we hear that we are to start yet again on re-examining this problem, one cannot help feeling that there is no chance of a sufficient antidote to these weapons coming into operational service for another five years. It therefore makes logic to stretch the life of our carriers for as long as we economically can until such time as there is an alternative defence, or until the new through-deck command cruiser comes into service.
  The Russian Navy is equipped with large numbers of cruisers—the "Krestas", which have three launchers, the "Krupnys" and "Kyndas" and the "Kildins", and of the four types there are some 20 hulls all equipped with the

  951
  long-range 150 nautical mile missiles. This is a cruise missile, as the hon. Gentleman said. During its cruise phase it is at low level and therefore below the radar coverage of our own ships. It can be directed from a remote aircraft, and it is therefore a very formidable weapon.
  The Russians have been practising launching these missiles in salvoes. It may be possible to defend a group or a ship against one missile, but the Russians launch up to 12 in salvoes and the mind boggles at the task of defending oneself against such a formidable weapon. This is one of the reasons why I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think again about phasing out the aircraft carriers until some alternative defence is available. Certainly at the moment, there is no-surface-to-surface missle equipped to attack these launching ships.
  The short-range missile is also difficult to counter, as the Israelis found. What was interesting about that incident was that four missiles were fired—these are the missiles with a 20-mile range—and all four hit. This is a missile with an active homing head, and it is not easily fooled. Having grown up in the electronic counter-measures world during the war, I know something about infra-red and other finger printing and about such devices, but so do the Russians and it should not be too easily assumed that this missile can be foxed by electronic counter-measures. With its active homing head, it is not easily fooled.
  The short-range missile is fired from a fast patrol boat and takes its information from an aircraft, and the boat can be manœuvred into a launching position from that aircraft. There are 150 of these Komar class or OSA class patrol boats in the Warsaw Pact and they are also distributed to the friends of the U.S.S.R. The U.A.R. has 20; Syria six; Cuba 18; Yugoslavia three; Indonesia 12; and North Korea four. We shall see them being spread further in the next few years. I cannot help returning to the feeling that the counter is a built-in integral air strike—until such time as we have a missile counter-measure—and for the present that means a fixed-wing aircraft.
  It is the Tory intention to make use of one or two carriers until other means of
  952
  defence are available. It has been argued by the right hon. Gentleman, and it was argued by the hon. Gentleman today, that we must have three carriers or nothing. The French do not find it necessary to have three. They have two carriers, the "Clemenceau" and the "Foch". The Dutch, the Canadians, the Indians and the Australians all have one carrier, and find it useful to their navies. Why should it always be assumed that three must be operational, presumably one "in the wash", one refitting and one at sea?
  I am glad to learn that at last the Minister is beginning to see some sense and that a through-deck command cruiser is being designed. I understand that it is to be a ship of about 20,000 tons. But the corollary of this is to push ahead with the Super Harrier. I know that the engine has been up-rated, but we still need to go to the next phase, which is to indoctrinate the Royal Air Force and give some sense of operational priority to the use of the Harrier at sea. If we are to go ahead with this ambitious ship, the command cruiser, we should have for the Harrier rather more operational trials and a sense of purpose behind it.
  I turn to the subject of submarines. Here the threat is all too evident. Paragraph 19 on page 4 of the White Paper says that the Russian western fleet now consists of 250 submarines of which a proportion are nuclear powered. My information is that the Russians' total fleet of submarines is 320 conventional submarines, including 60 nuclear-powered submarines, and that the Russians are building the Polaris type at the rate of four a year, a very formidable threat. In addition, there are 400 Russian strike and recce aircraft and 90 sizeable surface ships, as is mentioned in the White Paper.
  In 1966 we had 46 submarines, including those in refit. According to this year's White Paper, we now have only 27 patrol submarines in service, about half the number of 1939. Of course those submarines are much more formidable than the submarines of 1939, but so are the submarines of our enemies, and we must look to the threat from potential enemies to assess whether we are under-equipped in this respect.
  I hoped that the Minister would announce to the House that the Fleet submarine nuclear programme was to be

  953
  restored, that the cut made in the crisis of January, 1968, was to be made good. It was not quite fair for the Minister to say that the Government were now building at twice the rate of 1960, because we then suspended the submarine building programme and gave priority to the Polaris programme, so that of course the building rate of Fleet submarines was adversely affected.
  The availability of submarines gives us some cause for concern. "Dreadnought", the first nuclear submarine—I was present when it was launched, and also when it was laid down, if one can talk about the "laying down" of a nuclear submarine—went into refit at Rosyth in April, 1968. I understand that the reactor core was changed a year ago. Perhaps we may be told when it will be at sea again, whether it will be at sea in time to make room at Rosyth for the refitting of the first Polaris boat, which is due in July, 1970, and for the second Polaris boat, which is due for a refit in April, 1971. Unless the yards are released fairly soon, we shall have a pile-up of pending refits, and that could be serious, because we want to keep the Polaris boats operational and at sea to the greatest extent possible, as the hon. Gentleman will agree.
  We were promised a stronger Navy, but the Government have been palpably shown not capable of providing it. In a desperate anxiety to impose cuts down to 5 per cent. of the G.N.P. is it wise to lose another 12,000 men in the next three years, and would it not be better to run on with the carriers and get better value for the £70 million spent?
  I come to the cut in naval research and development. Between 1964 and 1972 naval manpower is to be cut by 20 per cent. The Government have already cut the number of naval ships in the operational fleet and trials and training by 26½ per cent. But defence research and development have been cut by a much greater extent. The Minister of Defence for Equipment took pride in the fact that the cut had been not from £275 million to £222 million a year, but in real terms from £325 million to £222 million. Therefore, this is a 31½ per cent. cut in our research and development.
  It is comforting that the one area in which expenditure has expanded is
  954
  ships and underwater warfare. It has increased from £14 million to £21 million, which is right. On the other hand, expenditure on guided weapons, on which one would think the Government would try to make up the leeway, has been cut from £53 million in 1966–67 to £44 million this year. I wonder whether that is right in view of the figures which I have given.
  To summarise what I have said, during the six years of this Government defence is the only sacred cow which has been constantly slaughtered and reslaughtered. The Government's lack of enthusiasm and consistency has had an effect on the morale of all our forces, not least the Royal Navy, particularly in recruiting. The cuts so far are bad enough; they are unrelated to the threat and the solidarity of our alliance. But the next round of cuts will be even more painful, and, in the uncertain conditions of the world, it seems ridiculous to continue with them.
  We are not advocating larger forces. But we are advocating that the next steep section of the run-down should not be so steep. We do not want this country, faced with its obligations to its allies and its obligation to defend its homeland, to be unable to do so. We must not lack either the weapons or the manpower. That is why we are very critical of the right hon. Gentleman's régime as it applies to the Royal Navy.
  5.12 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) will forgive me for saying that in many ways his speech makes the case for a Select Committee on defence. I wonder whether it is sensible to have this kind of confrontation in politics, which may be necessary during the major defence debate, but which is not very satisfactory when the Opposition, having made criticisms, are unwilling to say what they would do.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: The hon. Gentleman does not have to convert me. A main point in my speech last Thursday was that I should like an all-party Select Committee on defence to be set up.
  Mr. Dalyell: That's true. Before going into detail, I should like to make a point which I feel is central to our debate. It raises the whole issue of the

  955
  purpose of a Navy at present. Some hon. Members opposite may have their doubts, but I hope that I am neither more or less concerned than they are about the welfare of those in the Navy. We should have effective forces.
  People, like myself, who have been against east of Suez policies and a number of other expansionist policies are in a genuinely difficult dilemma. It is very difficult to argue that we should keep a Navy and then say that we should contract it to such a size that it no longer offers legitimate career expectations. On an occasion like this, it is useful to face this dilemma. It is exceedingly difficult to know how to increase the number of people going to officerships in the Navy to the number apparently required. I think that an increase of 22 per cent. is needed. I am not at all sure that this is simply a matter of money.
  I welcomed the military salary, which will change the situation and may have an effect on recruiting, but I have the gravest doubts whether the military salary or any pay which potential naval officers are likely to get in the foreseeable future will bring in the numbers which the Ministry of Defence says are required. I suspect that people going into the forces must have other incentives. If they do not, whatever the salary is, it will be seen as a career which does not lead very far.
  Perhaps the basic issue is legitimate career expectations. I should therefore like to offer some reflections on the rôle and shape of the Navy in as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence called it during the defence debate, an "era of negotiation"—that is, the time when few people believe or think that the Navy will be used at all because no longer do many of us even envisage the sort of operation which some of us saw at first hand in the Straits of Malacca. Whether confrontation was a reasonable and sensible war to fight in the Far East—and I am referring to confrontation in Borneo—I do not deal with at this moment. But no one can dispute that the Navy personnel played a very worthwhile and creditable rôle in that extremely uncomfortable war. But if one says, as I say, that this country should not meddle and should not get involved in wars of this sort, one must
  956
  take the point of some senior naval officers who say that it is difficult to attract personnel to a Service in which the sense of excitement which went with maintaininig the panoply of empire is no longer with us.
  Therefore, my right hon. and hon. Friends should focus their minds and the minds of others in their Department on what I can only call Operation Military Aid to the Civil Community as applied to the Forces. A Member of Parliament can easily destroy his case by overdoing it. I realise that this kind of argument lends itself very easily to ribaldry and exaggeration and that one's ideas can be ruled out of court by exaggerating. I do not propose that either the majority of naval forces or the majority of time in the Services, particularly in the Navy, should be devoted to Op.M.A.C.C.-type operations. I understand that the first function of a Navy is defence and that there should be a training element in almost anything that the Navy undertakes.
  Having said that, I should have thought that some good work which has been started could be enlarged and built upon. I acknowledge three examples given to me by the Department. First, in Plymouth, there is a clearance diving team working on the disposal of the explosive cargo of a German vessel sunk off Jersey in the Second World War. Secondly, a Far East diving clearance team apparently spent three weeks in the Seychelles widening the channels between reefs and blasting underwater. Thirdly, H.M.S. "Mohawk", carried surplus school equipment provided by an organisation in the United States on the last leg of its journey from Roosevelt Roads to Anguilla. These are small items and I do not pretend that they constitute a full-time job for the Navy, but they are a start in the sort of undertaking and project of which the Navy could, I should have thought, do far more.
  When we in the House are rebuked and berated for not doing sufficient about overseas development, it should be remembered that in a number of countries, even in countries where one might not expect it, such as Indonesia, Army and Navy help would be welcomed in certain circumstances for joint development projects. The Navy has amassed a degree

  957
  of skill which could be used in helping developing countries in sensible and practical projects. This is not to overdo the argument. All that I am saying is that it is worth thinking out in some detail how this can be done.
  I come nearer home and say a few words about the sort of scheme which could be worked out to create the legitimate career expectations which I believe are the only answer to the recruiting problem. I very much welcomed the announcement which my hon. Friend made some time ago that there would be in-service degrees. I know at first hand, from at least three young naval officers, of the advantage to those in their 20's of the possibility of spending time at a university. May I ask my hon. Friend what will be the obligations of those who are preparing for some kind of university degree? Will they be obliged to remain in the Forces for three, or five or 10 years? It would be quite reasonable that they should enter into some such obligation and not at all unreasonable that that should be part of the contract. Once a man has been to university, the Navy having borne the expense of sending him there and having based their plans on the expectation of his service in the Navy, it would be unreasonable for the man then to go immediately to some more lucrative civilian employment.
  I should like my hon. Friend to tell me about the courses which they are encouraging young naval officers to take. I agree with the point made, I think by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) in an intervention, when he emphasised the importance of naval ratings in that connection. What initiative are the Services taking in getting young Service men to enter for this kind of university degree?
  This ties up with another subject. In all the arguments about which Department of State should be responsible for a national marine science programme, which we should like to see in this country, I have made no secret of the fact that in my opinion the Ministry of Defence is perhaps the most suitable point in Whitehall at which to start co-ordinating. Paragraph 142 of the White Paper states:
  "The Navy Department are, of course, preeminent in their experience of practical operations at sea. About £1·4 million a year of their research programme is spent on research
  958
  and development in marine technology which may have some commercial potential. The Ministry of Technology, on the other hand, are the sponsoring Department for the instrument industry and also have the responsibility for arranging adequate technological programmes to meet national needs."
  I come back to the view that the old Admiralty, as it was, possessing the hardware, is the most appropriate Department of State if we are to run that co-ordinated marine science programme which many of us think should be run, if only because of our foreign relations requirements. I quote Hubert Humphrey, who was Chairman of the American Marine Sciences Committee, to the effect that
  "international co-operation with the British would be much easier if there were a single department with whom other countries could deal".
  My hon. Friend knows that there has been considerable correspondence on this subject and perhaps he will tell us, in winding up the debate, what are the current thoughts in the matter.
  That may be grandiose, but I have a point of a more practical nature to raise with my hon. Friend—that of what service the Navy can give to the young people of this country. A great deal of heat has been engendered in the discussions about conscription and I do not want to go into those discussions this afternoon, although I am bound to say that any man who begins to look seriously at some plans which have been put forward by the Opposition is left with the inevitable deduction that at any rate a degree of selective conscription would be involved if certain plans put forward by certain hon. Members opposite were to be completed.
  The fact is that the Navy can render a service to many teenagers in this country, and I will give an example in practical mathematics. It is known to my hon. Friend that here I do not speak entirely as a novice. In a previous incarnation, before I became a Member of Parliament, I worked for 18 months on the school ship "Dunera" as one of the first directors of studies, and I know what I am talking about in this matter. Taking teenage boys and girls to sea even for a short time can be extremely valuable in their education and seven or eight years later, perhaps, it may be found to have been of lasting value, particularly in the application of practical mathematics, because in schools it is very difficult to

  959
  persuade pupils that mathematics have any relevance to real life. If we can devise an imaginative mathematics programme, as has been done by such gifted people as Mr. Lionel Joseph of Dorking, based on problems not only of navigation but of other matters arising at sea, down to the victualling of ships, a practical course can be provided.
  Undoubtedly I shall be told that I must realise that the Navy is not an educational organisation. Nor is it. But if we are to ask talented and gifted people, as many naval officers are, to spend over 15 or over 20 years of their lives without prospect of a war and yet to maintain a high morale, it may well be that they should be doing something other than purely naval routine. In the recent seminars organised by the Royal United Services Institution—other hon. Members, too, have attended them—there has been much serious discussion on the whole issue of what the Services could do for young people. I believe that they have a part to play both in shore establishments and in going to sea.
  Without being laughed out of the House, I should like to ask two or three questions about the future of the carriers which are superb ships. I will not lend myself to ribaldry by supporting the suggestion that the "Hermes", the "Ark Royal" and the "Eagle" should overnight be turned into school ships, but I should like to ask a general question about what is to be done with them if they are to be phased out. One suggestion which needs an answer is that they might be used as industrial fair ships going round the world displaying British goods. I will content myself at the moment by asking my hon. Friend what is to be done with these extremely valuable craft. Now is the time to start thinking about the matter. I do not suggest that we should be given a definitive answer tonight, but if they are to be phased out I hope that they will not go the way of some other valuable ships and be left lying in Loch Long and elsewhere rusting away.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: As the commando carriers are nearly reaching the end of their life, would not the first use of H.M.S. "Hermes" be to replace one of them?
  Mr. Dalyell: That may well be so. I would not care to dispute that with the hon. Gentleman. There may well be a good case behind his argument. But this raises a wider issue of what is to be done with ships that are out of date. It is a very sad and distressing sight to see valuable ships lying, unused, in such places as Gare Loch and Loch Long. Surely the British India Steam Navigation Company has fully demonstrated what can be done by imaginative schemes. I do not suggest that the Navy Department can do exactly what British India has done, but at least some thought should be given to the problem and, in particular, to the practical way in which the Services can be linked directly with certain educational authorities, because all these schemes depend very much on people.
  One can suggest most grandiose and perhaps impractical propositions, and nothing ever comes of them. My experience of working with British India was that the most valuable situations arose when there was a consistent and sustained link between, in that case a great maritime company and in the case which I am advocating, the Admiralty, and particular education authorities. Granted that there could be these links, there are imaginative people in our education service who will devise the worthwhile schemes. This can and should be done. Will the Government reflect on taking the initiative in educational links?
  I turn to now to say a word about the Hydrographer and his staff. This House pays very little attention to the work done by the Hydrography Department, and as one who knows something of it at first hand I feel that this is a great pity. In the Department there are a lot of talented and able people and I wonder whether their talents are not partly going to waste. There could certainly be links between the Hydrographer's Department, Alverstoke, and perhaps an institute of further education.
  I feel strongly about those who talk too long in defence debates, and I could go on for a great deal longer, elaborating what I have said, but I conclude by saying that the defence of this country must be the Navy's prime concern. There is a great deal that this country can do, as some developing countries have done, to establish a socio-economic function for the Forces. The Army has shown the

  961
  way in the development of Op.M.A.C.C. With the Navy it is not so easy, but at least a sensible case can be made out for trying, and I hope to have an undertaking from my hon. Friend tonight that serious thought will be given to a maritime equivalent of Op.M.A.C.C.
  5.32 p.m.
  Dame Joan Vickers: I hope that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his remarks, except in the comments he made about the Hydrographer as I am extremely interested in that subject.
  I would like to quote from President Nixon. He said:
  "There is an irreducible minimum of essential military security, for if we are less strong than necessary, there will be no domestic society to look after."
  What I am worried about is the Royal Navy reducing to below the minimum. There is also the naval prayer,
  "security for such as pass on the seas upon their lawful occasion; that the inhabitants of our island may in peace and quietness serve Thee our God."
  This is what naval people are continually saying, and this is what the Navy wants to do.
  Is the Navy being given sufficient equipment? Page 88 of the Defence Estimates shows that there has been a cut in ships, aircraft, and weapons, new construction and repairs of £8,820,000. This is even worse than it appears, because there are other things offsetting the figure such as rises in wages for some personnel.
  My chief fear is that because we live on an island, we could easily be starved out of existence, and as other countries are building up their navies we could be forced to surrender. In the last war, gallant efforts were made by the convoys to bring food to these shores, and we had to operate on short rations.
  We have still in peace-time to guard the trade routes of our Merchant Navy, the second largest in the world. A total of 95 per cent. of our trade is carried by sea, worth about £140 million. We have also our fishing fleet and cable communications to protect.
  Should, for example, the Russians station some of their submarines at strategic points, perhaps around the Cape, the situation could become critical.
  962
  Although we know N.A.T.O. exercises take place, in the Mediterranean for example, can we be told whether there are any exercises related to the protection of the trade routes to Europe, as this is essential?
  Recommendation No. 191(4) of W.E.U. states that to promote the elaboration of a common defence policy in N.A.T.O. and:
  "in particular to improve their defence effort by the joint production of armaments and by the establishment and joint operation of a fleet of nuclear-propelled submarines armed with solely conventional weapons."
  During the defence debate last year it was stated:
  "The Navy will still be ready and able to protect our dependent territories".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 995.]
  We still have 27 dependent territories to protect, over a very large area. We also have treaties with the States in the Arabian Gulf. As we have cut the Navy since last year, will we be able to fulfil this promise?
  How effective is our close support? How many ships will be available for the regular exercises to which the hon. Gentleman referred in last year's debate, when he said that ships would exercise regularly with our S.E.A.T.O. partners in the Far East? There was a recent exercise in Norway for which a ship had to be borrowed to take our equipment, but even that broke down and so the commandos went off without full equipment.
  As the Royal Navy does not appear to be taking part in the April exercises in the Far East, will it participate also with amphibious forces taking part in the exercise called Bersatu-Padu? What ships will it use? My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) mentioned the "Bulwark" and "Albion". These are two very old ships, particularly the "Albion", which will need replacement. Will they be used in the coming exercises in the Far East? If we over-fly troops there in time of war we may not have over-flying rights with certain unfriendly countries.
  Have we now satisfactory minesweepers for dealing with the new mines, which I understand are extremely advanced weapons, much more powerful than those used in the last war?

  963
  Paragraph 1 of the Defence Estimates talks of equipment in service or in "immediate prospect", but on pages 48 and 49 it is worrying to find that so much of that which is vital to the Navy is listed under such headings as:
  "Major development projects on which work will be carried out …".
  There seems to be little equipment in the future for the Navy since we have been told that it takes about ten years to produce weapons of these types. So matters do not look very favourable for the Royal Navy.
  What is happening to the W.G. 13 helicopter, which I understand was to replace the Wasp? No mention is made of that as I read the white Paper.
  Two ships which are well-equipped, well-manned and well-fitted to give excellent service are H.M.S. "Eagle" and H.M.S. "Ark Royal". Why was the refitting of "Ark Royal" continued if it is not to be used? There was a period of anxiety during the refit when I could get neither favourable nor unfavourable answers from the Minister as to whether the refit was to continue. I sent a telegram to the Minister of Defence asking what was going on and he wired back saying that no decision had been made but that
  "no cows are sacred".
  That did not mean anything. But I would like to suggest that a decision should have been made about what is to happen, because if the refit had been stopped we could probably have had three or four frigates instead. This would seem to be a waste of money if the carrier is not to be used in future.
  In this context I would remind hon. Members that the Minister of Defence said at the Staff College that the carriers are the virility of the Royal Navy. Having visited the "Ark Royal" during the many stages of the refit, I should like to pay a tribute to the work done on it and to the fact that, despite all the difficulties, she was commissioned in the month when it was hoped she would be commissioned. I should also like to pay a tribute to the men of Devonport who worked on the ship. They are among the finest craftsmen in the world in this type of work. I know that I can say that without any contradiction. They have done a magnificent job, and it is even more to their
  964
  credit that they did it when at one time there were at least 2,000 men working day and night on the ship not knowing whether they would be allowed to complete the job.
  It was suggested that a public relations officer should be appointed to the "Ark Royal", and it is a great pity that this appointment will now not be made. It is desirable to have publicity, especially now to obtain recruits. I should like to pay tribute to the public relations officer at Culrose who has done a tremendous job. He has done a great deal to help with recruiting and good local relationships.
  I should now like to follow what was said by the hon. Member for West Lothian about hydrography. I am pleased that H.M.S. "Fawn" and H.M.S. "Fox" have now been recommissioned and will be starting their work in the Caribbean in the near future. I am also interested in oceanography, and I regret that there is not more mention of this subject in the White Paper. We have discussed this matter on several occasions in the Council of Europe and in Western European Union, and it seems that Great Britain is lagging behind other countries, particularly France, in this excellent work.
  In his studies for the Institute of Strategic Studies, David Wood quoted from Mr. McNamara in 1968. He said:
  "In the last eight years there have been no less than 164 internationally significant outbreaks of violence."
  In the period covered in the study, from 1898 to 1967, there were 127 conflicts in 85 of which the Navy played a considerable part. These are all conflicts which killed Service personnel and they all, with one exception, involved the use of conventional weapons. The one exception, of course, was the last war. The Labour Party manifesto expressed a wish to see the strengthening of conventional weapons, and I hope that this will be the policy in the future.
  On the question of reorganisation of some of the establishments, which I think may have some influence on the recruiting and training of personnel, I am pleased that H.M.S. "Dauntless" is to leave Arborfield and will go to H.M.S. "Dryad". But I also hope that it is recognised that when this move is made

  965
  the W.R.N.S. personnel will be in this area possibly for the whole of their naval service. I want to avoid this because there are very few places to which they can go overseas; perhaps the Minister will deal with this point when he winds up.
  I hope the Minister will change his mind about H.M.S. "Caledonia", for I very much regret the proposal to move this establishment. I know something of this establishment. Not only is it a good establishment, with good buildings, but it also has the best extra-mural occupations that I have known. It is possible to do everything from ski-ing to fishing, from diving to painting. You mention it; they can do it. It will be a great pity if H.M.S. "Caledonia" is moved, because it will not be possible to have the existing facilities which are now enjoyed, and this has been a particularly successful unit.
  Another point that I should like to raise is nearer home and concerns the Royal Naval Hospital in Plymouth, which is very dear to my heart. This is a very nice building, and I understand it needs about £1 million to be spent on it to bring it up to date. It is, I believe, a scheduled building, and I do not know what use it will be put to if it is discontinued as a hospital. I do not think it is a very sensible idea to build another hospital, which I gather would cost even more than renovating the present one. I am not happy about these large hospital complexes, although I realise that this hospital would keep its own identity. At this hospital there has been a splendid spirit ever since the days of Nelson. Hon. Members may smile, but this hospital can be improved by the expenditure of a considerably smaller sum of money than would be required to build another hospital. To remove traditions from the Navy is bad for recruiting. I therefore hope the Minister will reconsider this matter if a definite decision has not already been made.
  I wish to pay a tribute to the Admiral Supertintendents of the dockyards. Whatever job they have had to do, they have done very well.
  Now we are to have a dockyard board. Very little has been said about this and I should like to know how it is to be formed. There are 18 unions in the dockyards. Are they to have representations
  966
  on the board or are the men to have any form of elected representation? One of the difficulties in the dockyards is that communications are not too good, and if we do away with the Admiral Superintendent I should like to know what is to be done in the matter of communications. We had a major strike in the dockyards—the first for many years—and we want to avoid this sort of thing in the future.
  I should like to mention briefly the Royal William Victualling Yard and ask what job will be found for the coopers when they have finished making the rum barrels. They are experts in this work, and they may have difficulty in finding other employment.
  I should now like to say a word about the wives of Royal Navy personnel. At present they get a marriage allotment. What will happen in the future? Will there be a discussion with the men, and will there be a suggested sum which they should allow their wives? Some men, when they go overseas, may not find it easy to send their allotments, and I hope that some arrangements will be made, perhaps through a banking system or with the assistance of welfare officers, to ensure that this important matter is not forgotten. I am not suggesting that the men will not pay their wives, but there may be difficulties at times.
  I conclude by expressing the hope that the Royal Navy will continue to get the support that it needs and deserves.
  5.48 p.m.
  Mr. George Willis: I join with the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) in expressing concern that H.M.S. "Caledonia" is to be closed. I hoped that it would not be closed but would be used for some other purpose. Undoubtedly this is a fine establishment. A great deal of money has been spent on it. It is the centre of numerous activities which cannot be carried out in other parts of the country. In addition, there are marginal benefits to be derived from it in the form of increasing the interest in the Navy and recruitment in Scotland. I understand that Scotland is not a very good area for recruiting, and I believe that the retention of H.M.S. "Caledonia" could improve it.
  I venture to take part in this debate because it will be my last Navy Estimates

  967
  debate in this House. Since 1945 I have taken part in most Navy Estimates debates. In many of them I have faced the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) across the Dispatch Boxes. We had many exchanges in those years. I have always enjoyed these debates, primarily because the aim of hon. Members on both sides was the same—the well-being of the men in the Service, for whom we all have a great admiration, and a general concern for the Navy. Although we may have differed on occasion—and even had political quarrels, for one expects politicians at times to be slightly political and it would be almost impossible not to be—on the whole the atmosphere has been very good indeed. I therefore felt impelled to take part in this debate.
  I do not judge our security in terms of the money we spend on it. That seems to be one of the standards which a number of hon. Members apply. I judge it in terms of our relations with other countries. As a sort of fall-back insurance, we have to have defence forces, but the better the condition of the world itself, the greater the sense of being willing to negotiate and talk rather than to fight, the less becomes the demand for defence as we know it. Therefore, I am concerned to see an international system built up which would enable us to enjoy a greater amount of security with far less expenditure on a spectacular and fascinating service which brings out great courage in people, but which, on the whole, is rather wasteful.
  Another point which struck me, listening to the defence debate and to my hon. Friend who opened this debate, was that we tend nowadays to talk in a rather unreal way. All the time we are measuring our defence forces against those of Russia. Never can we have a picture of what are the defence forces opposed to Russia. Yet we are part of a great alliance and it is nonsense to talk about Britain's 27 submarines and Russian's 300. What above the Americans? It is nonsense to talk in this way about aircraft carriers.
  It has long been recognised by both sides that today we cannot secure our own defence by ourselves. We cannot carry out by ourselves the tasks which
  968
  hon. Members have suggested are ours, protecting all the trade routes of the world and being able to go to the assistance of everyone here, there and everywhere. There is hardly a country in the world which can afford its own defence, or this kind of responsibility. Therefore we have to think all the time of alliances and strategies. To the extent to which we do not hear about things which are assisting us and what other members of the alliances are contributing, these debates seem rather unreal.
  Clearly we have to contribute our share to the alliances. This has to be measured in terms of what we can afford. In a country such as ours which rejects conscription and whose economic resources are tending to fall behind the economic resources of other countries, it is a very difficult question of balance as to how much we can afford in money and men. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are very conscious of this. We are not the only party which has made cuts in defence. We are not the only party which has made difficulties by doing this. I remember when the party opposite introduced the strategic conception of massive nuclear retaliation. That caused a bigger upset in Whitehall than anything this Government have done.
  Mr. Rippon: I have entirely followed what the right hon. Gentleman has said up to now and agreed with him, but when we talk about nuclear concepts we are talking about the strategy of the alliance and in so far as that changes our strategy.
  Mr. Willis: I agree, but this caused a greater degree of upset in Whitehall than anything else that has happened since the war. The Air Force ran its own demonstration in Whitehall, so as to convince everyone. It was almost unheard of that one of the Forces should demonstrate that it had to have the continuance of manned aircraft. We were told that aircraft carriers were out of date. The right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) told us that we could not afford them, that they would cost over £100 million and this was quite beyond our resources. So this question of finance is not something new. It is an assessment by Governments of what we can afford.

  969
  The present Government have done right in saying what are our commitments throughout the world and what would have been the effect upon our military commitments of all the changes which have taken place in the world. It is true that we maintain friendships, but to what extent does this mean continuing military commitments? The Government are right to have done this and to have said that we can afford to spend so much on those commitments. The Government have done this and measured these commitments in terms of manpower, as frequently was not done before. I remember many debates about the Navy and questions about from where we could get manpower and recruits and about our naval forces being stretched enormously. It was generally accepted that it is very unwise to stretch our commitments to the point at which we cannot supply the manpower to meet them. We are now getting down to a greater sense of reality.
  I am as much concerned as anyone with the question of manpower. It is not just a question of the Government pursuing policies which deter people from joining the forces. Many other things are happening. Probably one of the things which has hindered recruitment for the technical and other branches in the boys' service, which is so important to the Navy, is the tremendous expansion in further education opportunities and university places.
  There has been an enormous increase in the field now open to the bright young boy, whether he is technically minded or not. Opportunities have been increased almost tenfold. This has a bearing on the number of boys who will come into the Service. That is inevitable, although it has not been mentioned in this debate. We cannot ignore it. If educational opportunities continue to be expanded, as will happen under Governments of all political complexions, the problem will become increasingly difficult of getting people into the Services.
  One truth which Lord Wigg postulated in the House was that without conscription there was a limit to the number of men who could be recruited: no matter whether the times were good or had, no matter whether the pay was good or bad, there was a limit. Anyone who has studied the position in the Navy today must be concerned about this. We can-
  970
  not get officers. Dartmouth is 22 per cent. down. I understand that the same difficulty applies in most of the technical branches and that, for the first time for a number of years, there is to be no Easter entry into the artificer branches. There are other difficulties. A fleet which cannot be manned is the height of folly. We must recognise what we can man and do our best within those limits.
  Mr. Wall: I recognise the difficulties which face this Government and any future Government about manpower, but is it not extraordinary that, faced with these difficulties, this Government are making people in the three Services redundant?
  Mr. Willis: I understand that much of the redundancy occurs in specialist branches. The redundancies that will occur in the navy are only in relation to aircraft because of the closing down of Arbroath and the contraction of the Fleet Air Arm. The number of men in the fighting arms is not being reduced. Those arms are desperately short of men. The White Paper says that recruitment has fallen.
  The effect that the new salary scales will have can be exaggerated. What Lord Wigg used to say was true—that there is a certain number of people with the disposition to enter the Services. Above that number, no more will be persuaded to enter. When Servicemen get married, there is a number who will leave the Services because of the complaints their wives make about their being constantly away from home.
  Something is achieved by the streamlining of teaching and training methods, but I hope that these methods are not so streamlined that there is a gradual lowering of standards. I hope that the fear that the recent reduction in the number of hours spent on craft training by artificers will result in a lowering of standards is unfounded.
  As this will be my last debate on the Naval Estimates, may I say that I am glad to have the opportunity to thank those concerned for accepting something that I have advocated for 15 years—the introduction of a master rate on the lower deck. I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, too, for his co-operation and for the manner in which he has discussed this matter, gone into the various arguments, and given it every consideration.

  971
  I have given reasons why this should apply to all chief engine room artificers, the chief reason being that chief engine room artificers attain the rank of chief petty officer before they become chief engine room artificers. The decision is a cause of some disappointment to me: after the technical tests and the various recommendations they must go through before these men can become chief engine room artificers, it is a disappointment to learn that they will have to go before a new selection board. I express my regret about this, because one of my suggestions was that this should be applied to all.
  A man will not be able to become a fleet chief until he is 34. Why 34? Does this apply in the other Services? I do not think that it applies in the Army or the Royal Air Force that a man cannot be a warrant officer I until the age of 34. The letter my hon. Friend kindly sent to me on this subject says:
  "We must avoid too as far as we can, the danger that ratings who might otherwise become Special Duties List Officers will settle for Warrant Officer … promotion to the S.D. List is possible up to age 34."
  Is this a good argument? Is it not possible that the person who does not go up to the Special Duty List takes this decision because he wants to leave the service at 40 and does not want to serve the additional time? If so, it is not a good argument for imposing the age of 34. It raises the question as to why this age should be applied in the Navy and not in the other Services.
  Mr. Burden: This is a very interesting point. If many of those who join on a nine-year enlistment could attain this rank before they were due to leave the Service, would they not continue?
  Mr. Willis: There may be some truth in that. I am raising these points so that they can be borne in mind. I am sure that the consideration that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned will also be borne in mind.
  The person who accepts this rank of fleet chief will have to serve an additional five years from 40 to 45, depending upon when his time for leaving the Service with a pension arises. It might arise when he is more than 45. I do not think that this rule applies in either of the other
  972
  Services. Why should it apply in the Navy?
  My hon. Friend's letter says:
  "The Warrant Officer will serve on for another 5 years as compared with the normal limit for the C.P.O.; that is to the age of 45. To give a man his last promotion too long before he is due to retire we feel is inviting a slackening off in his effort and interest."
  For years chief artificers have attained their promotion at age 29–32 with about 10 years still to serve. So I am not convinced that this argument put forward by my hon. Friend is valid. By raising the age to 45 my hon. Friend may well detract from the value that the scheme should have in inducing people to stay in the Service.
  At age 40 a man can leave the service and fit into industry very well, he does not run into trouble with superannuation schemes. Once he is more than 45 he runs into a number of difficulties when he wants to take a place in industry. I hope that this new rule does not prove to be a disincentive.
  I have always argued that one of the best ways of maintaining the number and quality of personnel required in the Service is by having a Service which is so good that people will want to stay on in it rather than leave after an engagement of 9 or 12 years. The men who stay on for 20 years to get a pension are the most experienced. I have also held the view that a long-service Service, so to speak, is a better Service from the point of view of morale. We do much better to build up the morale of any force on the basis of long service. I am anxious for the success of the scheme which I used to suggest, which has been accepted as an inducement to men to stay in for that extra time, and I wonder whether the extra five years might mar that.
  I would like to wish the scheme well, and I also wish the very best to my hon. Friend and all those in the Service and the Admiralty.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. Ian MacArthur: The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) always takes part in these debates with distinction and contributes largely to them from his long experience of Service life. I have not previously had the pleasure of following

  973
  him on such an occasion, although I have often had the pleasure of doing so in our Scottish debates. I well recall one of my right hon. Friends observing in the Scottish Grand Committee some years ago that it always astonished him to remember that the right hon. Gentleman had spent so many years in the Silent Service. That observation reflected the deep affection we all feel for the right hon. Gentleman.
  My purpose in taking part in the debate is primarily to raise a constituency problem which relates to this Vote and springs directly from the Defence Statement. Paragraph 46 on page 10 of the Statement refers to my constituency. It says:
  " … the Royal Navy has completed plans to close the R.N. Store Depot and Air Workshops at Llangennech and to transfer there the task of the R.N. Store Depot at Coventry; the R.N. Store Depot at Perth will also be closed, but the Air Workshops there will be retained."
  The reason for the closure of the R.N. store depot at Perth is referred to briefly in the Defence Statement. It was explained more fully in a letter from the Minister to me dated 18th February, in which he wrote:
  "The end of front-line fixed-wing flying in the Royal Navy with the disappearance of the carriers will have radical effects on the Fleet Air Arm's requirement for support establishments in the U.K.; and detailed studies have been undertaken into the implications for two Naval storage and repair establishments, one at Llangennech in Carmarthenshire, the other at Perth. These studies have shown conclusively that from 1973 the task of the Perth establishment will be roughly halved and that there will be virtually no requirement for the establishment at Llangennech."
  The letter also explained that the air workshops in Perth would be retained and that the store depot at Perth would be closed, and that to alleviate the employment situation at Llangennech the Royal Navy store depôt at Coventry would be transferred there.
  In passing I should express my dismay that our carriers are to be withdrawn so brusquely, particularly in view of the £70 million spent so recently on their refits. This early sacrifice may sooth the spirit of the strident Left wing, but I do not believe that their early withdrawal will be welcomed by those who take a wider view of our international commitments and the rôle the Navy should play in meeting them; nor do I believe that
  974
  it is acceptable in any realistic assessment of the strength of our potential enemies.
  But my main purpose in raising the problem is to seek assurance and help, which we need locally in view of the impact of the Government's defence policy on Perth. The assurance I seek from the Minister is twofold. First, will he confirm that the workshops will not only continue but that there their development plan will progress, and that no shadow of a threat of any sort hangs over their future? Second, can he assure me that the rundown in the store depôt will not affect employment until some time during 1972, and that the run-down will proceed for a full year? In other words, can he give me an assurance that employment in the store depôt is secure for at least two years?
  Before I turn to the help I seek for the future, may I remind the Minister that the decision to remove the depot from Perth and concentrate naval stores on Llangennech will eventually remove from Perthshire between 400 and 500 jobs? Certainly a small establishment in the store depot will be required to service the workshops, but even if this provides work for 50 people, which is probably a realistic assessment, about 450 job opportunities will be lost to the area. About a quarter of those employed in the depot are established civil servants and they will presumably be offered employment elsewhere, but their departure represents a severe loss to the economy of the district. The disappearance of this local entry into the established Civil Service removes an important career opportunity from the few professional options open to young people in Perth. However, the main problem is that the Government's decision will remove about 450 jobs from Perth and the district around it, on top of the 1,300 jobs already lost since 1964.
  The Government have a double obligation in those circumstances. First, I know that the Minister will agree that the R.N. store depot in Perth has given superb service to our defence structure over many years. Industrial relations there have been a model of mutual co-operation, and the loyalty the hundreds of people there have given to the nation must be matched now by the Government. Loyalty in employment is a two-way process, and I trust that the Ministry

  975
  of Defence will not take the view that Its obligations to its employees will end abruptly with their dismissal. That is why I ask for the Minister's help. Is there any prospect of alternative employment being provided by the Ministry of Defence in Perth? An alternative was found in the case of H.M.S. "Condor" at Arbroath, largely thanks to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). Will the Minister give priority to the provision of alternative employment in Perth? Second, if this is not possible, what steps are being taken or will be taken by the Ministry to create and develop the interest of other Government Departments in the attractions which Perth offers? What action is being taken as a matter of urgency by the Ministry, the Scottish Office and other Government Departments to call the attention of private industry to the early availability of a first-class labour force in an area which offers outstanding advantages to incoming industries? I hope that I may receive clear answers to these questions tonight.
  Another reason for requesting special consideration for Scotland is that the constant run-down of our defence strength has had a particularly heavy impact there. The effect on the Scottish regiments cannot be debated today, but the House knows of the shock to Scotland of recent Government decisions. The naval cuts also fall heavily on Scotland. Last year we learnt that the work of H.M.S. "Condor" was to be transferred to Leeon-Solent. Certainly we learnt later in the year that H.M.S. "Condor" was to be used for a marine commando unit. and that news we welcomed.
  At the end of last year we learnt that the Royal Naval torpedo factory in Alexandria was to cease production at the end of 1970. This was a scandalous affair. There was a declaration at the end of 1968—possibly as much as a promise—that production would be maintained in Alexandria until the end of 1972. Apart from its enormous contribution to torpedo technology, the factory represented a most important local employer, employing about 1,300 people. I understand that the reason for the closure now is the serious design difficulties which have arisen in the development of the
  976
  Mark 24 torpedo. The end of production in the factory in 1970 not only appears to run contrary to what was said only two years ago, but represents a major collapse in the development of an essential weapons system for the Navy—
  Dr. David Owen: The hon. Member has referred to a scandalous situation, but surely he knows that this was a design fault, and not the fault of either the factory or the Government. What does he suggest we do in those circumstances? These faults do occur in highly sophisticated weapons systems.
  Mr. MacArthur: But would the hon. Gentleman tell us what may now happen in Alexandria? He has run into a serious design fault in the Mark 24 torpedo, which removes from the Navy what was intended to be an essential weapons system. What will happen, not only at Alexandria, but in terms of the naval defence structure?
  Mr. Wall: Does my hon. Friend recall that this torpedo had taken 10 years to develop and that we were told two years ago, I think, that it was about to run its operational trials? Of course it is not the Government's fault nor that of the factory, but the fault took a long time to discover—it was only at the end of the day.
  Mr. MacArthur: My hon. Friend is right. It was possibly at that time that an undertaking was given that the factory would continue in production until the end of 1972. The Under-Secretary may blame design faults if he wishes, but responsibility for the future at Alexandria rests on the Government's shoulders and cannot be shrugged away.
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman is expressing great concern about the torpedo factory at Alexandria. Did he mention to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) that he was going to raise the subject of employment and so on, since my hon. Friend has had this under consideration for a long time?
  Mr. MacArthur: No, I did not tell the hon. Member, and I apologise for any discourtesy, and for any embarrassment I may have caused him, but this was intended to be a passing reference.

  977
  The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East referred to the closure of H.M.S. "Caledonia". The White Paper provides this further blow for Scotland. The depôt is to be run down by 1977. There is a prospect of some alternative use possibly for it, and I hope that the Minister can tell us more about that. He will understand that this yet again has caused wide concern in Scotland, which was echoed in the speeches of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers).
  From the latest Defence Statement, we learn also of the closure in Perth. Of course I am not advocating that defence employment should be preserved artificially in Scotland or anywhere else simply in order to provide a shaky protection for jobs. What I do suggest is that changes of policy inevitably affect employment and that careful thought should be given to the regional impact of these changes.
  The Minister himself, in his letter to me, referred to the transfer of the store depôt from Coventry to Llangennech and said that this was being done to alleviate the employment situation at Llangennech. But, according to my figures, unemployment in Perth is more severe than in Llangennech. I should like to be reassured that, in reaching this decision, the Government took into account the unemployment position in Perth and the loss of jobs in the area over the past years.
  Too often it appears that the cuts in the north are heavier in their impact on civilian employment than cuts in the south. Policies of concentration no doubt make for economy—no sensible person would challenge that—but where there is concentration, it always seems to be away from Scotland. We had the matter of H.M.S. "Condor" and now we have the problem in Perth.
  This does not apply only to defence. Year after year, Government employment has been removed from Perth to achieve the objective of concentration. It would be refreshing—and right—if, for a change, concentration could be into Perth.
  Mr. Frank Judd: I will not contend the main emphasis of the hon. Gentleman's general remarks,
  978
  but how can he put forward this case in the context of this debate? I have the honour to represent a constituency which has served the country well in defence for generations. We are seeing a significant cut in the labour force in Portsmouth which is employed by the Ministry of Defence. If we considered these policies objectively, we should see that the burden is being spread fairly and widely across the country.
  Mr. MacArthur: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman was able to make his point in that way. My point is that, year after year, in my constituency, Government employment has been removed and virtually none has come into the district. In Scotland, there is a feeling that the concentration of Government employment is always out of Scotland and that it never works the other way about. I am not questioning the fact that concentration of organisation very often makes for economy. All I ask is that the concentration should be a two-way process and not always in one direction.
  There is the additional fact that Scotland would welcome a better share of defence employment. Scotland's contribution to the Armed Forces is a large one and it is constantly applauded in the House. A cheering balance in our affairs would be introduced if Scotland could give similar applause for her share in the civilian rôle which has been so adversely affected by recent Government decisions.
  6.27 p.m.
  Mr. Adam Hunter: The statement on the naval Estimates is always of great interest to me and many of my constituents. I am relieved to discover that the Rosyth Dockyard area comes out very advantageously again. It is very gratifying to learn that there will be a continuity of work in the dockyard for many years to come. I do not think that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) was right to say that everything seems to go out of Scotland. We in the Dunfermline area are very grateful that the prospects for working in Rosyth Dockyard for many years to come are very good indeed.
  Last Thursday, under the auspices of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, a number of hon. Members from both

  979
  sides of the House visited Rosyth. It was a very interesting visit, and I am sure, that, apart from me, hon. Members found it very interesting; I frequently go to the dockyard. It is a very good move by the Minister to introduce visits to the dockyards and I intend to take up his offer to visit other dockyards in the United Kingdom just to try to make some comparison with my own at Rosyth.
  There is quite a number of problems in Rosyth Dockyard although generally things look very good. I raised a number of points in our debate last year. A number of criticisms was levelled at the Ministry on various aspects of the wages and conditions in the dockyard. There are many unskilled workers and labourers with a low minimum rate of pay. I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to look at this matter. I understand that plans are afoot to improve conditions in the near future, and I hope that they will soon be put into effect.
  Another matter which I raised last year concerns the apprentice group instructors. This is a matter which has been going on for about 10 years. In 1967, these instructors got some improvement in their status and, like many of my colleagues, I thought that that would end the matter. However, it now seems that they are not yet quite satisfied with their status, and I should like my hon. Friend to consider their problem. We had a meeting with the appropriate Minister on 3rd December and I thought that the apprentice group instructors' representatives made a good case. We are still awaiting the Ministerial reply, and I hope that we shall soon have it.
  Another category of workers in the dockyards has made representations to me on a number of occasions, and in turn I have made representation to my hon. Friend. These are the non-craft charge-men. They have an outstanding case. These are men who are working in a supervisory capacity who are not paid the rate for the job. They, too, are awaiting the result of negotiations. I hope that we shall soon have some information about bringing them into non-industrial status. The men under them have had a recent pay award and although their minimum, too, was
  980
  increased, the differential between ordinary unskilled and skilled labour and the non-craft chargemen is very small. This is a glaring example and the Minister should quickly take action.
  There are not many more complaints in Rosyth Dockyard. On our visit we found that relations seemed to be harmonious. We met the Admiralty superintendent and other managerial staff and chiefs and we also met the industrial workers and he Whitley Council and the staff side association representatives. We found that things we going fairly well.
  As I said earlier, it is gratifying to learn that Rosyth has gained much from the last two Navy Estimates. Last year, Rosyth was the only dockyard to increase its labour force; all the others were reduced. This year it seems that we shall be in much the same position. This is gratifying for those who live in Dunfermline, because a total force of about 7,000 works in and about the dockyard, which is an important part of the economy of Dunfermline and the West Fife area. I am pleased that we are not to have the kind of run-down which the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire expects in the near future.
  There is only one black spot in the Estimates. It was mentioned by the hon. Lady the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) and it concerns H.M.S. "Caledonia". This is an excellent establishment which I have visited on several occasions. Building has recently started which will cost £2 million when complete. I hope that my hon. Friend will look at his decision again. Seven or eight years seems a long time, but already the people of Dunfermiine and West Fife are concerned about the likelihood that this establishment may cease to exist seven or eight years from now. It has been a good thing for the town. It provides work for about 200 civilians and it has brought business to the business people and shopkeepers of the town.
  We in this area are beset by a new dimension in politics—the Scottish Nationalist Party. Even in the dockyard, where men and women have nice, cosy, comfortable, well-paid jobs, with good conditions and pensions and so on, there are people who support the Nationalist Party. I have said in the Press in answer

  981
  to the local prospective candidate that for people to continue to do so will mean a rendezvous with suicide for their jobs. I hope that my hon. Friend will take every opportunity to dispel the rumours, which circulate from time to time, suggesting a huge reduction in manpower in defence establishments in the area. I hope that as time goes on Rosyth Dockyard will continue to have the good prospects which it now seems to have.
  6.37 p.m.
  Captain Walter Elliot: The hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter) will forgive me if I do not comment on his speech in which he dealt particularly with his constituency problems.
  The Under-Secretary ended his speech saying that the message which should go out loud and clear from the House was that today we had the most modern and effective Navy that we had ever had. I suppose that that is true at any moment in time, and it is a statement which his advisers write in at the end of a speech like that. But it is quite another matter if the hon. Gentleman was implying that the Navy is adequate for the job it has to do. The story is the same as in previous Navy Estimates—a further weakening of the Navy reported over the past year and a progressive weakening promised for future years; continued withdrawal from strategically placed positions of advantage; abandonment of solid assets of real defensive value. That is the story of today's Navy Estimates.
  It could be accepted, or at least tolerated, if the world situation were such as to give us hope that peace might be lasting, or if our potential enemies were reducing their forces. But the White Paper tells us the reverse, that Russia and the other Warsaw Pact countries are increasing their forces. We seem to have coined a new phrase—it is in the White Paper, but others have used it—"The era of negotiations ". I hope that we shall not carry that too far. I do not believe that anyone can doubt the danger to world peace that lies, for example, in the critical nature of the confrontation between Arabs and Israel and in the tension between Russia and China and the situation in South-East Asia. Our naval retreat continues and each step is applauded by the party opposite.
  982
  In the last two White Papers, the stress has been on the defence of Europe and the seas around as being vital to our security. The Minister today kept referring to European maritime strategy and he even suggested that those who think otherwise would be looking backwards. It may or may not be the case that the European continent and the waters around are vital to our national security, but where the Government have gone wrong, and where politicians over the centuries have gone wrong, is in believing and saying that the survival of this country—or, for that matter, of Europe—is ensured by the withdrawal of our forces to the Continent and the seas around.
  No one ever wants to fight in the last ditch and it has always been a fatal strategic mistake to withdraw all our forces to the immediate vicinity of these islands. The West may be weak but it is stronger there than anywhere else, and why should the enemy attack the strongest point? As the White Paper has told us, Soviet activities are increasing in the Mediterranean and further afield. However much we may like to operate with our naval forces in waters around Europe, our enemies are not obliged to conform to to our wishes.
  The presence of the Russian forces far afield is part of what the Minister has described as the Russian political and psychological warfare. While we withdraw, they take our place. Once there, they phase in their maritime forces and this makes our return impossible. I have no doubt that a number of hon. Members remember the rather sinister connotation attached to the expression "German tourists" before the war. It usually meant the beginning of the end for one area or another. Now, the same sort of sinister connotation is attached to the expression "Russian technicians". The Communists are finding the political—
  Mr, Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member, but he cannot make a general defence speech on the Navy Estimates. Perhaps he will relate his remarks a little more closely to the Estimates.
  Captain Elliot: I was just coming on to that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I wanted to set the background for my argument that it is a mistake to concentrate our naval forces in the seas around Europe,

  983
  and I do not see how I can do that unless I sketch the background. However, I will certainly try to keep within order.
  I am, of course, aware that Britain's naval security depends, as in the past, on ensuring that our political objectives are in harmony and move with those of a sufficient number of allied countries. I find it impossible, however, to believe that our European allies are solidly of the opinion that survival of the West depends only on the maintenance of the East-West frontier on the ground. It is on that alone that the Government seem to concentrate.
  We have heard a good deal about trip wires, flexible responses and the like and we have discussed at length, both here and outside, whether nuclear weapons will be used in the event of an attack. At least, there is doubt whether they will be used on the land frontier because of the dreadful consequences to humanity. If there is any doubt concerning the land frontier, what about the sea frontier? Paragraph 19 of the White Paper refers to 250 submarines in the Russian Western fleet alone and 400 strike and reconnaissance maritime aircraft.
  It is interesting that that paragraph has been included. It must be the first time that I have seen such a specific figure in a White Paper on Defence. I well recall that in the past, when we on this side quoted the figures of Russian submarines that were available, we were laughed at by the party opposite. I am very glad to see that these figures are at last being put out.
  I should like to know from the Minister what our plans are for a trip wire or a flexible response if those forces are unleashed. The Russians are very realistic in their assessment of their defence needs and they do not have that vast submarine force for anything other than a specific purpose. If our use of nuclear weapons on land is questioned, how much more so will their use at sea be questioned?
  In an intervention, I referred to the statement by the Minister that use would not be made of a nuclear response unless the Russians launched a major attack. If a major submarine attack were to be launched by the size of fleet to which I
  984
  have referred, would that be considered as a reason for using Western nuclear weapons?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is again with some reluctance that I interrupt the hon. Member, but this is a debate on the Navy Estimates and he cannot go into a wide defence debate on Vote A. Perhaps the hon. Member will come to a little more detail in connection with the Estimates which are before the House.
  Captain Elliot: This raises extremely serious issues for the country from a navy point of view, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because If our nuclear weapons are not to be used against an attack of that magnitude by a submarine force, bearing in mind the size of our anti-submarine forces available to combat it, we are the only country of Europe that could be starved by the cutting of our sea lanes.
  If the issue is a starving Britain or an incinerated world, I believe that Britain would starve. This has great and serious naval implications. I do not believe that even the Government would argue that our maritime forces are strong enough to deal with the submarine forces ranged against us. It is no comfort to say that our military capacity is of such size that no other Western European country can surpass it, because it is the Russian submarines that are the threat and our anti-submarine forces are puny to deal with it.
  The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said that no Western country would fight alone or could defend itself alone but would rely on the help of other countries of the alliance. In this aspect of anti-submarine forces, however, we can expect little help from our allies, because the 1967 White Paper stated that
  "N.A.T.O. must be ready at sea, as well as on land, to demonstrate its will and its ability to respond appropriately to any act of aggression. But it is no longer realistic for the Alliance to attempt to provide maritime forces for conducting a prolonged war at sea."
  Therefore, our allies do not have the maritime forces either.
  In the past the security of these islands has rested to a large extent on the vast range and diversity of our lines of communication. This advantage is going, or gone, as we turn increasingly to Europe and the seas around.

  985
  What can be done about it? There is nothing new about the British reluctance to pay for adequate naval forces or, for that matter, any other forces. It has always happened in the past and in the end we paid dearly for it. But we just survived because we had enough forces to enable us to endure, often at terrible cost, until we could mobilise, train, equip and go over to the offensive.
  We endured and survived in earlier days because of our strong Navy. We have done so in recent years with a strong front-line Air Force added and behind strong Army reserves which can be brought to front-line readiness. Now we have the reverse: a weak Navy, a weak Air Force, weak Army reserves but relatively strong Army front-line forces. This has come about as a result of N.A.T.O. preoccupation with the land frontier and the nuclear response, and all else seems to be forgotten.
  I believe that it is up to Defence Ministers of whatever Government to correct this situation. It cannot be done overnight, but a beginning must be made to correct it. In the past the adherence of this country to what is called a maritime strategy has enabled us to endure and survive within the budget which the British nation will tolerate. It gives us the best chance to do so in future and it will be the greatest contribution that we can make to the Western alliance.
  6.51 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Judd: The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) will forgive me if I do not echo his gloom and despondency in my remarks. What has been absolutely noticeable about the debate so far—it is not unusual in the context of recent defence debates—is the total absence of any coherent logical approach by the Opposition to naval matters, any more than to other defence matters. It has been almost only in the asides during the debate so far that we have found the most revealing commentaries on the Opposition's standpoint.
  I was astounded when the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) referred in passing to the fact that the Opposition, were they unfortunately to be returned to office, would take the advice of the chiefs of staff. We were
  986
  meant to believe that this would be the basis of their defence policy. However, it seems to confirm the misgivings and doubts that some on this side have had in that the Opposition refuse to take political decisions and responsibility themselves. Of course they must take the advice of the chiefs of staff, but that is not the end of the matter; it is the beginning. We want to know where they stand and what is their political judgment on the views of the chiefs of staff.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I added that we would not impose artificial political ceilings or decisions.
  Mr. Judd: With respect, the hon. Gentleman made clear that the Opposition are not certain about what they would do if they were ever confronted with the advice of the chiefs of staff.
  The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), who for once at least briefly visited the Chamber, commented at an earlier stage that it was a sorry position for Britain that we seem to put more emphasis on collecting taxes than on building up our Service personnel. This comment revealed the other lamentable contradiction in the Opposition's view whereby, on all aspects of policy, including defence, they are constantly urging the Government to spend more, but do nothing but ridicule pathetically the essential machinery for raising the revenue which we need to maintain our defence policy or any other policy.
  I should like to start my main remarks by congratulating the Under-Secretary for what we have come to regard as a characteristically clear statement of policy at the beginning of the debate. It was the kind of clear statement to which it has been our pleasure to listen on a number of occasions when he has had the opportunity to speak to us.
  I want to make one comment on overall strategy in the context of the Estimates. This matter has not yet been touched upon. I am always a little confused as to why the Government allow themselves to become, as I believe they do at times, acutely embarrassed by their involvement in the Republic of South Africa on naval policy, because of the importance of a base in that part of the world, when there are other opportunities

  987
  that could at least be investigated—for example, naval bases in places like Mauritius. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to comment on this matter in reply.
  My hon. Friend mentioned that conditions of service had to be attractive if we were to have people coming forward in sufficient numbers to man the Navy. He mentioned the Government's recent decision on pay. I should like him to know, if he does not already realise, that this decision was welcomed by many within the Navy, and it is a matter on which we should all like to congratulate the Government.
  The Minister also referred to the uniform. I do not want to become involved too much at this stage in definite views on this matter, because it is in the nature of an experiment. But I urge the Government to avoid the unfortunate mistake which they made on the issue of the rum ration in appearing to become rather highhanded and paternalistic towards the lower deck. I believe that on this matter there is every opportunity for the Government to consult fully with the ratings on the lower deck about their views on the experiment. I am sure that the Government will want to do this.
  Two other aspects of conditions of service should be mentioned at this stage. One concerns the problems still confronting naval families and the strains put upon wives separated for long periods from their serving husbands. I believe that this is sometimes a source of more concern for serving personnel than we always recognise. I urge the Government to watch this very carefully and to make sure that the welfare services are never allowed to go by default.
  The Minister referred to promotion prospects. I believe that both for the lower deck and for commissioned ranks the prospects of rapid promotion can be a great inducement to recruiting. There has been some frustration in both the commissioned and non-commissioned ranks on this score. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will continue to watch this situation very carefully.
  We have had reference to the conditions of service for serving personnel. I should like to emphasise that there is again something notable by its absence
  988
  from the Estimates, namely, any concern on the Government's part for older pensioners and their widows. I ask—I will never miss an opportunity to ask—that the Government should look carefully at this problem of older retired members of our Services and their widows who are sometimes in real difficulties. When we talk about improving the conditions of service for Navy personnel, it is sad that we overlook the difficulties of these people.
  In an Adjournment debate recently my hon. Friend said that he did not believe that the amount of the suggested increases involved would make much difference. I was sorry to hear him say that. I ask him to come and meet a number of the people about whom I was speaking in that Adjournment debate, because he will then be able to see for himself that even a small, modest improvement in their financial allowances will make a big difference.
  The Minister dwelt at some length on dockyards, and I should like to say something about them in the light of my experience as the Member for Portsmouth, West. First, my hon. Friend referred to the appointment of the chief executive, and to the fact that following his appointment we were, as his colleague said during the main defence debate last week, to move towards the appointment of a dockyard board. Not for the first time I find myself reinforcing comments made by the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers). If this new board is to have credibility, which will be essential if it is to get the good will of the labour force, and its confidence, the nature of its composition will be very important indeed.
  There is already a feeling—whether it is legitimate or not I am not saying—amongst industrial employees in the yards that there are too many people telling them what to do, but who do not really know what they are doing. If these doubts and misgivings were reinforced by the appointment of the wrong people to the board, a great opportunity would have been lost, and I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about the possibility, as the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport suggested, of union or industrial representation on the board.

  989
  The Minister also stressed the need for a new approach to the structure of management in the yards, and he was generous enough to mention some comments which I had made during the debates in the House on this issue. If we are to see the yards doing a modern, streamlined job, there must be greater autonomy within the individual yards. There must be more provision for genuine local bargaining. There must be more local accountability and responsibility. There must be something more like a profit and loss account for each yard by which its efficiency can be assessed, and we need to clarify the division of responsibility between naval and civilian management. There is still too much overlapping and lack of clarity in that respect.
  I wonder whether I might now refer briefly to one or two specific local problems which are unnecessarily spoiling the atmosphere in the naval dockyards. First, I join my hon. Friend in referring to the apprentice group instructors. This is a source of real irritation and concern among the men affected. They are looking for regrading as instructional officers. There has been a three-year delay, and I think that they are particularly disappointed that, after their warm and friendly meeting with relevant Ministers before the end of last year, still nothing has happened. It is essential that we see some sort of movement on this quickly.
  It is also sad that at the yard at Portsmouth the productivity talks have been hampered recently. It would be interesting to hear the Minister's comments on how he hopes this difficulty can be overcome. Obviously there is there a real issue of union membership. This is a sensitive matter on which to ask the Minister to express his views, but I hope that he will feel able to say something about it.
  The dockyard incentive bonus scheme is still a highly contentious issue within the dockyards. Some men feel that they are getting a fair deal under the scheme, but a large number of men feel that there is no opportunity at all for getting a fair deal. The scheme is too inflexible. All too frequently timings are unrealistic for the sort of work which, by definition, is being done in a dockyard.
  There is a great deal of anxiety amongst the men about what is to happen
  990
  to the recommendations of the Prices and Incomes Board on a wage structure. Some of us may recognise that the Navy Department and the Prices and Incomes Board are not the same thing, but this is not necessarily widely understood by the men affected within the individual yards.
  The other matter to which I must draw attention is the considerable number of men within the dockyards upon whom we are dependent in our defence policy and who are in the low paid category. There are still too many low-paid workers in the dockyards, and the Minister's comments on this aspect of the matter would be helpful.
  While talking about pay within naval dockyards, I think that it would be useful to hear some comment about the Government's approach to the issue of equal pay for women. There is some feeling amongst managements and others that some of the bottlenecks in recruiting could be overcome if equal pay were introduced more rapidly, and the very understandable misgivings amongst the male labour force were overcome as they realised that cheap labour was not being recruited to take their place.
  We ought to look a little more closely than we have so far at the unfortunate drift of well-qualified ex-apprentices from the naval dockyards. This has always been a source of concern to me, because some of the best young people leave the dockyard labour force almost as soon as they are qualified.
  In the programme of work provided for the yards—and one is aware of the watchful attention of the Public Accounts Committee in this respect—it is important, in the view of a number of hon. Members on both sides, that some provision should be made for genuine construction work within each of the yards. This is essential to enable the labour force in the yards to maintain their sense of identification with the whole operation of shipbuilding and to remain efficient in the job of servicing vessels after they have been built.
  I join the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport again in saying that it would be useful if the Government were to look at the contribution which the dockyards could make to the development of oceanography and to related work. I also wonder whether the civilian work as carried on

  991
  within the yards could not be more methodically arranged than it has been in the past.
  Talking about links between the yards and the world outside, one of the issues which worries men employed in the yards is the amount of work which, sometimes it seems quite arbitrarily, is put out to outside private contractors. Some clear statement, some better known guidelines from the Minister and his Department on how and when this should be done would be very good for the morale of the working force within the yards.
  In summing up this part of my remarks, it seems to me that the theory of the new organisation of the yard is most impressive, but the problem is that in practice it has not always worked out as well as it might have done, and we have to accept that there is scepticism, and even exasperation, amongst industrial employees about the ever-larger managements and pre-work planning forces which seem to be weighing them down in their daily work. We in this House may see the need for more pre-work planning and more management, but this is not yet fully understood by the labour force, and we must therefore at this stage emphasise the importance of communication.
  New experiments in communication, for example the publication of Trident, have made an important contribution, but still more must be done. It is my view that in Portsmouth, as we have heard there is in Devonport, there is a first-class highly skilled labour force ready and willing to serve as effectively in the future as it has in the past. I believe that my hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the determination, even perhaps dedication, with which he is approaching the job of reorganisation and streamlining of the work of the yards. At times we recognise that he must feel that he is trying to move a most obstinate bureaucratic beast. It is notable that the local manpower within individual yards greatly respect their local management, and sometimes the frustration within the yard seems to be a joint frustration between local management and local industrial employees in trying to deal with the amorphous Civil Service machine which stretches back to Bath and Whitehall.
  In conclusion, may I say that as far as the Navy as a whole is concerned and
  992
  for those of us who have the privilege of watching it at close quarters regularly in our political work, it is absolutely clear that the foreboding and the generally sad outlook of hon. Members opposite is totally unwarranted. We know that we have a hard-hitting, effective Navy which packs more punch than it ever has before in its history.
  7.12 p.m.
  Mr. John Farr: I hope that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) will forgive me if I do not follow his speech in detail. Having served for a number of years on the lower deck in the Navy, all I say is that there is a good descriptive phrase which runs something on the lines of "telling it to the Marines". That is the sort of rejoinder which we would like to give to the hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks.
  I should like to apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I was not here at the outset, but I am engaged in my fortnight with the R.N.R. at the Admiralty, which only enabled me to get away at five o'clock.
  I should like to say straight away how sorry I was, on studying the Defence White Paper, to see once again how the effective number of the Fleet has decreased. Now we have about 98 effective operational vessels, if we exclude minesweepers, and if we take account of the fact that the three Polaris vessels, with their attendant force of 3,000–4,000 men, cannot be really classed as operational vessels, it reduces our effective fleet of ships, other than minesweepers, to about 95. In my view it is sad and very wrong to see year by year not only the numbers of the fleet but the numbers of active Servicemen in the Navy and the number of reservists decline. One can see that by looking at past statistics and by looking at projected statistics in this White Paper.
  I do not wish to be partisan in the debate, but one must lay the blame for this position at the door where it belongs, and it can only belong at the door of a Government which are quite content to retire into their own backyard. They cease to honour any Commonwealth links. They do not concern themselves very much with what happens in any other part of the world except Europe, and it is this abandonment of

  993
  any pretence of being interested in maintaining peace in some parts of the world where we were formerly predominant, or at any rate effective, which is one of the most disgraceful aspects of the White Paper.
  One of the prides which this country still possess is its Merchant Marine, which I certainly regard as the best, and which is certainly the largest Merchant Marine. We have a magnificent fleet of merchant vessels. In the Navy today, in the event of any serious emergency whatever, we should have to go to our allies for assistance because we would be powerless, whatever our will might be, to defend this fine Merchant Marine. The situation in which we find ourselves in this respect is absolutely lamentable.
  I should like to refer in detail to one or two parts of the White Paper and in particular to the carriers and the proposal to abandon any rôle for "Eagle" and "Ark Royal" in a year or two's time. It appears to me that if they go out of service we shall be absolutely powerless as far as any air cover is concerned for our vessels at sea in certain parts of the world. What is the intention as regards "Hermes"? I may have missed something in an earlier part of the debate, but I wonder whether there is an intention to use it perhaps with helicopters and not phase the vessel out altogether. One particular point I should have liked to put to the Minister—again I may have missed this in the earlier debate—was how we are getting on with our vertical take-off tests? Also, I should have liked to ask how secure the Minister reckons the Skynet system is which our assault craft are using. Skynet is a very effective means of communication, but is it a fact that we are entirely dependent on the good will of another nation whether communications continue through Skynet or not?
  My main point is to call attention in the House once again to the very serious competitive position which we are in, not only as regards our fleet and the vessels in it, but as regards their defence capability. I refer particularly to the absolute absence of surface-to-surface weapons possessed by this country. I should have thought that the incident fairly recently when the "Eilath", an Israeli destroyer, was sunk by a U.A.R. gunboat some 20
  994
  miles away by a surface-to-surface missile would have spelled a lesson which people in the Admiralty would have learned. Surely it is useless to arm our new vessels with long-range guns of any type whatever when others have in their possession effective surface-to-surface weapons of a type which can completely home on and destroy vessels such as the "Eilath".
  I am sure that the Minister knows his figures better than I do, but he must be aware that the forces of Russia and her allies possess a tremendous number of long-range missile launches. More than 200 missile launchers are possessed by Russia and her allied fleets, each capable of over 40 knots, some of the missiles having a minimum range of 20 sea miles and others having a maximum range of over 200 miles. Obviously, if we are to go without any form of air cover, it is useless to think of defending our modern ships, or, for that matter, any of our merchant vessels, with the conventional gunnery systems which seem to be deployed on some of our most modern vessels.
  Are the Government fully aware of the tremendous damage which these long-range surface-to-surface weapons systems can do to our fleet, and, if they are aware of it, are they taking suitable steps to counter that threat and ensure that we are not dealt a knock-out blow such as Israel received on the "Eilath"?
  Next, will the Minister give an assurance—he may find this easier—about the future rôle of H.M.S. "Endurance"? She is visiting the Falkland Islands regularly every year now, and I know that in recent times, when there has been pressure upon the Falkland Islanders from the Argentine Government, that vessel's visit has come to mean more than a normal routine autumn deployment. I hope that the House will have an assurance that "Endurance" will continue to call there, and, moreover, that the party of Marine personnel on the island at the moment will continue to stay there, as they are very welcome to the islanders, and, I believe, their presence there is welcomed by most people as enabling them to play a valuable rôle in that part of the world.
  There is very little reference in the White Paper to H.M.S. "Sea Eagle" in Londonderry. There is reference to the

  995
  naval establishment at Londonderry but not to "Sea Eagle" by name, which caused me not to spot it for a moment. I am glad that there is no reference in the White Paper to its imminent or early closure, and I wish once again to put in a plea for "Sea Eagle" and for what I regard as the major rôle which it plays at present in Northern Ireland and which it could and should play in United Kingdom defence.
  Last autumn, at a time when it was being widely used, as it still is, by the Army Servicemen who are doing such a splendid job in Londonderry, I spent a fortnight in "Sea Eagle". I was struck once again not only by how efficiently the place is run and how harmoniously the three Services work together but also, in conversation and comment, by how important its rôle still is in anti-submarine patrol and naval scrutiny of the waters to the north-west of this country.
  Apart from its naval rôle generally, and more especially in view of the increased activity of Russian war vessels in northwestern waters, "Sea Eagle" has played a useful part in billeting the Army during the recent troubles. I do not expect that it will be necessary for the Army to remain in Northern Ireland for very long, but, whether the Army remains or not, H.M.S. "Sea Eagle" is a big employer of local labour and it is of great political significance in Northern Ireland.
  I thought it extraordinary, when I was there in the autumn, that there should be fears among all who work in the base, the hundreds of civilian employees, the naval officers running the base, the Service personnel who are there, and many of the local people, that the base would soon close, as when I went ashore each night I walked past an ever-growing American naval base. Even though one does not approve, one can, perhaps, understand the Government's decision to withdraw forces from bases in some parts of the world, but it is difficult to understand why it should be though necessary, desirable or justifiable for a naval presence to be withdrawn from Londonderry at the same time as in that very part of the United Kingdom the American navy is building a bigger base in its place.
  I do not propose to follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Car-
  996
  shalton (Captain W. Elliot) in his excellent speech, but I must say that I regarded as absolutely right the rôle which he outlined as the one which the Nevy should play in future years. The big fear is that it will be assumed that we can get away with a small conventional navy while we have the dreadful nuclear deterrent. I am convinced that, as science continues to develop the effectiveness of the deterrent, the time will come when it will no longer be feasible to use it, because both victor and vanquished will suffer equally from the use of nuclear weapons, so that once again we shall be back to the old traditional state of affairs in which it is vital for this country to rely upon a first-class conventional Royal Navy.
  7.24 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: I apologise to you Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House, for not being present in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate to hear either my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State or the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing), but perhaps you may be aware—though you are not supposed officially to know—that it is possible to hear what is being said in this place, and we are surrounded by a crowd of witnesses, if not the host of angels, so that I heard a good deal of what was said by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Gentleman, as well as what was said by a number of hon. Members opposite and of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  This debate seems to be almost a repetition of the debate 12 months ago. The same stances are being taken, though with variations from time to time on one detail or another. I was pleased to note that my hon. Friend did not apologise for the Estimates when he presented them. He had nothing to apologise for. The information which comes to me is that he has been a good custodian of Her Majesty's Navy during the time he has had responsibility for these matters. I am not happy with his title, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy. I have always felt that there should be someone in the House responsible as the Navy Secretary. Whether that be his title or not, that is how I regard my hon. Friend, and how I should like others to regard him as well. As I say, my information is

  997
  that he has done an effective and worthwhile job, exceeding, if I may say so, my expectation when he first took office.
  Mr. Wall: I agree that there should be a Minister in the House representing each of the Services, but the Government are proposing to abolish any such arrangement in their White Paper.
  Mr. Ogden: The name is of no great importance. What matters is how the responsibility in office is exercised and who actually does the job. The hon. Gentleman has had longer experience of these matters than I have. I am merely saying that there should be someone in this Chamber with responsibility for the Navy.
  Mr. Wall: That is not what the Government say.
  Mr. Ogden: I am entitled to disagree with my Government from time to time. It does not happen often, and I do not shout about it when it does. I do not greatly mind how it is arranged so long as there is one person, high or low, who can speak on these matters in the House.
  My hon. Friend gave an excellent review and forecast of the changing pattern of the Navy in times of great change, and he looked forward—I took his concluding words seriously—to an effective and proud Service playing its full part in the defence of these islands and of our friends and allies. I contrast that with the speech made by the hon. Member for Hendon, North and some of his hon. Friends. I do no disservice to the hon. Gentleman when I say that in his absence. He told us a lot about the general aims which his Government would pursue if they had opportunity, but I remind them than 6th May, 1971, is still a long time ahead. He made a lot of general observations which might, to some degree, appeal to some hon. Members on this side and some on that, and he had many criticisms of detail to offer of the Government's proposals, but he said little specific about what he and his hon. Friends proposed in the way of firm provisions regarding ships, hulls, manpower, types, and so on, or how they would use the Navy.
  It is time that the Opposition were specific. What worries me is that a General Election is coming along, and I do not want a "Knock the Govern-
  998
  ment" campaign to become a "Knock the Services" campaign or a "Knock the Navy" campaign. I am sure that that is not the intention of the majority of hon. Members opposite, as it should not be the intention of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but there is a danger that, apart from proper comment on targets and policies, that impression will be created.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I entirely agree that we ought not in this Chamber to appear to knock the Services, but it is not correct for the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to ask us on this side for a detailed policy statement. The basic political decision has been taken on this side to retain a presence east of Suez. How it is done is a matter for professional advice when we take office.
  Mr. Ogden: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to take what professional advice he likes from any source. I am only saying that, if they say that they will stay east of Suez—or west of Ailsa Craig—hon. Gentlemen opposite should spell out the details. Just to call for a stronger Navy is not enough. We are told time and again that the Opposition will cut Government expenditure. I like one or two of their ideas; for example, the idea of a small effective—whatever it be called—carrier force in one part of the world or another, though not the huge things that we have rattling about all over the place at the moment. I want to know the size of the force required by hon. Members opposite, how much they will spend on it, and where they will employ it. I want details. They are asking for support from reasonable people. I have been dubbed a reasonable person in the House, and am therefore entitled to ask them for some information. They have not supplied it.
  I wish hon. Members opposite would at least occasionally preface their critical remarks by making it clear that they are talking about the Royal Navy of the United Kingdom—the largest European navy, the navy with the best officers, men, ships and equipment in the Western world. Even if we spent all our national resources we could not hope to challenge in terms of numbers or equipment the United States Navy or the Russian Navy. Hon. Members opposite should temper their criticism with praise for the Service.

  999
  A debate like this almost inevitably turns into a defence debate, although we try to keep within the rules of order. It is not the responsibility of this or any other British Government to keep the Pax Britannica. That is over. I think that it was a good thing, but we cannot do that any longer. We cannot be expected to take sole responsibility for keeping the peace of the world. The Royal Navy is for the defence of the United Kingdom and its merchant service, and it has a share in the defence of the Commonwealth and friends and allies overseas. It is prepared to take a responsible part in any peace-keeping force of the United Nations. We cannot carry out such tasks ourselves. We must prepare ourselves for the task of the 1970s, and not the tasks that we may have been able to undertake in 1907.
  I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) is not here at the moment. He referred to the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East. Everyone regrets it, but what the Royal Navy could do to solve the problem has not been explained by hon. Members opposite. Some years after the Royal Navy left Alexandria the Russians went in, but we can hardly call that a phased withdrawal by the British Government, or claim that as a consequence the Russian Navy went in, which is what the hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to be saying.
  The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) referred to the defence of the merchant service. The merchant service has been discussed in Committee and on the Floor of the House very often recently, and it will be discussed again on Wednesday. I have yet to meet a captain or a crew member of the British merchant service who is worrying about the degree of defence that the Royal Navy can provide for the merchant service in time of war. [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members opposite have, but I have not. This is not the time to worry. Members of the merchant service understand the present position and realise that with the forces available, or even with those that could be provided in a short time, we could not protect every British merchant ship on every part of the high seas, even if we devoted all our national resources to the task.
  1000
  Mention was also made of the presence of the Russian fleet in the Mediterranean, but hon. Members have not said how many units there are compared with the units of our own Fleet or of the United States Fleet. There is nothing that we should be afraid of, operating either alone or with our allies.
  My hon. Friend has given a factual report of a first-class Navy, well equipped to do its job and any task that it may be required to undertake in years to come, as far as we can see. We cannot foresee everything that may happen; we can prepare only for certain eventualities that we can see now. That job has been done well, honestly and fairly by my hon. Friend. Before hon. Members opposite criticise us further they should give us more details about their proposals, and how they would link those proposals with the other defence arrangements and promises that they are making. Once again, when they are making their criticisms I ask them not to change their "Knock the Government" campaign into a "Knock the Navy" campaign.
  7.35 p.m.
  Dr. Reginald Bennett: I endorse the last words of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden). To my knowledge nobody has offended against the excellent principle that he enunciated. I doubt whether anybody on this side of the House has any intention of knocking the Navy, or whether he has anything but the highest regard for the men in the Navy, their equipment, and the use to which it is put. The only knocking that is necessary is the knocking of those who have themselves knocked the Navy down to its present size, so that it is inadequate to carry out any perceptible functions. That is the only matter that I take up with the Government. We do not see eye to eye on this matter. We differ absolutely. I trust that the circumstances will soon arise when things are better for the Navy, so that it will no longer have to endure the endless cutting that has afflicted all the Services under Socialist Governments ever since the first came to office many years ago.
  As behoves a Member representing one side of a dockyard port—one-and-a-bit sides in fact—I want to make a few observations which are not those of the dockyard speech that is usually religiously

  1001
  trotted out in every Navy Estimates debate. I want, first, to echo what was said in another speech about the readiness and excellence of dockyard services, and to give an example concerning a dockyard other than the one with which I am connected.
  It was my good fortune to be off Ushant last Easter in a tank landing craft. I was at sea with the Army—an extraordinary fate for anyone like myself, who has been to sea quite a lot, but usually with chaps wearing dark blue. The Army landing craft was splendidly run, although some parts of its routine seemed a little strange to me. On the outward trip, round Ushant—on Good Friday, I believe—we had run into a Force 8 gale from dead ahead, and busted in our bow doors. We were able to make repairs at sea and continue. It was Sunday when we came round Ushant homeward bound, and this time we met a Force 10 gale, again from dead ahead—north-east—and then we really did some dancing. We smashed in our bow doors properly and had to limp across to Devonport Dockyard, which I regard as foreign territory.
  We got to Devonport on Easter Sunday evening, quite late at night, and it was with the greatest pleasure and pride that I saw there all the dockyard boys turned out to meet us. They put the work in hand immediately, so that we were able to go to sea the following afternoon, bound up-Channel. The episode occurred during one of our main holiday festivals and I pay tribute to the readiness and effectiveness of the dockyard workers. I was profoundly grateful to them, and I hope that I showed it.
  I have two questions to ask, on a parochial plane. Although the principal dockyard of the port of Portsmouth is neither in Fareham nor Gosport many of the outlying bases—usually the most important ones such as the Fleet Air Arm base and the submarine base, to say nothing of the stores—are on my side of Portsmouth harbour. I want to make two complaints and ask for some redress in respect of them. I do not suppose that the Minister is unaware of either of them. I have a sneaking suspicion that he will not be taken by surprise by my raising these matters.
  One concerns the internal combustion engine testing plant in the middle of a
  1002
  residential area in Fareham. This appears to have been an outlying establishment which grew up, presumably, during the war in what was then rolling country, but which is now, like the rest of my constituency, almost entirely bricks and slate. This establishment is four or five miles from the nearest other cognate establishment. It is roaring away, testing engines all the time. Meanwhile the houses have encroached upon it. Now, we are told, there is to be a large extension of this establishment for the test running of even higher powered engines.
  My complaint, which I hope I will not express as shrilly as others have been expressed, is that, in my constituency already, perhaps not even five miles away, we have that admirable establishment, H.M.S. "Sultan", which was engaged on this very matter of internal combustion engines when I last visited it. It occupies the hangars of the old aerodrome at Gosport, where the catapult was which I was once hurled off during the war. This has ample room all around. There is no close-knit residential area right alongside. It has appropriate access roads for a Service establishment and is admirably suited to accommodate this small part of its own functions.
  The removal of this internal combustion place, which I am told is not to a standard, architecturally or otherwise, of which the Admiralty would be particularly proud, from Blackbrook Farm to H.M.S. "Sultan" would seem both appropriate and, surely, not unduly costly. I cannot believe the enormous figures which have been bandied about and I am not sure that I can agree that it would be a great inconvenience for 200 people to go to "Sultan" rather than the western end of Fareham for their daily work. The alleviation of the discomfort of the locals would be great and, at a time when the establishment is being expanded, we are told, because of its inadequacy for its intended task, this would be the right moment to move it into its parent organisation or, failing that, the appropriate place within the Royal Dockyard itself at Portsmouth.
  Of course, I voice the protests of the locals, as I represent them, and also of the local authority, because this unpleasant mechanism by which Government Departments override and steamroller local authorities seems to have been put

  1003
  in motion on this occasion. This is known, I think, as "Circular 100 technique", by which a Government Department merely informs a local authority that it will go against all the authority's planning and do what it likes, and that the authority will have no redress. This is how this matter has been represented to me, and it seems largely true.
  Therefore, there is substantial ground for grievance. This has been carried out in a way which is less than considerate. I ask the Government to move this place while there is time, so that an area which is scheduled as a residential area on the planning map shall not be given this growing menace and nuisance of an engine testing establishment among all the private houses.
  The other point is another in which perhaps the civil and the military are not too comfortable together. When one lives in occupied Hampshire, there are occasional instances of friction. This matter is the railway line, which also the Minister has possibly heard of. It used to be a very fine railway line—the original line by which Queen Victoria used to go down to embark at Stokes Bay when the court went to Osborne for the summer. It antedated the Portsmouth line which hurtles one merrily up and down, swaying like a mad thing, because they could not make the appropriate tunnels on that one. This is one of the earliest railway lines in the country, and much of it is still in use.
  The Lee-on-Solent stretch has gone out of0 use, as has the part which goes into that fine but empty station in Gosport, but from Fareham there is a stretch, which I heard about only the other day, which I have ascertained from the Ministry has absolutely no civilian use whatever. It is used by the Navy's ammunition stores department at Bedenham, Frater and thereabouts for moving explosives and ammunition, and it is used for that purpose alone. The Minister told me, with probably justifiable pride, that he pays only £14 a year for the privilege of keeping that up.
  For £14 a year for a facility that is used microscopically little, we have the countervailing menaces of two tiny bridges over roads on that line, which are very little bigger than the door by which
  1004
  we enter this great and good Chamber. The roads carry quite sizeable vehicles since the Government have been licensing bigger and bigger vehicles, and these tiny arches form great constrictions to the traffic. They will have to be moved, because the traffic is now piling up at them in this built-up area. The vehicles must meet head-on, because there is room for only one stream of traffic at a time. These bridges must be replaced. For the sake of the Minister's £14, it looks as though we will have to find hundreds of thousands of £s for new bridges, unless he is going to pay, or we must do away with the railway line.
  In an Answer recently, the Minister said that there was no alternative to this except taking the stuff by road through a built-up area. Is he not aware of the lighters and piers and cranes at Bedenham, by which ammunition is usually taken to and from the Fleet, by water, to Portsmouth dockyard, where, presumably, it will be embarked? The justification for the continued use of this railway, even at £14 a year, is very hard to sustain. Once again, I put this before the Government for serious consideration.
  Those are my two parochial points. That is my dockyard speech for the year. I merely return to the general theme. These are, I think, the 21st Navy Estimates to which I have listened, and they are possibly the worst. I hope that this has now brought us to the very nadir of the fortunes of the Royal Navy, and that, from now on, they will be on the way up.
  7.48 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamilton: The more I listen to the debate, the more I am convinced that the right approach of the House to an investigation in depth of the enormous amount we spend on defence in general is by way of Select Committee. Some people who take part in these debates have much more experience than others. I do not claim to be a great expert. My service in the Forces was given under duress: I think that I was probably the worst soldier in the British Army. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I think that hon. Members will willingly concur with that, and I am not ashamed to say it.
  Nevertheless, whatever one's experience and knowledge, we are all deeply concerned about the obligation of this House

  1005
  to ensure that we are not, should we go to war again—God forbid—found in the defenceless position in which we were in 1939, when the party opposite had been in control to do what they liked and spend what they liked on the Navy, Army and Air Force. It ill behoves hon. Members opposite to criticise the present Government for any inadequacies that there might be in our defence forces.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) made extravagant accusations and by inference suggested that if the Conservatives are returned at the next election there will be a very substantial increase in expenditure on the Navy in particular. I listened carefully to his speech. He said that the retreat by the Navy was in full spate and that we were concentrating our forces in home waters, the inference being that under a Conservative Government we should have enough forces to put ships in all the oceans of the world. We must spell it out. If the Conservative Party are to be credible to the electorate and to our Servicemen, they must say how much they will spend on the forces, where they will put the ships and how they will get the men to man them.
  Captain W. Elliot: It is not necessarily a question of increasing the forces but a question of where they are used. They are not necessarily best used in the vicinity of Europe and very seldom have been best used in that way in the past.
  Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. and gallant Member saying that we have the right number of ships but that they are in the wrong place? It is important for the country to know whether the Conservative Party thinks that we have enough naval forces but that they are wrongly disposed or that we have not enough men and enough ships to do the job. All the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition and the speeches of hon. Members opposite, not only today but in the general defence debate, have argued that our forces were grossly inadequate not only in equipment but also in men.
  I have referred to the need to set up a Specialist Committee of the House along the lines suggested by the recent Report of the Select Committee on Procedure in order that we may discuss these matters in great depth to find out exactly what each party stands for and what is
  1006
  the Government's thinking behind the White Paper and the Estimates. A Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Estimates is investigating recruitment for the Armed Forces. The Chairman of that Sub-Committee is the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington). He told me today that information mentioned in the White Paper had been withheld from that Sub-Committee by the Department. If my hon. Friend will see the hon. Member for Aldershot before the debate ends and ascertain precisely what is his complaint, I shall be very glad. I am referring specifically to the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Estimates when I say that if a Select Committee of the House is to do its job properly, information of that kind ought not to be withheld from it by the relevant Department.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton claimed that the N.A.T.O. anti-submarine forces were inadequate to meet the challenge of the Soviet Union. I am in no position—nor, I suspect, is he—to say whether that charge is true, but if he makes that charge, he and his party must say what they would do about it if they found themselves in power in a year's time. Despite what was said by the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett), these accusations weaken the morale of the forces. None of us in the House wishes to face such accusations.
  If the Conservative Party argues that we have reached the stage under a Labour Government at which we have the weakest naval defences in the history of the country—that is the extravagant charge which is made—they must have some idea of what would not be weak in the international context. Would they spend more on submarines, anti-submarine devices and ships? They have said that they would have another Polaris submarine, although the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) was cagey about it, saying, "We shall have to wait and see". Shall we have to wait and see whether we have more aircraft carriers, too? Or is the Conservative Party saying, "We shall make sure that we get our money's worth out of the existing aircraft carriers"? That was implied earlier in the debate.
  Where will it get the money to man these ships? There is no evidence to

  1007
  suggest that they would be any more successful in recruiting the required number of men than we are. Whatever Government we have will find it increasingly difficult, for demographic and other reasons, to get young men to join the forces. Civilian life is very much more attractive and remunerative in total, taking account of pay, conditions and discipline, than is life in the forces. The gulf between civilian and service life is great. In terms of promotion and domestic life, a civilian career is so much more attractive that it will be extremely difficult to man the Services up to the level the Conservative Party thinks we require.
  Mr. Rippon: Does not the hon. Member agree that it is wrong to try to create deliberate redundancies among those who are already serving?
  Mr. Hamilton: I do not accept that that is being done. Irrespective of party politics, in their quieter moments hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite agree that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has been the best Minister of Defence in this century.
  Mr. Rippon: Not at all.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Never!
  Mr. Hamilton: The Conservative Party does not like the face the facts and the figures. There has never been a Minister of Defence so much on top of his job as the present Secretary of State. He has given us more value for the money that the nation is prepared to spend on defence.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: What about the cancellations?
  Mr. Hamilton: If the hon. Member wishes to talk about cancellations and the misuse of funds, there is a string of them which we could hang around the necks of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  The easiest thing in the world is to go round the country and say that we can provide more houses, schools and hospitals if we cut defence. Immediately the audience of 5, 500 or 5,000 will applaud until the roof shakes. As politicians we have to tell the people that we
  1008
  will spend only up to the amount that they are prepared to pay. I find in my constituency, as I am sure other hon. Members find in theirs, that the easiest way to get cheap applause is to say "Cut defence". My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter) spoke of the Rosyth Dockyard. When people make these demands in my constituency I say "Let us cut out Rosyth Dockyard". They say "Do not cut Rosyth Dockyard because we have several hundred thousand people employed there. Cut somewhere else."
  If this is measured in terms of jobs in a particular constituency then every hon. Member wants defence. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing), who has not attended this debate, said on 10th March last year that the Polaris programme, and expenditure on it, was a misuse of public funds. She said that it was immoral. I can appreciate that point of view. I was a conscientious objector at one point. She went on
  "It should never be in any part of the United Kingdom."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 1090.]
  I can understand that point of view, but Rosyth Dockyard is a nuclear submarine servicing station, and if it was not for that Rosyth would not exist.
  As soon as my hon. Friend announces that H.M.S. "Caledonia" will be closed in the late 'seventies, the S.N.P. candidate in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunferline Burghs says "What a wicked central Government in London, shutting down all those establishments in Scotland". The S.N.P. candidate and the hon. Lady ought to get together and sort out whether they want these establishments. If they do, they had better accept the need for a nuclear deterrent. A lot of men in Scotland are employed directly with the maintenance and building of the nuclear element.
  The Minister of Defence for Equipment (Mr. John Morris): Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, perhaps he would remind the House that the hon. Lady voted against the Navy Estimates last year?
  Mr. Hamilton: I do not want to spend too much time on the hon. Lady. We have to appreciate her work. A passing reference is all right.

  1009
  I want to make a point about the naval shipbuilding programme. It is the easiest thing to get applause for any proposals to cut defence expenditure. If we look at the naval shipbuilding programme as it affects Scotland, we find that in 1966–67 the Government spent £12·6 million on naval shipbuilding in Scotland alone. That was 19·7 per cent., nearly one-fifth, of the total shipbuilding programme for the United Kingdom as a whole. In 1967–68 there was virtually none; 0·1 per cent. is the nearest figure I can get. This is roughly 3 per cent. of the total shipbuilding programme, a much smaller proportion, although of course the amount being spent in 1966–67 naturally spilled over into the following year, so that it is not as jerky as those figures suggest.
  The figures for 1968–69 amounted to £17·2 in Scotland, which represented 64·2 per cent. of the total naval shipbuilding programme in the United Kingdom. Two-thirds of it came to Scotland. The people who talk about cutting naval expenditure or defence expenditure must go to those shipyards and say to the workers there that it means that they will lose their jobs. We have to be consistent about this. I can respect people for holding those views so long as they are consistent and say that this will mean a loss of jobs in a particular area.
  Mr. John Lee: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have people living in my constituency and working on the doorstep of it at Aldermaston, but I said very soundly at Aldermaston that I was prepared to abandon nuclear arms?
  Mr. Hamilton: I know that my hon. Friend has a lot of wild ideas. I appreciate his sincerity, and I hope he appreciates mine. I have sometimes signed Motions suggesting that we ought to cut defence expenditure more than has been done. This is not hindsight, because I was one of those who in 1964 said that we should proclaim that we would get out of our east of Suez commitments. If we had done that then we would be reaping the rewards now and the balance of payments situation would be far more favourable than it is. That is water under the bridge now, and we are trying to reap these benefits in 1970, assuming—and it is a reasonable assumption—that our party wins the next General Election.
  1010
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs has taken a very great interest in Rosyth Dockyard. He must visit it more regularly than any other Member in this House. It covers his constituency and mine. Psychologically this is regarded as being of some importance in the town, and I may say that it has some marital influence in that it provides a lot of eligible young men—"Tiffies" as they are called. Not a week goes by but one reads in the local paper of half a dozen artificers marrying local girls. There are less reputable stories as well, because the "Tiffies" are all-rounders.
  The letter which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary sent to my hon. Friend and myself made it clear not only that the Government are to close H.M.S. "Caledonia". It made it clear that there are other naval defence establishments which are being transferred to Scotland, like the Joint Maritime Operational Training Centre, which has been transferred from Northern Ireland to Tumhouse, bringing the added spending power of 35 extra personnel and some increase in civilian employment. In addition, there is the need to expand accommodation provided by H.M.S. "Cochrane" at Rosyth, to provide for increases in various tasks, including the requirements of crews of nuclear-powered submarines during refitting. My hon. Friend also made the point that there are prospects for increasing the employment in Rosyth; indeed there is a shortage of skilled men there.
  There is no better training anywhere than in the dockyards or in the Services. The trained personnel who leave the dockyards do a great deal of good when they go into civilian employment. This is not a loss but a national gain. The Government are providing well-trained personnel for industries which are probably engaged in exporting.
  Generally speaking—and I speak as a layman—I do not think the Government have very much to apologise for in their defence efforts. Hon. Members opposite are perfectly entitled to criticise the Government for what they see as inadequacies in either equipment or personnel, or both, but it is incumbent upon them to spell out in much greater detail than they have done hitherto, in the two-day defence debate last week or in the debates

  1011
  this week, what exactly is involved in terms of manpower and costs. Until they do, they cannot expect to be regarded as a credible political force in this country.
  8.10 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I hope I shall not surprise the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) unduly if I agree warmly with several of the things he said in his thoughtful speech. I agree specifically with his opening point about the obligation which the House has to ensure that we are not found defenceless If trouble should come—a very concise way of putting the way in which these debates should be looked upon. I also agree when the hon. Member said that the easiest way to gain cheap applause is to say "Cut defence". I have even done what the hon. Gentleman asked, and, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), have put down an Amendment for 5,000 men to be added to Vote A of the Royal Navy. Even though that has been ruled out of order, I am completely unrepentant. The hon. Gentleman will agree that I have done what he asked and he said what I should like to see done.
  I thought that the hon. Gentleman's statement that Service life is less attractive and less remunerative than civilian life, if true, was a great indictment of the policy of the Government he supports, after some five and a half years in office.
  However, I want to concentrate the greater part of my speech on the single subject of recruitment. In discussing this matter I believe that it is important to try to be constructive, and, although I think the shortage of recruits is largely the Government's fault, I do not want to say anything which will make the shortage worse. I hope the Minister heard me make that specific remark. From past experience and present contacts I still think that Service life has a great deal to offer to any enterprising young man. If evidence of this were needed, it is the wonderful re-engagement figures of those in the Service at the present time.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: May I interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend and make
  1012
  one point? The figures are not as good as they were in 1962 when 60 per cent. were re-engaging at the 12-year point. Although there has been an improvement, the figures are not as good as all that.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: That is certainly true. When I said that they were wonderful, I meant that they were wonderful in view of what has been done with the Service after these five and a half years.
  The recruiting figures are nevertheless disappointing and they have been bad for several years now. More and more recruits are needed each year to make up the previous leeway. The White Paper does not make clear how great this leeway is, but I have some figures from an official document showing that the steady rate required for ratings to maintian a strength of 80,000 is 6,150 a year. To achieve and maintain the Government's figure we must have 6,150 a year. The actual figures recruited in 1968 and 1969 as shown in the White Paper were a little over 4,000 each year—to be precise, 4,105 and 4,219. This is an enormous shortfall of nearly 2,000 ratings each year.
  Officer recruiting is equally a very sad story. As it takes longer to train an officer, the leeway here is even more serious than in the case of ratings. Looking back over the last White Papers I see that September, 1965, was the last occasion when the entry into Dartmouth was said to be up to requirements. It is four years since it has been up to requirements. The total shortfall of officers must be serious by now as well. The applications for naval scholarships to enable boys to study at school and to apply for Dartmouth in 1964 were 1,150 a year and these have fallen year by year to 177 applications in October of last year. Therefore, the outlook there is bad.
  Talking of Dartmouth, I was delighted to see that his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales intends to follow his father and grandfather into the Royal Navy. I hope that when he does so he will be as quick in replying to signals as his father was when he commanded H.M.S. "Magpie" in the Mediterranean Fleet. Once, the then Princess Elizabeth was at sea, when the senior officer of the escort one rough morning said, "The Princess is full of beans this morning". H.M.S. "Magpie" immediately replied, "Surely

  1013
  you could have given her a better breakfast than that".
  To return to the subject of recruiting, positive and constructive action by the Government is needed on several fronts to start to get things into bettter shape. Incidentally—and this has nothing to do with the Government—I believe the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. could help here also.
  There are four main things which the Government should do. First, the forces must be seen to have a clear-cut purpose. Second, there must be reasonable pay and conditions for the men in the forces. Third, there must be adequate weapons and equipment to meet identifiable threats. Fourth, there must be a coherent strategy which makes sense to the ordinary person and which involves the idealism of our young men and women.
  Taking the first requirement—the clear-cut purpose—the Secretary of State has been in office for five and a half years. The first sentence of the first paragraph of his first White Paper said:
  "The present Government has inherited Defence Forces which are seriously over-stretched, and in some respects dangerously under-equipped …"
  If this was a just accusation, the right hon. Gentleman would have presumably tried to improve the situation in the forces and not let it slide any further. But we all know what has happened. Every one of his many defence statements has spoken of cuts, scrappings and redundancies all round, and everyone has boasted of spending less and less money on security. Therefore, the first constructive thing for this Government to do is to stop talking in this lunatic and irresponsible way and admit that the Service has been cut too far and that the pendulum must swing back again.
  The second point is about reasonable pay and conditions. The Government have been attacked from these benches for letting the Serviceman lag behind in pay. I have often attacked the Secretary of State, and I was suspicious of the whole concept of military salary. As I said in the debate last week, I now believe that it is better than I had hoped, and I hope that it will bring about a drastic improvement in recruiting. But do not let us think it will be Utopia. It is bound to contain anomalies, discrepancies and
  1014
  injustices. Certainly married lieutenant-commanders and commanders do not do very well.
  The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) about the allotment arrangements for ratings was a good one. The X factor may also need to be increased, and I hope that we can have some assurances about this when the Minister winds up the debate tonight. The White Paper contains the words:
  "… thus ensuring a square deal for the serviceman in relation to civilian earnings."
  Those are the Government's words. The Serviceman, in all conscience, deserves a square deal in relation to civilian earnings. He earns it many times over. He does a much better day's work than most civilians, in my opinion and experience.
  I am particularly glad, in connection with this military salary, to see the benefit which it will almost incidentally bring to seagoers. For too long a seagoing draft chit has meant to a sailor domestic difficulty and financial disaster. This brings me to certain other conditions of service. The first is overstretch. The Defence Review of February, 1966, gave figures for overstretch. It referred to the average employment of destroyers and frigates and quoted figures up to 1963–64 and for the Navy and Royal Air Force up to 1965. Why does the Secretary of State refuse to bring those figures up to date? I have asked him many times in debates and by Parliamentary Questions to bring them up to date.
  The Under-Secretary smirks, but will he say why the Secretary of State does not bring them up to date? Does he say that it is not in the national interest to do so? He always settles down a little when he is embarrassed. The statistics are about annual mileage of ships, annual hours under way, days of 24 hours under way and the ratio of sea to harbour duties. How could there be any security implications in those figures? If it was valid to publish them a few years ago for the Secretary of State to prove a particular point he was trying to make, why is it against the national interest to publish those same figures now?
  One has to experience overstretch to know what these words mean and what they imply for serving officers and men. I shall read a sentence about overstretch from the Defence Review. The Review

  1015
  refers to these conditions for all three Services, and says:
  "In these conditions, both recruiting and re-engagement have fallen short of the targets set; this in turn has increased the strain on our already over-stretched Services. Such over-stretch has the most damaging consequences in our defence policy as a whole. Besides restricting our military ability to meet the unforeseen, it limits our political freedom to adjust our defence programme from time to time as circumstances change."
  There in the Government's words is a terrible indictment of overstretch.
  One must always look at boasts made by the Prime Minister about anything as to the rights and wrongs to find whether overstretch has been reduced or whether if the figures were published overstretch would be found to be far worse. The Secretary of State boasts that he has reduced expenditure by a third, commitments by half and manpower by about one-fifth. If it is all so good, why does he not publish the figures which he put in earlier Defence Reviews?
  I turn to one of the most important aspects in conditions for men serving in ships. How many officers and men are able to take the full amount of leave? Will the Under-Secretary be able to give us figures showing how many men are able to take their full allocation of leave? Does he say that they have their annual allocation? I am speaking of men in the Fleet, particularly in the Fleet submarines, nuclear submarines but not Polaris, and especially engine-room complements. They are very rarely able to take their full quota of leave. It would be helpful if the Under-Secretary could give figures to reassure the House on this point
  Leave is often taken in ports away from a man's home. Even on the home leg of a service commission, leave may have to be taken while a ship is in port away from a man's home. This is an inevitable disadvantage of a seagoing career and every sailor understands it, but overstretch makes a normal difficulty of this sort increasingly onerous when men are consistently unable to get their full quota of leave.
  In 1966, according to the Defence Review, we had 37,000 officers and men at sea. After all the thinning out which the Government have done east of Suez, we have only 30,000 at sea now. Why
  1016
  the reduction? We have ashore in the United Kingdom 52,000 men and no ships for them because there are practically no ships in the reserve Fleet which has been decimated. The larger total at sea in N.A.T.O. waters which we are supposed to have thanks to the east of Suez policy comes out at almost precisely the same figure as in 1964.
  Pensions is another extremely important aspect of Service conditions and is of course very important in recruiting. I understand that the military salary is intended to be part of a general new deal and that soon there will be a statement on pensions. Is that correct?
  Dr. David Owen Dr. David Owen indicated assent.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am glad to know that there will be a statement on pensions. Will it include provision for officers and men who have retired on earlier pension codes and whose difficulties are very great? They were vividly outlined in a letter by Group Captain Wright in the Daily Telegraph last week. A positive constructive thing that the Government can do to improve public opinion about recruiting would be to look at the matter of pensions. It is serious. After all, the Prime Minister wrote to one of his constituents in 1964:
  "Since we feel that the position is a positive disgrace, we have persistently brought this matter up in the House of Commons and criticised the Government for its meanness."
  Out of the horse's mouth we know what an important matter this is.
  There should be adequate equipment to meet identifiable threats. No one will disagree that Servicemen are dedicated and are becoming increasingly professional. There is a greater emphasis on professionalism in the Ministry's advertising. In 1964 there were 181 ships operational and 170 in reserve or undergoing long refit, etcetra. Six years later, we have come down to 143 in the operational fleet—that is everything that floats—and only 38 in the reserve fleet.
  Service men know as professionals that their first basic task is, and always has been, to defend merchant shipping. Yet the Secretary of State seems to have an absolute obsession with N.A.T.O. He boasts that we have the strongest naval forces from the Arctic to the Caucasus. Why does he think that there is risk to

  1017
  our merchant shipping only in the waters around Europe? It is madness to ignore the oceans of the world, and particularly the Cape route while the Canal is closed.
  To do the job of looking after our merchant shipping, now faced by 400 U-boats possessed by our only possible enemy, means having more escorts and submarines of our own. As is well known, a submarine is the best anti-submarine weapon. Also, Servicemen are particularly worried about the Government selling the Sea King anti-submarine helicopter to a foreign nation. Monitoring of submarine exercises, particularly in the Mediterranean, has shown that the Soviet Navy are considerably behind in the technique and know-how of anti-submarine warfare. It seems total madness to export the Sea King, with all its electronic equipment and sonar navigation system, to a country which does not face any great threat from the U-boat.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will say something about this decision and tell the House whether he will reconsider the decision to export these two Sea King helicopters. I understand that it has come about because each individual component of the Sea King is not highly classified. I make the point as definitely as I can that the Sea King as a weapons system is an enormous advance on anything that has gone before and it is vital to us, if we are to have a lead in this matter, to retain the lead.
  Why is H.M.S. "Vernon", the Vatican of the anti-submarine world in the matter of anti-submarine training, to be closed, according to the latest White Paper?
  Hon. Members have spoken about surface-to-surface missiles. I shall not enlarge on that subject, because I would rather have naval aircraft in some shape or form than I would any surface-to-surface missiles. Clearly a missile can only start a war or retaliate in a war, whereas a carrier can prevent a war. I am glad to see the Under-Secretary nodding because he takes the point that prevention of war is all important.
  The argument for the carriers has been well rehearsed. Rather than even the existing carriers, I would accept happily a new generation of less sophisticated flat tops, whatever one likes to call them, to get away from the emotive word
  1018
  "carrier" and to make use of the godsend of VTOL aircraft.
  The Government have shilly-shallied with the House over the business of the carriers. At the R.U.S.I. the Secretary of State said that the cost would be £170 million. The defence White Paper of 1966 said £18 million. The current White Paper says £13 million.
  Dr. David Owen: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must compare like with like. When my right hon. Friend gave those figures he was giving figures involving new construction.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: No, not in his speech at the R.U.S.I. I quote what the Secretary of State said just before the 1964 election:
  "Let us not forget that, if we are to have an effective military capacity outside Europe, we must provide air cover for it in the form of naval aircraft … whether we build many small carriers or a new form of vessel with V.T.O.L. aircraft aboard, we are likely to incur very heavy cost. These commitments are commitments which we cannot avoid and which in my view … we should not seek to avoid in the years to come."
  That is what the Secretary of State thought then.
  I am glad to hear from some of my hon. Friends that the command cruiser is a strange looking ship and has a through deck and looks in profile extremely like a traditional aircraft carrier.
  There are equally strong arguments for the carrier in a scenario below the threshold of declared war. In these debates, and in all discussions on defence matters, it is important to descend from the scenario of all-out war to the situation below the threshold of declared war—that is, a confrontation situation or harassment of merchant shipping.
  It is, perhaps, rather difficult to explain what harassment of merchant shipping means, but, as an example, suppose that a Soviet task force served notice to the world that it wished to carry out manoeuvres in an area 1,000 miles by 1,000 miles south of the Cape. It would say to the world, "We do not wish anybody any harm. We have no hostile intent towards anybody, but it will be dangerous. There will be ships going round at high speed without lights on. Missiles will be fired, although they will

  1019
  not have warheads. It will, we regret, be dangerous for merchant ships to go through that area".
  Our predicament would be to choose between saying, on the one hand, "We will keep clear of your ships and give them the freedom of this area", and, on the other, saying to our own merchant ships, "Come through. We will escort you". It would mean having enough escorts to do the job.
  Another example of the type of help that merchant ships might require in piping times of peace is in the matter of hi-jacking. Who would have thought five years ago that giant airliners would be hi-jacked every week or two and taken to some destination other than that which was intended? A similar situation could occur all too easily with merchant ships. Let us remember what a large proportion of foreign nationals of one sort or another is employed among the crews of British merchant ships.
  In this situation of the need to look after our merchant ships, I believe that surveillance is vital. Surveillance can be provided only by naval air. President Kennedy learned this lesson at the time of Cuba. The strategic lesson of Cuba was that surveillance by naval air is essential. Shortly after that, Kennedy enunciated what I believe was one of the wisest statements ever made on defence, namely, that the greatest danger to the West is of its being nibbled to death in conditions of nuclear stalemate.
  The last question I want to cover is that of having a coherent strategy which Servicemen can understand. One of the factors which most affects recruiting is the nation's mood. This means that the man in the street and his son who might join the forces should understand and believe in the Government's current strategy. To the man in the street the present Government's strategy does not make sense. I believe that this as much as anything else is what is holding back recruiting.
  The man in the street does not see the sense of cutting down our conventional forces on land or sea just when it seems that the Americans may decide to reduce the scale of their support in N.A.T.O. The man in the street cannot see how
  1020
  the threat at sea can be considered to exist only in the N.A.T.O. area when the trade routes are so obviously important. The man in the street does not see the sense in phasing out our aircraft carriers when so much has just been spent on refitting them. The man in the street does not see the sense in refusing to sell strategic weapons to South Africa; because the man in the street understands the importance of the Simonstown agreement. The man in the street does not see the sense in withdrawing from east of Suez when we have huge investments and treaty and moral responsibilities there.
  The Secretary of State himself has said:
  "There is no doubt whatever today … that we are infinitely more likely over the next ten or fifteen years to need mobile conventional forces for peace-keeping in Africa, the Middle East and Asia than we are to require atomic weapons, tactical or strategic, independent or collective."
  What is the man in the street to believe when the Secretary of State makes a statement of policy like that and then does something totally different? He does not see the sense in withdrawing from the Gulf when more than half our oil comes from there. He cannot understand how a Secretary of State can still cling to office and persist with a scuttle from east of Suez when he has said:
  "I believe … that Britain … will continue to be great and a world power by performing this immensely important service to world peace … by using her capacity and experience in these parts of the world to prevent misery, to prevent avoidable suffering. and that this is the real rôle for Britain in the years ahead."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1964; Vol. 690, c. 469–75.]
  The man in the street does not trust the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State. He does not trust the Labour Government any more. That is why his sons and his nephews think twice before joining the Services today.
  8.39 p.m.
  Mr. Albert Booth: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) in a debate on Navy Estimates. He always speaks on this subject with both knowledge and concern. He is probably the last man in the House to wish to denigrate the Royal Navy or place difficulties in the way of those who would seek recruits for it. However, it is very strange that he should

  1021
  speak of over-stretching in the Navy and the possibility of Navy men not obtaining leave at a time when we should be recruiting more men. The two things do not go very well together.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that if men in the Navy are short of leave the Government's attention should be drawn to the matter?
  Mr. Booth: If any Serviceman is short of leave, or if anyone in industry cannot obtain his proper holidays, and the Government are in a position to do something about it, the matter should certainly be drawn to their attention. There is no argument between us on that point. My point was directly related to recruitment, with which the hon. and gallant Gentleman was obviously concerned.
  Listening to some of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's hon. Friends speaking in the debate, one would think that the Government were hell-bent on either getting rid of the Navy or cutting it down to a shadow of its former glorious self. I wonder whether they and I have read the same Defence Estimates Statement this year. My reading of it leads me to believe that three classes of surface ship are to be introduced this year; that the first of the new frigates and the first of the new destroyers are under construction; that three more frigates are to be ordered; that a new cruiser design is being developed: that the fourth nuclear-powered submarine will be in service this year; and that the sixth, seventh and eighth Fleet submarines are under construction. That does not seem to accord with the idea of a Government trying to reduce or get rid of the Royal Navy. In addition, major new construction orders were placed in my constituency last year. This did not seem to accord with the general idea of getting rid of the Royal Navy.
  Possibly I should declare an interest. It is a very good practice of the House for hon. Members to declare a personal financial interest when they have one. My interest is not a personal financial one; it is an interest which stems from the nature of my constituency and the fact that probably a higher percentage of the British Navy is built there than in any other constituency. In view of this, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister
  1022
  will not mind my putting some direct questions to him about the nature of part of the Navy Estimates.
  What proportion of the £222 million in this year's Defence Estimates for research and development is for research and development in shipbuilding and marine propulsion? It is obvious that in past years a high proportion of the total research and development expenditure on naval construction and marine propulsion in this country has been for naval purposes. However, when I tabled a Question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology last week to ascertain the aerospace R. & D. expenditure for Royal Air Force purposes, I learnt that it was running at over £130 million for the past year. Therefore, it seems relevant to question what the level of research and development for naval purposes will be this year. I ask this particularly in relation to my constituency, because it is my experience that research and development for naval purposes is steadily ceasing to have a relevance to merchant ship building.
  If one goes back far enough in naval history it is true that naval research had considerable spin-off effects. When Charlie Parsons showed up the Royal Naval ships by running around the Naval Review and thereby persuading certain gentlemen in the Fleet to revise their ideas about naval propulsion, he brought about naval research and development work which undoubtedly benefited merchant shipping propulsion. But, today, naval work is so highly specialised that the problems being solved for naval purposes bear little or no relation to what is going on in merchant shipping.
  So the House has a duty to ascertain the amounts involved and question whether we are justified in building up a fleet to protect a merchant navy which might not exist in 10 years unless we have better merchant shipbuilding facilities, or at least facilities which can compete successfully with nations which have devoted a far higher percentage of research and development to merchant shipbuilding.
  The Defence Statement says that Polaris submarines are now on a continuous deterrent patrol. I should like a little more information on this. I should like to know, specifically, whether the missiles have been converted to multiple individually targeted re-entry vehicle

  1023
  heads. No matter how much I may disagree—and I disagree very strongly—with the whole nuclear deterrent theory, in fairness to its advocates I have to ask whether this has been done, since in an age when the two major nuclear powers possess anti-missile missile systems it does not seem very sensible to hold that a Polaris submarine on continuous patrol is a deterrent, unless its warheads can make some impact against such systems.
  If these warheads have been converted, when was the conversion project put in the Estimates, and what figures were produced to the House to show the cost of the project? In this year's Estimate we are told that the running cost of the Polaris force is £32 million. With four submarines, with home base facilities at Faslane and dockyard facilities costing £70 million, spread, admittedly, over a number of years, the £32 million would not leave much for further development of the heads, certainly nothing of the order of the sum indicated to the House when the Polaris programme was introduced.
  I believe that the first entry made in "Janes Fighting Ships" for these vessels showed their cost as £70 million total, £15 million excluding all missiles, so that one can deduce that the total missile system of Polaris submarines was costed at £55 million. Since that is the cost per vessel, the £35 million operating cost for our Polaris fleet suggests that not much is included in this Estimate for providing nuclear warheads for the missiles.
  A constituency point of some concern to me arises from the fact that the Polaris submarines are fitted out in Barrow Docks. There have been various scares about the continued commercial operation of these docks. I have made a number of approaches not only to the Ministers concerned but to the regional planning authorities about this. If Barrow Docks is to remain the fitting-out place for nuclear-powered submarines with the completion of the Polaris programme, I am concerned that the public money spent for this purpose should be spent in a cost-effective way. As the fitting-out bay is in that part of the docks furthest from the sea gates, I hope that the Minister will be concerned to ensure that
  1024
  the commercial operation of the dock is maintained in order that the overall cost of the docks may be shared and not fall wholly on the Navy Estimates, which he administers so effectively.
  I now refer to recruitment. The Navy has many romantic associations which appeal most to young men probably round about the age of 16. That was the age when I was young; it may be a little younger now as young men seem to develop more quickly. The prospect for recruiting must largely lie among the younger men, and the fact that so many re-engage after 12 years may show that many regard it as a wise choice. However, I and some of my hon. Friends have found that some of our constituents, having joined the Navy at this tender age, greatly regret the choice and are concerned to leave long before the period of engagement is complete.
  It is my experience that the Navy is one of the hardest Services to leave once one is in. This may be because of its historic association with the press gang. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that it is in the interest of recruiting to the Navy that there should never be undue pressure to keep men in the Service, but that the reverse is the case and that if it were made clear that if there were a clear and valid reason for a man to leave the Service he would be enabled to do so, one of the barriers to recruitment would be removed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) said that one could always obtain cheap applause by suggesting cuts in defence. That is not my experience in Barrow-in-Furness. I do not know whether Barrovians are more responsible than other constituents, but I assure hon. Members if one talks about cutting defence in Barrow one is liable to be faced, as I have been faced, with many critical questions. However, my hon. Friend was wrong to say that those who want cuts in defence have to tell people that the result would be that they would have to give up their jobs
  These Estimates are part of total Estimates of £2,280 million for the coming financial year. We have 600,000 unemployed. It follows that this high level of defence expenditure does not guarantee the elimination of unemployment. I

  1025
  am certain that in so far as these Estimates represent cuts in defence expenditure, the cuts will find their way into other Government expenditure, or—and this may appeal equally to hon. Members opposite—cuts in taxation which will result in money going into the pockets of people to be spent otherwise, thereby encouraging demand for other goods.
  I hope that the rest of these debates on Defence Estimates will not include bandying about the suggestion that those who want cuts in defence expenditure want to see unemployment. What we want is people usefully employed and cuts in unemployment.
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I hope that the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) will forgive me if, in the time at my disposal, I do not comment on his speech in too great detail. I hope that in his anxiety that the Polaris force be effectively deployed from Barrow, the hon. Gentleman did not himself campaign on the Prime Minister's slogan to get rid of the "so-called British, so-called independent, so-called deterrent."
  Mr. Booth: I did.
  Mr. Griffiths: If he did and then adopted this position, he would make a very good understudy to the Prime Minister.
  I want to deal with the broad strategic aspect of our naval policy and I start with the Soviet threat and our response to it.
  I begin with the proposition that the expansion of the Soviet Navy is, possibly, the most important—certainly it is the least well grasped—political military development of the last 10 years. It reveals, I believe, quite clearly several bench marks of Soviet military policy. The first is a Soviet intention to exert its influence on a truly global scale, not simply as a Eurosian super-Power—the Soviet Union has been that since the war. It now seeks to exert its military influence in every continent and on every sea.
  The second bench mark which is revealed by the build-up of the Soviet fleet and which is brought out in the White Paper is an intention to break out of the thermonuclear stalemate. This
  1026
  has imposed a posture of immobility on East-West affairs for many years, happily so. I believe that the Soviets are now looking for movement out of the thermonuclear deadlock, and they see in their fleet the means of achieving it.
  The third bench mark is that the Soviets are plainly, through the development of their fleet, switching the centre of gravity of their pressure away from Europe and towards the third world, towards the oceans. In doing this, they may well be seeking to forestall China.
  The development of the Soviet fleet, which is referred to frequently in the White Paper and which we are to debate—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. I should, perhaps, remind the hon. Member, as I have reminded the House earlier, that this is not a general defence debate but is a debate on the Navy Estimates. While incidental references may be made in the general sphere, the hon. Member must come to more particular points in the Estimates.
  Mr. Griffiths: Of course, I accept what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we are confronted here with the Government's response to the threat as they judge that threat to be. I am trying to deploy the evidence of the naval threat posed by the Soviet Union so as the better to judge the adequacy of the Government's response as set out in the Navy Estimates.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That can be done in a sort of incidental way, but not in a general way. We had the general debate on defence last week.
  Mr. Griffiths: No doubt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will be the judge of the generality or otherwise of the remarks that I have to make. I have indicated that the Soviet fleet has built up extremely rapidly. It is important that we grasp how rapidly so that we can judge the adequacy of the Navy Estimates which are before us.
  The Soviets ended the Second World War with virtually not fleet at all. Since then, they have built it up very rapidly and, as one of my hon. Friends has said, I believe that the turning point was Cuba. In Cuba the Soviets hoped to break

  1027
  through the American's military supremacy. They were beaten by a combination of nuclear parity and the naval supremacy which the United States alone was able to bring to bear. Since that time, the Soviets have learned their lesson and there has been a consistent, systematic and, about all, massive buildup of Soviet naval power.
  I say that it has been consistent. In every annual plan of the Soviet Union which I have been able to study, the sums devoted to naval construction have gone up steadily and, as far as one can tell, in accordance with a carefully worked out and consistently applied naval planning policy.
  I also said that the build-up has been systematic. This can be demonstrated from the research which is being done in depth at Soviet maritime institutes in hydraulic propulsion, hull design and sea-keeping capabilities. The Soviet fleet is a formidable opponent against which we must prepare.
  I said, too, that the build-up had been massive. It is germane, since the Government have set it out for our judgment, to indicate what the dimensions of the enemy are. The latest evidence is that, in addition to about 350 Soviet submarines, there are two helicopter carriers, 23 cruisers, 30 missile-firing destroyers, 70 to 80 conventional destroyers and frigates, 130 missile-armed patrol vessels, and a large collection of deep-water minesweepers and fleet auxiliaries.
  The important point is that less than 1 per cent. of this Soviet maritime tonnage is more than 20 years old, whereas the American Navy, by comparison, has about 50 per cent. more than 20 years old. We have here a formidable foe.
  The capital question posed by this immense development can be summed up in one word—Why? Why are the Soviets devoting so much effort to their fleet? They have, as we have, immense pressure on their resources. They have, nevertheless, decided to spend about £2 to £3 billion each year developing their fleet.
  Confronted with that threat to our security, surely the first matter that the House should examine in determining whether the Estimates are adequate is the purpose of the Soviet Union in building
  1028
  up its naval forces. I believe that it is a mix of offensive and defensive intentions.
  On the defensive side, I believe that the Soviets are building their fleet to achieve regular surveillance of Western naval vessels. They are also building a substantial counter to the Polaris deterrent of the West.
  Another factor is that before long the Soviets will be net importers of oil. They seek to assure themselves of overseas oil sources and the means of transporting oil safely to their own harbours.
  I also mentioned China. I believe that the Soviet Navy is in part a response to the growing threat of China. It could be that time—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I again remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the British Navy Estimates, not the Estimates of Russia or of China. I have given the hon. Gentleman a fair amount of latitude in the time that he has been speaking. I hope that he will now come to the Navy Estimates.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Far be it from me to argue with the Chair, particularly when I have so little time, but I submit that it is impossible to judge whether the Navy Estimates of this country are adequate unless we first measure the threat against which those Estimates are being prepared. I am seeking to measure that threat, first, by its dimension and, secondly, by its intention. I should think, Sir, with respect, that any naval judge would have to take into consideration both dimension and intention.
  I have deployed the dimension. I wish now briefly to deal with the intention. I submit that, among other things, the problem of China to the Soviet Union is highly relevant here. Indeed, to put it graphically, I believe that the Suez Canal for the Soviet Union may one day become as important as the Panama Canal to the United States. But I leave that point.
  I turn now to the offensive intentions and I judge them first, by what the Soviet admirals say and, secondly, by what they do.
  Concerning what they say, there is a consistent development in the statements of the Soviet Fleet commanders. In 1962 they placed most of the emphasis on what they called
  "the main striking forces—the submarines."

  1029
  In 1963 the Commander-in-Chief of the Soviet Fleet moved the emphasis towards a surface navy.
  "able to perform independent missions, including military operations … directed at the destruction of the enemy fleet."
  That is a change from the submarine element to the surface element.
  In 1965 Marshal Sokolovski said:
  "Equipping our navy with atomic submarines carrying missiles and with aircraft carrying long-range and nuclear weapons permits a shift from carrying out war time missions along the coast to independent and decisive operations on the broad reaches of the oceans."
  More recently the present Command-in-Chief, Admiral Gorchkov, said:
  "Our current fleet distinguishes itself by its freedom of action, its great fire power, unlimited navigability, and ability to destroy the enemy anywhere."
  I submit that makes it clear that the Soviets are not building up their fleets for fun. They confront us with a formidable capability and the intention to use it.
  I must now judge whether our response is inadequate to this threat. In a word, the response is feeble. If the response of Great Britain is to be measured, as it must, by the nature of the threat posed to us, I say that, as an island confronting a land power, Russia, with a minimum number of overseas obligations compared with ours, our response is not sufficient. The Government, if they were honest, would admit that. But they are not prepared to admit it, and that is why I judge these Navy Estimates to be hopelessly inadequate to the scale and to the nature of the threat posed to our country.
  9.6 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) has highlighted the fact that the most important problem facing any Minister of Defence in this country is to balance the often-conflicting claims of a continental as against a maritime strategy. We agree that both are important, for Britain is an island, and she must import her supplies by sea, and yet she can be invaded only from the continent.
  Our charge against the Government is not only that an incorrect balance has been obtained but that maritime strategy has been almost wholly disregarded. The
  1030
  White Paper is almost wholly a continental or European document, and the Navy of the future appears to be regarded as an adjunct to land power, as was the surface German Navy in World Wars I and II, and we know what happened to the German surface warships.
  Before going on to discuss maritime strategy, I should like, first, to discuss the naval rôle in a continental war in Europe. First and foremost is the nuclear deterrent which is maintained as an independent contribution to N.A.T.O., and I was glad that we had the Secretary of State's confirmation during the defence debate that it is still an independent nuclear deterrent, even though it is assigned to N.A.T.O.
  In the past we on this side of the House have stressed the importance of having a fifth Polaris submarine, but now it appears that the problem of M.I.R.V. warheads is even more important. At least the Secretary of State gave us the assurance, in answer to questions the other day, that if we are not to get Poseidon our nuclear warheads will be kept up to date. After all, they are British made, and are the only strategic missiles which are not under American control in Europe, excepting the one or two French nuclear submarines which may be in commission. As was pointed out in a Daily Express leader on 28th February:
  "It is sheer stupidity to dissipate the £400 million already expended on the polaris force by refusing a relatively small sum in maintaining this insurance policy."
  I am delighted that both sides of the House, excluding those below the Gangway on the benches opposite, are agreed on this most important subject.
  The second rôle of the Navy in a continental war is the defence of the N.A.T.O. flanks, and the White Paper says that our forces make a significant contribution to this effect. Here our amphibious forces and Royal Marine commandos have a special rôle to play, and I was glad to see that the Royal Marine Commando Group had been given special responsibility for a reinforcement rôle on the northern flank. This illustrates the versatility and cost-effectiveness of the Royal Marines. In this rôle of protecting the flanks of N.A.T.O. the Royal Marine Commandos operate from the

  1031
  Commando Carriers "Albion" and "Bulwark", which are now nearing the end of their lives. As my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) and Harborough (Mr. Farr) said, these ships cannot last very much longer, and they asked what was to happen to H.M.S. "Hermes". I imagine that it is in the Government's mind to replace at least one of these ships by H.M.S. "Hermes", and I hope that we shall get some information about this tonight.
  The Minister will recall that the Norwegian operation in the last war failed largely for two reasons; first, the lack of air support, as we failed to capture Norwegian airfields, and, second, the lack of facilities to land heavy equipment. Therefore we must ask certain questions. How does the Minister intend to provide adequate fighter protection without aircraft carriers, or is he prepared to let history repeat itself? How is the vital early air warning to be provided with no carriers from which the Gannets can operate? Again, without heavy lift helicopters how are bodies of troops or heavy equipment to be got ashore? The Wessex carries 14 men and certain underslung loads, but the larger Sea King is, I understand, equipped solely for anti-submarine purposes. How, therefore, are supporting artillery and light armour to be landed other than by the 4 LCM's carried in "Fearless" and "Intrepid"? Surely there is a need for heavier lift helicopters and for their proper palletisation to carry stores and could the Minister say whether in future, once there are sufficient for the anti-submarine rôle, the Sea Kings could be so fitted?
  Turning from the northern flank to the southern flank, surely Malta, which has twice shown itself to be a bastion of Western civilisation, is still of great strategic importance, and this importance may even have increased during the past year due to the fact that the North African coast is now potentially hostile. It must be folly to quarrel with the Maltese Government over such trifling matters as whether 25 per cent. of the last five years of a £25 million aid programme should be a grant or a loan. This is made worse by the refusal of all aid to Malta since April of last year—for very nearly a whole year—and by an
  1032
  attempt to justify this decision by sending a letter to the British Services in Malta which unfortunately leaked and caused the Maltese people great annoyance and concern. I hope that the Minister will say something about Malta and the importance it still has to the Royal Navy and to N.A.T.O. as a whole.
  Having talked about the northern and southern flanks, I suggest that even if we join the E.E.C. we shall still be an island and, therefore, particularly vulnerable to the interruption of our sea communications. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds pointed out the size of the Russian fleet. It is true that the Russian fleet contains oldish cruisers, but it has modern destroyers and a fleet of more than 400 submarines. As has also been pointed out, we have the support of our N.A.T.O. allies, but our merchant fleet will be subject to threat from under water, from the surface and from the air.
  I shall deal with these threats in turn. The first is underwater attack. As the House knows, the best defence against this is a combination of anti-submarine frigates and hunter-killer or fleet submarines. We therefore agree with the need for the new small Type 21 frigate now under construction and the great importance of the hunter-killer submarine. One wonders how much the effectiveness of the hunter-killer submarine will be reduced by the failure of the Mark 24 anti-submarine torpedo and the failure to develop a modern anti-ship weapon which was referred to in the 1968 White Paper. I do not propose to deal with this in any detail in winding-up this debate as it is to be the subject of our Adjournment debate later tonight, when I hope it will be discussed in some detail.
  I turn now to the question of surface warships and the threat from surface warships. Now that the "County" class of guided missile destroyers has been almost completed, the largest missile-carrying warships under construction, except for the "Bristol", will be the new Sea Dart Type 42 destroyers, which are about 2,000 tons smaller than the "County" class, and fitted with only one Sea Dart auncher. There is a great risk in having only one missile launcher. It can be put out by enemy action, and, moreover, with only

  1033
  one launcher, one can engage only one target. I have suggested in previous debates that we should have at least some "double-ended" ships.
  The Government have scrapped or sold most of the "Daring" class destroyers, which are still effective ships, and the same applies to our light coastal forces, those fast patrol boats with which we led the world both at the beginning and at the end of the last war, but of which there are now only four left. Indeed, if we really look into it, we find that the Government have scrapped all the reserve fleet, except those ships actually undergoing refit, so that there will be very little reinforcement available in time of emergency.
  I have dealt with under-water and surface attack, and I now turn to maritime air support. The Government say that we must now depend entirely on the Royal Air Force for maritime air support. In my view, the weakness of the B.A.O.R. function is in air support. I wonder, therefore, how many aircraft will be made available to protect our shipping. Many hon. Members will have read the recent book on the escape up-channel during World War II of the "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau". One hopes that co-operation between the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force has improved since those days, but perhaps the Minister will say something about co-ordination and the necessary training, liaison and exercises which must continue between the Navy and the R.A.F. if our merchant ships are to arrive safely at our ports in times of tension, and if the Phantoms and Buccaneers turned over to the Royal Air Force are to be put to proper use.
  Now, the question of maritime strategy. As we are still an island importing 96 per cent. of our requirements by sea, maritime strategy is vital to our security. In the First and Second World Wars, when it became too dangerous to cut our supply lines close to the coasts of these islands, the enemy attacked our ships at the source. The danger areas are, therefore, in the Atlantic and from the Cape to the Straits of Malacca in the Indian Ocean. The North Atlantic may well be looked after by N.A.T.O. and the United States, but I doubt that there will be anything to spare for the Indian Ocean, where we shall largely have to provide for ourselves, in conjunction with our
  1034
  Commonwealth friends and our South African partners in the Simonstown Agreement.
  It was said in the 1966 Defence White Paper:
  "It is in the Far East and Southern Asia that the greatest danger to peace may be in the next decade."
  We believe that to be true. But what have the Government done about it? They are withdrawing from all our air bases except Gan and Masirah. They plan to phase out the aircraft carrier and all naval fixed-wing aircraft by the end of next year. They are giving up the only refrigerated missile storage now available at Singapore, which is essential for the storage of missiles for guided-missile destroyers since these vessels carry only a limited supply. They are throwing away a unique control, communication and intelligence system. They are withdrawing unilaterally from our alliances, thus leaving our shipping, our trade and our investments unprotected in what is generally admitted to be a time of growing world tension.
  Why? It is because, they say, it is too expensive. Yet they can afford about 77,000 more industrial civil servants, and since 1964 there has been, I understand, an increase of 35 per cent. in the number of information officers accredited to the Ministry of Defence.
  Too expensive? Yet we have investments worth £1,500 million in South Africa, about £1,000 million in the Middle East, and about £800 million in South-East Asia, not to mention the Indian sub-continent and Australia.
  Too expensive? Yet we have £300 million a year coming from South-East Asia, and £130 million from the Gulf, together with two-thirds of our oil, and large sterling balances. Too expensive? Yet the U.S.S.R. is now becoming an oil importing nation and will want the Middle East oil which she may not have wanted in the past but now finds essential for herself and for her control over the Warsaw Pact countries.
  At a time when the Suez Canal is closed, 12,200 ships a year use South African ports, and a large proportion of these ships are British. I hope that the Government will remember that in World War II 238 British ships were sunk off the Cape. Yet today they will

  1035
  not supply the ships and weapons needed for the joint defence of the Cape route, which, under the Simonstown Agreement, is our responsibility as much as that of South Africa. Indeed, the only positive action which the Government have taken in this area has been to maintain the Beira patrol, unaided by any of their partners in the United Nations. I often wonder whether they have asked their partners in the United Nations to help them. If not, why not?
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My hon. Friend is not being entirely fair to all members of the United Nations. He should remember that South Africa has given assistance in maintaining the Beira patrol, by victualling some of the ships.
  Mr. Wall: My hon. and learned Friend is quite right, but it is not assistance in the sense that I meant, or that the Government normally mean. The Beira patrol is one of the most foolish exercises conceivable. It has not stopped oil from arriving in Rhodesia from other sources; indeed, oil in that country today is much cheaper than it is here. By maintaining the blockade we have attempted to intimidate the Portuguese, our oldest allies, and they have responded by making available hospital beds for the very seamen who are blockading their ports. The operation has been efficiently carried out by the Royal Navy, but it is a story in which the Navy can take little pride.
  What is our need for forces east of Suez? The answer has already been made clear by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. In the short term the need is for small land forces in South-East Asia and the Gulf, to act as a deterrent until local forces can be raised and trained. I believe that in co-operation with our friends and allies we should supply the more sophisticated weapons for sea or air to a multi-racial joint force. Warships must be at sea anyhow, and it is not much more expensive to have them at sea in the Indian Ocean than in the Atlantic. That is the short-term need.
  In the long term—speaking personally—I think that we should be wise to rely on mobile maritime forces, with commandos embarked. Such forces would have to carry their own air power, either in existing carriers or, later, V/STOL
  1036
  aircraft operating from ships of the fleet or, possibly, from "flat-tops" which cost about a quarter of a conventional carrier. I suggest that these maritime forces would operate in co-operation and in conjunction with Commonwealth naval forces and those of South Africa, our partners in the Simonstown Agreement.
  In the past, as the House will recall, the Admiralty subsidised the construction of merchant ships so that in emergency they could be fitted with six-inch guns, or high-angle guns, to be used against air attack. I suggest—and again this is a personal suggestion—that consideration should be given to subsidising the construction of modern container ships so that they can act as reinforcements in an emergency operating V/STOL aircraft which could back the fleet, or "flat-tops", or whatever naval vessels will in future carry air power at sea. I hope that that suggestion will be followed up.
  My reference to the concept of "flattops" leads me to ask for further information about the new through-deck command cruisers to which the Minister has already referred. He said that these will probably be capable of carrying V/STOL aircraft. To my hon. Friends and myself these seem to be carriers in disguise. I am glad that the Government are having second thoughts about maintaining the existing aircraft carriers and building ships capable of operating V /STOL aircraft. Although it is only an option at the moment, I hope that the Government will take it up. If they do so the appeals that my hon. Friends and I have made during the past three years will not have been made in vain.
  I turn next to the question of the dual version or the up-rated version of the Harrier, referred to in the White Paper. Can the Minister say whether this is merely an aircraft designed for training—which is why it has two seats—or whether there is some idea of a Harrier for naval use, in which case it will require both a pilot and an observer?
  The question of seaborne aircraft has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough. As he pointed out, it is the only counter to modern Soviet destroyers, with their 200–300 mile range, surface-to-surface missiles and fixed-wing aircraft. The Secretary of State—perhaps in an aside—said on one occasion that land-based aircraft would

  1037
  be able to sink the Soviet fleet in the Mediterranean without much difficulty, but I suggest that the boot will be very much on the other foot in the Indian Ocean and other oceanic regions. There is no counter to Russian surface-to-surface missiles except other surface-to-surface missiles, which we do not have, or fixed-wing aircraft which we propose to phase out. These Russian destroyers are at the moment only in Russian command but they could be passed over to middle powers, like the U.A.R., and Indonesia, as has happened in the past.
  There is the question of the development of British surface-to-surface missiles, which was referred to in the 1966 White Paper, but which was then dropped. This year, we read, on page 48 of the White Paper, of
  "studies of naval requirements for anti-ship guided missiles".
  This is rather late in the day, if carriers are to be phased out next year, as these weapons will probably take about eight years to develop.
  I say again that we believe that the carriers should be maintained in the 1970s until the gap has been closed by some other means, either by guided weapons or by vertical take-off aircraft operating from the Fleet or from some other vessel accompanying the Fleet.
  We agree that there have been many arguments about cost. This was dealt with very well by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles). But manning will be a serious problem. The Secretary of State spoke of 8,000 men being required to man the two major carriers, "Eagle" and "Ark Royal"; yet page 95 of the White Paper talks of 4,300 men manning them now—and they are both in commission this year.
  Mr. Healey: That is the ship's company, and does not include the aircrew.
  Mr. Wall: But surely the intention is to pass over these aircraft to the R.A.F., so the aircrew will still, presumably, be available, even if there is a change of uniform.
  That takes me on to my other point, which is on redundancies. The manpower of the Royal Navy is being run down by 2,840 men in this year. There are no
  1038
  redundancies this year, but next year there will be serious redundancies, from the Fleet Air Arm. It seems to us to be absolutely ridiculous to put pressure on men to leave the Service when their services are still needed.
  I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has seen the Liverpool Daily Post today. In an article in that paper, it is suggested that the transfer of Buccaneers and Phantoms from the Royal Navy to the Air Force has been deliberately speeded up by the Government to make it more expensive and more difficult for the next Government to maintain "Eagle" and "Ark Royal" in commission—
  Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know, given the source of that article, that it is quite untrue.
  Mr. Wall: I am glad to hear that, but the right hon. Gentleman will expect us to examine the position carefully, because we believe that this problem of manning will be a very difficult one, although we do not believe that it will be insuperable.
  An Hon. Member: Can the Rt. hon. Gentleman name a reliable defence correspondent?
  Mr. Wall: I am asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could give us the name of a reliable defence correspondent.
  Mr. Healey: Yes. Mr. Gordon Lee of The Economist and Mr. Michael Donne of the Financial Times are both reliable correspondents. I will give the hon. Gentleman a list privately after the debate of such correspondents. He will probably find it helpful in preparing his material.
  Mr. Wall: I am grateful, and I am sure that the gentlemen named by the Secretary of State will be highly delighted with his praise.
  I have pointed out some of the Navy's weaknesses in continental strategy, but our main charge against the Government is that they have virtually disregarded a maritime strategy. This is the fourth time that I have wound up in this debate for the Opposition, so I know from practical experience that this charge is becoming more and more relevant each year.

  1039
  In 1965 the Government said that our forces were over-stretched and under-equipped. Now, they plan to withdraw our forces to Europe, having deprived the Navy and Air Force of their eyes and teeth and the Army of its reserves. In 1966 the White Paper said that we
  "… will not undertake major operations of war, excepting co-operation with allies. … The aircraft carrier is the most important element of the fleet for offensive action against an enemy at sea or ashore and makes a large contribution to the defence of our seaborne forces."
  It was then decided to phase out the carriers, to build new missiles against missile-firing ships and to order 50 F111s, and it was said at the same time that the AFVG would be
  "… both operationally and industrially the core of our long term aircraft programme."
  It was also said in the same White Paper that the Buccaneer 2
  "… could not compare in performance with the F111A, particularly in a reconnaissance rôle."
  Now we are to have no carriers, no surface-to-surface missiles, no F111, no AFVG and only 26 more Buccaneers, which, if I may quote again,
  "do not compare in performance with the FII1A."
  In 1967 the withdrawal from Aden, Singapore and Malaysia, the South Atlantic and Malta was announced. But the Supplementary White Paper said that we were
  "planning to maintain a military capacity"
  and
  "will probably keep some naval vessels and amphibious forces in the Far East".
  The Supplementary White Paper also said:
  "from the middle '70s the main striking power of the Navy, apart from Polaris, will be provided by the growing force of Fleet submarines".
  The Minister must by now be rather tired of hearing that quotation.
  What happened? The 1968 White Paper announced a reduction in the rate of building fleet submarines and stated:
  "No special capability for use outside Europe will be maintained."
  For the second time we had a complete contradiction of what had been decided only a year earlier. That is the essence of our charge.
  1040
  I will sum up. The story of the six Defence White Papers and three Supplementary White Papers for which the present Secretary of State has been responsible is presented as a study in reducing the percentage of our G.N.P. spent on defence from 6·7 per cent. to some 6 per cent. In fact, it is a story of neglect, of playing one Service off against another and then double-crossing both—a story of five years of putting party interests before those of the country and of neglect of history and common sense which will affect our nation not now but in five to ten years' time when the ships and weapons which the right hon. Gentleman should have provided will not be available.
  In short, we accuse the Government of dereliction of their duty and of endangering the future security of the nation.
  9.32 p.m.
  Dr. David Owen: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to address the House again.
  This has been a wide-ranging debate and it is hard for anyone trying to sum it up to select the central theme. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) who, apart from the last few minutes of his speech, dealt with the problems concerned with the Navy, which we all face, with his usual degree of expertise and feeling. I should like to try to emphasise what I think are the two principal themes which have come out of the debate.
  Hon. Members opposite made a great deal of criticism that the Services are overstretched. At the same time they wish to increase our commitments, and to increase them worldwide. One point on which the debate has shown a degree of unanimity is in the understanding that in the years ahead we shall have great difficulty in reaching our manpower target, I do not wish to sound pessimistic, but that was a theme which we all adopted. Having accepted that fact, it seems odd, to say the least, that hon. Members opposite should all the time be proposing equipment programmes and policies which will demand large forces and which will make it extremely difficult for us to meet these commitments. I say that in no partisan spirit, for the manpower problem faces us all. This applies particularly to the question of the

  1041
  carriers. I simply do not believe that the Opposition's policies are workable.
  A large number of detailed questions have been put to me. Both the hon. Member for Haltemprice and the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) spoke in detail about the Harrier. I have been asked about the dual Harrier. It has an operational capability and will be used in a dual operational and training rôle by the R.A.F., but the extra weight of this version could make it less attractive in any area where it is being used in a V/STOL rôle. The Harrier has been designed specifically for close support of troops in the field and its characteristics are optimised for that rôle. We shall be studying closely the potentialities of the Harrier at sea. Much will depend on further developments, over and above the engine uprating programme, which may be required. A great deal more work will have to be done before we reach a decision whether it is worthwhile to use an adapted version for maritime operations to supplement the naval weapons system and land-based aircraft which will also be available.
  I notice that the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) said that he preferred a fixed-wing aircraft rather than surface-to-surface guided weapons. The existing Harrier is an ideal aircraft for carrying out trials to evaluate this problem of operating vertical take-off and short takeoff landing aircraft on ships. The Royal Air Force has been co-operating to the full with the Royal Navy in carrying out such trials. These will be taking place again fairly shortly on H.M.S. "Eagle".
  The cruiser has been mentioned by a number of speakers. The rôle of the cruiser will be threefold, to carry Sea King helicopters, to carry the command afloat and to contribute to the Sea Dart surface-to-air guided weapon system for the air defence naval forces at sea. The large Sea King helicopter has been mentioned and I have been asked by the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether I would comment on overseas sales. It never is the policy of the Government to comment on overseas sales so I cannot follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the line that he adopted.
  The helicopter has a good range and high speed with great flexibility of opera-
  1042
  tion. Because of these characteristics its weapon system—which includes sonar, radar and all-weather flight control, tactical display facilities—will play a most important part in the sphere of antisubmarine warfare, complementing the Air Force's regular maritime reconnaisance aircraft and the Royal Navy's own destroyers, frigates and nuclear submarines. It will be one of the most advanced anti-submarine helicopters in operational service.
  Heavy-lift helicopters have been referred to. There are real problems in using the Sea King for troop lifts. There are problems in moving the delicate sonar equipment in and out, but it is being looked at and we will continue to work on it.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Could we have an assurance on security—because it is a very advanced weapon system—that it will not leave our shores during the early years of its operational usefulness?
  Dr. Owen: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are obviously concerned with the question of security and that no one would dream of selling it if there was any danger of our security being challenged.
  I will deal now with amphibious forces. The hon. Member for Haltemprice spoke of these. He is a strong supporter of the Royal Marines and this is something which I share with him because I have them in my constituency. He mentioned the "Hermes". A decision on the future of H.M.S. "Hermes" has not yet been taken. I and my right hon. Friend have said in answer to questions about the aircraft carriers that there will be three options open to us—to scrap H.M.S. "Hermes", to sell her or to give her a new rôle. Each of these possibilities will remain open until a decision is taken.
  There was a question about the H.M.S. "Bulwark" and H.M.S. "Albion" carrying on as commando carriers. We plan that both ships will continue in service as commando ships. There is no doubt that there is pressure on accommodation in these two ships. We take the opportunity during normal refits to make such improvements as are possible in the time available. This means that inevitably they fall short of what we would like. A significant increase in space on both ships could be provided only as part of a long

  1043
  refit and neither ship has had this since they were converted to their present rôle in the late 1950s and the early 1960s.
  The recurring theme has been the question of redundancies in the Navy. I should like to make it clear that redundancies are only in the Fleet Air Arm. Inasmuch as we can, we do everything possible to encourage those members in the Fleet Air Arm to stay on in the Navy. There are obviously problems with the balance of trades and age groups. Certainly it is our wish that anyone in the Fleet Air Arm who wishes to stay on in the Navy should be allowed to do so. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the manpower situation is not such that we can allow highly skilled people to leave the Navy. We have a duty, in that their career prospects have changed, to allow them to take opportunity of the redundancies.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: So there will not be any compulsory redundancies?
  Dr. Owen: I cannot give that guarantee because it depends on the balance of trades and ages. It is important to take this into account. The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the "Dreadnought" refit. This is the first occasion on which a nuclear submarine propulsion plant has been stripped for overhaul in this country. For this reason "Dreadnought" has been treated as a matter of importance since it is vital to extract as much information and expertise from the refit to enable us to handle effectively subsequent refits, both of Polaris and Fleet submarines. We hope to obtain much first-hand experience and we are indebted to the United States for the amount of assistance and information which they have given to us.
  I was asked whether the delay with "Dreadnought" had any effect on the refit of H.M.S. "Resolution". We do not expect, given the special measures we have taken, that the completion of the refit of "Resolution" will be delayed. In the event of something unexpected arising leading to delay, I can assure the House that our plans are such as to ensure the complete deployment of our nuclear deterrent at sea.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) spoke of the need to try to achieve legitimate career pros-
  1044
  pects, particularly for naval officers, in time of relative peace. He showed some real understanding of our problems and I was grateful that he welcomed our proposals for the in-service degree. He also spoke about military aid to the civil community, and I assure him that I believe there is possibly rather larger scope for naval maritime participation in this than hitherto.
  He mentioned three interesting examples of where the Navy has given considerable aid. He also mentioned the Hydrographer. The Hydrographer's main function is to produce charts for the needs of the Fleet. His assistance to merchant shipping, as a fall-out from survey by H.M. ships, has long been recognised. The importance to the Navy of worldwide charts will continue to be recognised and we shall continue to produce these for sale at reasonable prices. The Hydrographer benefits from his association with the International Hydrographic Bureau which provides a free exchange of information between member countries, and he incorporates in his charts the results of surveys by other nations. Inevitably after 1971 we shall not be surveying in the Far East to the same extent as hitherto, and the surveys of the Persian Gulf and the Malacca Strait will be completed in that year. We have been discussing with the United Kingdom Chamber of Shipping how far our resources can go towards meeting the future needs of merchant shipping. These contacts are a continual part of our job.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) asked about the W.G.13 helicopter. Development is proceeding satisfactorily and is likely to lead to the start of production in 1972. The W.G.13 is expected to replace the Wasp helicopter in the Navy in the 1970s.
  The hon. Lady also mentioned new mine technology. The Ministry of Defence has been investigating the suitability of glass-reinforced plastic. This has a special part to play in minefields because it exercises no magnetic influence. A prototype mine-hunter will be built by Vosper-Thorneycroft in glass-reinforced plastic. It will be similar in design to recent mine-hunters converted from the "Ton" Class with a length of 153 ft. and it is considerably larger than

  1045
  any vessel of this type yet made. Experience with this ship should provide valuable information for use in the construction of the next generation of mine counter-measure vessels.
  The hon. Lady asked about the Royal Naval Hospital, Plymouth. Stonehouse was completed in 1764. It is now out of date and is uneconomical to run. This applies to ward and staff accommodation, as well as to galleys and the reception area which are below modern standards. As to the location, there is no need for me to spell out the benefits which will be obtained by patients and medical staff from having full access to an up-to-the-minute hospital. The capital cost will be higher than Stonehouse, but the improved medical service that could result will justify the outlay. There is no doubt that overall running costs in a new purpose-built establishment will be substantially less than in a modernised but basically old one. This matter is being looked at at the moment.
  I was asked if the Royal Navy was participating in the exercises Bersatu-Pardu. The Navy is participating fully. Amongst the ships in the Far East fleet eventually will be one commando ship, one cruiser, one guided missile destroyer, frigates and other craft, as well as float support. The Commando Brigade also in the Far East will be heavily involved in this.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said that he thought this was the last Navy Estimates debate he will take part in. If that is the case, I am sure hat the whole House will be very sorry. He has participated in these debates over many years and shown intense interest in problems of the Navy. He played a notable part in Parliamentary pressure for improvement of the warrant officer rates which I announced recently. He asked why the age should be 34 as there is no age limit in the other Services, but most of the equivalent officers in the R.A.F. and the Army are at least of this age. The rules are not hard and fast and we shall keep the position under review.
  My right hon. Friend also asked why they had to serve until they are 45. This is a privilege—the equivalent of an assured "fifth-five". It is not intended that we should allow a break point after
  1046
  22 years of service, but arrangements by which they may be permitted to leave the Service under certain circumstances are under consideration. The two vexed questions which he and I have discussed on many occasions about why not all the C.P.O.s are uprated would throw the warrant officers out of balance and vis-à-vis the other Services. The new posts are more demanding of responsibility and go further than the trade specialisation. As my right hon. Friend generously said, we shall learn as we see this in operation. I am perfectly prepared to consider any changes which may be necessary.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter) and Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) for drawing attention to our record in providing work for shipyards in Scotland. The nature of naval construction inevitably means that such work varies widely. A total of £30 million, or about one-third excluding specialist work on nuclear submarines, has been provided in Scotland. One cannot help wondering how much unemployment would be caused on Clydeside if the policies of the Scottish Nationalists were followed and all Ministry of Defence work was withdrawn from Scotland. I have no doubt that Scotland will continue to play a very important part in work for the Royal Navy.
  Hon. Members have drawn attention to the present task of the "Caledonia". The aim of the plan is to achieve major economies in manpower and finance by centralisation of naval shore training. The move of the "Caledonia" will contribute to the savings we expect to achieve. As I said in the debate on the Defence Estimates, there are a number of possibilities, but it will be some time before the most appropriate uses for the establishment, can be identified.
  In any case, this is not due to take place until the latter half of the 1970s. It was necessary to announce the decisions in order that planning can go ahead to give us time to see the future defence uses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West said, we have to put this in the context of the transfer from Northern Ireland to Turnhouse of the Joint Maritime Operational Centre, formerly part of the Joint Anti-Submarine School at Londonderry, which will bring the

  1047
  added spending power of 35 Service personnel and some increase in employment to the area.
  In addition, as both my hon. Friends mentioned, the dockyard at Rosyth is the one dockyard where there is no reduction in the labour force. In fact, we are looking for workers there. This and the decision to put the Royal Marine Commandos at Arbroath is a firm indication that there is no lessening in the contribution to defence spending for Scotland—in fact, rather the converse.
  I should deal briefly with the productivity negotiations in the dockyards which have been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd). I share some of his views about the level of pay for the lowest paid workers in the dockyard. When the Prices and Incomes Board Report is received some changes will have to be made. I cannot commit myself at this stage.
  After productivity bargainings had started early in the year, we became concerned that rates of pay in the dockyards were already lagging behind those paid elsewhere for comparable work. The outcome was that a substantial increase in dockyard rates was negotiated and became effective from 1st July. This settlement was negotiated centrally for the whole of the Industrial Civil Service—as my hon. Friend said, not enough people realise that we do not negotiate pay scales separately for the dockyards—and involved a major reorganisation of the wage structure. It gave increases in dockyard rates of between 8 per cent. and 12½ per cent. Under this revision the majority of dockyard craftsmen received an increase of £2 2s. a week in their basic rate. Nevertheless, the general level of earnings in the dockyards and elsewhere in the Industrial Civil Service is, as I have already said, being generally looked at.
  As far as productivity is concerned, I must say that progress has been in some ways slow, but this is a difficult area. I do not pretend that there are not important hurdles still to be overcome. As the negotiations are still in progress, however, and as the issues involved are in some sense sub judice, I will not dwell on them here. The trade union
  1048
  side has, however, advised its representatives in the dockyards to proceed with the negotiations locally, subject to the conditions that agreements will not be signed until the issues still outstanding on the Shipbuilding Trades Joint Council have been resolved.
  Progress in the Port Auxiliary Service has been made rapid and agreements have been concluded at Chatham and Rosyth under which agreement to run the service more efficiently with fewer men has enabled the payment of bonuses of £2 4s. and £2 13s. a week respectively to be made.
  Questions have been asked about the proposed dockyard board. In running a complex and large industry such as the dockyards, the Ministry of Defence will benefit from advice from people with management experience from outside industry or accountancy. It is intended that the board under my hon. Friend's chairmanship will deal with broad policy issues, and it is likely that a management board will be formed for day-to-day management and execution of policy. In many ways this organisation is similar to that of large private industries. Within this framework we intend to ensure that there is a greater degree of delegation of authority to the general managers of the individual dockyards than there has been hitherto—the point to which I know that my hon. Friend attaches immense importance.
  On the problem of communication, this criticism can always be made of a big industry. The dockyard newspapers which have been instituted have greatly helped. We are trying to do everything possible to help with communication.
  The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) raised with me a constituency problem that follows some of the announcements in the Defence White Paper. I assure him that it will be 1972 before redundancy begins and 1973 before the process is complete. So there is good time for the attraction of suitable alternative employment into Perth.
  The Government will do all they can to help. The Ministry of Technology will carry out its steering function of encouraging industry to go there. I confirm that the development plan will continue, and there is no need for people to fear

  1049
  for their future. I am very grateful for, and pay tribute to, the loyal and excellent service we have had from that area.
  The hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) raised a number of specific constituency points. On the subject of the railway line, about which he previously asked me a Question, I was not certain what he was after. Now that I know, I promise to look into the matter closely. If it is possible to do anything, I will let him know.
  On the question of Blackbrook Farm, I have written to the hon. Gentleman saying everything that can be said about the question. I took the opportunity to look into the problem on a visit to his constituency last weekend. I see the difficulty. The problem is that the factory existed before the houses and the private developer built the houses round the factory. We are doing everything possible to try to reduce noise and pollution. I am very conscious of these problems in general and I promise to look at it and keep a careful eye on the whole question.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) asked a number of detailed questions, particularly as to new ship construction and about research and development. I will look into these and as soon as we can work out the costs and a breakdown of the research and development for which he asked I will send him the information. On the question of Polaris, practically all my hon. Friend's questions were dealt with in some detail by my right hon. Friend during the debate and I refer him to my right hon. Friend's words on that occasion.
  There have been a number of attacks on the Government's general policy concerning new construction. To hear some of our critics, one would assume that the Navy's new construction has been savagely cut by the Labour Government. The facts are quite the reverse. Between 1959 and 1964, at constant prices, £265 million was spent, a yearly average of £53 million. Between 1965 and 1970 we spent £348 million, a yearly average of £70 million. On repair, refit and modernisation, again at constant prices, between 1959 and 1964 £177 million was spent, and between 1965 and 1970 the figure was £183 million. This shows
  1050
  a continued high level of expenditure on modernising and re-equipping the Navy. The facts are that we are building a modern Navy.
  Two speeches that were particularly notable were those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden). I was very grateful to my hon. Friend for his references to me. Both my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend made the point that the Navy and our contribution cannot be judged solely nationally but must be judged as part of an alliance. This is the main problem that some speakers did not seem to grasp. The size of the future Navy, if measured by the individual fighting ships, will be greatly reduced. I would not dream of denying that. But in terms of power and effectiveness the modern guided missile destroyer has a greater range of capability than a whole squadron of Second World War cruisers. The sophisticated equipment carried in the modern DLG enables the ship to be deployed over a far wider range than Second World War six-inch gun cruisers. The Sea Slug and Sea Cat missile systems give it an effective antiaircraft capability, and its modern information organisation and radars enable it to direct fighter defence, while its Wessex helicopter, with its homing torpedo in conjunction with the latest sonar equipment, enable the ship to conduct anti-submarine operations. I concede that much of this equipment was developed when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power.
  Mr. Wall: Has the hon. Gentleman ever compared the British DLG with the Russian equivalent, which outclasses it in practically every way?
  Dr. Owen: I do not agree with that comparison. Although it is not for me to make comparisons, I read those of my experts.
  It is absurd to measure the Navy in terms only of size, but we have the third largest Navy in the world, larger than the total of the other European N.A.T.O. navies. In terms of quantity we cannot and do not attempt to match the expansion of the Russian fleet, but in quality we have even now probably the most modern navy in the world. To hear

  1051
  our critics, one would assume a very different picture.
  By concentrating our primary defence rôle in the European N.A.T.O. theatre, we are increasingly able to match our commitments and ease the problem of overstretch. We can also plan, even within our overall reduced defence budget, to modernise and render more effective the smaller number of ships.
  I am not complacent, nor do I believe that we have yet solved all our naval problems, but we now have a coherent strategy for the future. It is in the Navy's interests and the interests of the House to stick to it, and for its friends not to go off in search of short-term expedients at the cost of its long-term future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That 90,000 Officers, Ratings and Royal Marines be maintained for Naval Service, for the year ending on 31st March, 1971.

  INCOME AND CORPORATION TAXES BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  9.59 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The last general consolidation of the Income Tax Acts was made in 1952 and no one with any experience in the difficult work of applying this branch of our law to the facts of life will doubt that it has become very necessary to start again with a clean sheet—
  It being Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER interrupted the Business.
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Income and Corporation Taxes Bill [Lords], the Taxes Management Bill [Lords] and the Sea Fish Industry Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Hamling.]
  The Solicitor-General: Hon. Members will appreciate, from the size of the Bill, even forgetting the complications of the subject matter, that the work which was done was not done lightly. In fact, the present consolidation—I include in that term the Taxes Management Bill which
  1052
  is to be taken next—has occupied the draftsmen and the small committee in Somerset House which was set up to do the necessary work at that end, for over two-and-a-half years. I am sure that hon. Members will wish to join me in paying tribute to the skill and endurance of those who have carried through this very daunting task.
  In income tax and corporation tax, this consolidation completes the work begun with the Capital Allowances Act of 1968. The present Bill, together with the 1968 Act, which remains separate, will now present the whole of the substantive law of income tax and corporation tax. The machinery provisions, relating to the making of returns and assessments of appeals and claims, have been hived off into the Taxes Management Bill. This is thought to be a convenient division, not only because it helps to keep this Bill down to a more manageable size, but also because the machinery provisions which apply for income tax are also largely shared by capital gains tax. In this field, therefore, it is possible to deal in one Act with all three taxes.
  The Joint Committee has made a few small Amendments to the Bill as it was introduced in another place. It has reported that the Bill as amended, is pure consolidation and represents the existing law. It also records that its task was greatly lightened by the Amendments with a view to consolidation in Schedule 20 of last year's Finance Act. It will be agreed that that Parliamentary stage of weeding out minor doubts and anomalies was well worth while. I am assured that, in many small ways, it has contributed to a cleaner and more logical presentation than would otherwise have been possible. The Joint Committee has reported, as I said, that the Bill is pure consolidation. It has passed through all its stages in another place and I hope that the House will now give it a Second Reading.
  10.4 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I should like to add my congratulations to those of the Solicitor-General to those who were concerned in the drafting of the Bill. I think that it is a magnificent achievement to have got a consolidation of income tax and corporation tax into one Bill in this way. It will be of great

  1053
  assistance to those who practise in this way in the law or in accountancy, or even to laymen looking up their taxes.
  As I understand it, the consolidation does not include capital gains tax. Without going too far out of order, could the Solicitor-General say what the intentions are over consolidation of that part of the law? One wonders whether it is the right time to consolidate income tax and corporation tax without doing a consolidation of capital gains tax at the same time.
  The consolidation Bill consolidates a number of Statutory Instruments. We have become used to this in consolidation Bills, and it is a great help that the Joint Committee mentioned this and in its report drew attention to the fact that a number of Statutory Instruments had been incorporated in the consolidation and that there was a saving clause—it appears in Schedule 12—saving the right to challenge these Statutory Instruments, even though they are now embodied in the consolidation. This has now been recognised as the correct way in which to carry out consolidation which includes Statutory Instruments.
  I wonder whether the time has now come for that saving provision, after it has lasted perhaps a short time, to be removed so that the Statutory Instrument becomes part of the Statute Law and does not remain open to challenge. If it became something of a tradition or a convention that in the next Finance Bill after a consolidation Bill of this sort the Statutory Instruments embodied in the sonsolidation became substantive law by some proper enactment in the Finance Bill, it would be a great help to practitioners in this branch of the law. I would have thought that after a period of time one could do away with the saving clause and bring it into substantive law.
  There are great difficulties in consolidating the law relating to any tax, because partly the consolidation must come into force for all periods and partly it must be reserved as a consolidation for the current tax period; that is to say, one has to keep alive the old Statutes because one has to keep alive the rate of tax for past years, for example. I think that I am right in saying that in this consolidation Bill we are in a way preserving some of the Acts which are at
  1054
  the same time repealed. That sounds rather contradictory, but we preserve them for the past, for the assessment of tax in past years, while consolidating the law as it now stands.
  If this consolidation of income tax and corporation tax in the one Statute is to be of any real use not only for us in the House but for the public outside, we must keep it up to date in a reasonable way. I hope that when Amendments are made in future Finance Bills, they will not be word Amendments which one has to fit into an existing provision in a consolidation Bill, but will be Amendments to whole Clauses, so that whole Clauses are rewritten so that they may be inserted, as it were, in the right place in the consolidation Measure. Otherwise in a year's time we shall be in just the same difficulty all over again trying to fit a word in here and a word in there in the normal way which one has with Amendments in Finance Bills.
  If we adopt some form of loose-leaf consolidation Acts so that when an Amendment is made to a consolidation Act it is made by rewriting the whole provision, the whole Clause will be able to be slipped into place in the consolidation Act. If that is not done, in no time we shall be back in the difficulty which we had before when we had the Income Tax Act, 1952, and some 20 Finance Bills to try to fit into it. Let us have some loose-leaf consolidation Acts, if not in physical fact at least so that we ourselves are able to tuck the amending Clauses into the consolidation Act so that it reads intelligibly and so that we do not have to search for word Amendments here and there.
  Apart from those comments, I repeat that I think that the Bill is a magnificent achievement.
  10.10 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General: I am very glad that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has felt it right to pay that tribute to those who have carried out this work. It is right that the matter of capital gains tax is not included in this provision, and regard will be had in due course, but not immediately, to the desirability of consolidation under that head. Note will be taken of what the hon. Gentleman has said about the saving clause affecting Statutory Instruments.

  1055
  At this point it must, I think, be acknowledged that the hon. Member has introduced the interesting and, possibly, controversial theme of running consolidation. I do not think that as between him and me there is much difference about the desirability of that objective. I listened to his account of the kind of treatment of the matter that he had in mind and I felt some sympathy with him. The House will, however, perhaps accept it from me that, on the whole, I think it better not to develop the point further tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Hamling.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  TAXES MANAGEMENT BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  10.12 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I have already explained in what I have said about the Income and Corporation Taxes Bill [Lords] how the material has been divided between that Bill and this one. I need only say now that in this Bill also, the Joint Committee made some small Amendments and that, again, its Report states that the Bill as so amended is pure consolidation and represents the existing law. I therefore ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Mr. Graham Page: I rise again only to compliment the draftsmen on the Bill. It is complementary to the Bill which we have just discussed and it is a very useful form of consolidation.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Hamling.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  10.13 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I think it well to read to the House the Report of the Joint Committee appointed to consider consolidation Bills. The Committee report that they
  "have considered the … Bill and have heard evidence thereon.
  The enactments repealed in Part II of Schedule 6 to the Bill are repealed on the grounds that they are obsolete, spent, unnecessary or superseded.
  The Committee have made certain amendments which they consider necessary to bring the Bill into conformity with the existing law and they consider that the Bill as amended is in all other respects pure consolidation and represents the existing law.
  They consider that there is no point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn."
  We feel indebted to the study that the Joint Committee have given to the Bill and I recommend the Bill to the House.
  Mr. Speaker: Before the debate begins, may I make a Ruling. This is a Bill, first, to consolidate certain enactments relating to sea fishing and, secondly, to repeal certain obsolete enactments relating to herring. It will be in order in this debate to consider whether this is the appropriate time to undertake the task of consolidating sea fishing enactments and, secondly, to raise the question whether this is the appropriate time to repeal obsolete enactments relating to herring.
  10.20 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for that direction about the debate on this Bill.
  On your second point about the repeal of obsolete laws, I wonder whether, with the leave of the House, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell us whether there was any earlier consultation with those concerned about these repeals. We have had an assurance on previous occasions of Statute Law repeal when this House has been faced with a rather formidable schedule of repeals—it is not an easy matter to sit in the Library looking up all these old Statutes, especially when they refer to something

  1057
  or other bounties years, if not centuries, ago—that the matter has been put before those who might be concerned and that any objections have been dealt with or that there have been no objections. Had any consultations of that kind taken place before it was decided to introduce this part into the Bill?
  On the main part of the consolidation it is worth putting on record that at one point the Joint Committee on Consolidation discussed a most interesting Amendment, as it were, and non-amendment to the law relating to Statutory Instruments when it was decided to leave out the words, as they appeared in previous statutes, when a white fish scheme was introduced, that the scheme should have the force of a Statute. Another place, sitting judicially, decided that that had no effect, that the courts could still consider the scheme and its validity, and therefore that the words were purposeless.
  It is worth putting on record that the Joint Committee has decided, in consolidating the law relating to the sea fish industry, that it is right and proper to introduce into a consolidation Bill a decision of the courts. It was even advised that a decision of a lower court could be introduced into consolidation Bills. That is not so in this instance. We are
  1058
  merely introducing a decision of the highest court in the land as existing law—and I think quite rightly, too.
  Apart from that, this seems an admirable consolidation of the law. It will be of great assistance in future to those who have to practice in this branch of the law.
  10.23 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General: With the leave of the House, I will deal with the point raised so helpfully by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page).
  I am not in a position immediately to give him the detail of any consultations, but I invite the hon. Gentleman and the House to draw the inference, from the approval given to the Measure by the Joint Committee, that the Joint Committee, at least was satisfied that the matter had been sufficiently investigated. That is as far as I can go in immediate answer to the hon. Gentleman's inquiry. I hope that it will satisfy the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Hamling.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  BUILDING REGULATIONS
  10.19 p.m.
  Mr. Austen Albu: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Building (Fifth Amendment) Regulations 1970 (S.I., 1970, No. 109), dated 28th January, 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be annulled.
  I raise this matter, not on behalf of any commercial interests which may be interested in high rise building, prefabricated building, system building, and so on, but on behalf of a number of members of professional engineering institutions who are concerned with the advancement of their art in aid of improvement in design and economy in the use of resources.
  This Statutory Instrument and the Amendment to the Building Regulations contained in it arise directly out of the report of the inquiry into the Ronan Point disaster. This is a matter of considerable complexity both technical and legal, as is illustrated by the fact that it is now two years since the disaster took place, and in that time the profession and the industry have been left in a state of considerable confusion. I hope, therefore, that if I stray inadvertently, from the strict rules of order you, Mr. Speaker, will be lenient.
  Mr. Speaker: I cannot promise to be lenient at all.
  Mr. Albu: There is no doubt that this delay is due to the conflict of technical responsibility between the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which has legal responsibility under the Public Health Acts, and the Ministry of Public Building and Works which has engineering expertise, for example the Building Research Station. Until recently the Ministry of Housing and Local Government had no engineer.
  I have no doubt that the right body for these Regulations is the Ministry of Public Building and Works, and in particular that the National Building Agency, which was considerably criticised in the Ronan Point Report, should be returned to the Ministry of Public Building and Works and given a much wider technical responsibility for dealing with new types of design.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot amend the Regulations. This Statutory Instrument is executed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
  Mr. Albu: I am coming directly to the Statutory Instrument which contains an Amendment to the Building Regulations. The intention of the Amendment is to deal not only with safety from the risk of gas explosion which was the immediate cause of the disaster at Ronan Point, but also with the other possibilities of collapse, for instance from wind pressure, a matter which is still imperfectly understood and which is unsuitable for mandatory requirements.
  As I understand it, the public interest in health and safety is protected by Building Regulations in one of two possible ways, either by functional requirements and agreed standards and codes of practice which are, in a term of art, "deemed to satisfy" these requirements, or by rigid design parameters. The former, the "deemed to satisfy" functional requirement, puts responsibility for safe design on the owner of a building, who vests it in a professional engineer. The latter, the rigid design parameters, gives a building inspector the ultimate authority, but he does not have the legal responsibility for damages in case of collapse or failure.
  The report of the inquiry into Ronan Point made it clear that it was the engineer who designed the building who was at fault. As a matter of fact, his name was never mentioned. It is important to know whether he was a professionally qualified engineer, and on this matter the views of the Council for Engineering Institutions, which emphasises the professional status of engineers, would be very interesting.
  The report supported the view that the correct approach to building regulations is by the method of having functional requirements, coupled with provisions "deemed to satisfy" them in the standards and codes of practice on, for instance, such matters as wind pressures, of the British Standards Institution. This gives the engineer freedom in the use of new techniques, designs, and materials. The trouble is that these codes of practice have not been kept up to date in

  1061
  the light of recent research, no doubt because of the muddle which exists about where the responsibility for them lies.
  The amendment in this Statutory Instrument seeks to impose a rigid design specification not only over high-rise flats but also over buildings where the risks of gas explosion are negligible. This will particularly handicap large span structures such as office blocks, warehouses, hospitals, and similar buildings. Moreover, the requirements are ambiguous. For example, some local authorities could require that all columns, even internal ones, must be designed to have panels attached to them. The amended Regulations, if passed, could also be construed to demand that all columns and long beam spans are designed on the assumption that at least one floor is subjected to a load of 5 lb. per sq. in. This is over 20 times the normal domestic load or 15 times the office loading. Moreover, they will apply to all kinds of building over five storeys In height, even if such buildings are in situ concrete framed structures.
  In the case of Ronan Point, if it is argued that the codes of practice did not cover this type of building, I should point out that the Codes of Practice Committee for precast concrete has formally expressed the view that the design did not comply with such codes as did exist, and there was, therefore, negligence in the design. But I agree that the inquiry also expressed the view that not all British Standards and codes of practice are up to date, especially in regard to wind loading, large concrete panel systems, and the possibility of progressive collapse.
  I suggest, therefore, that the Government should withdraw the Regulations and set up an inquiry immediately into the whole procedure for Building Regulations and responsibility for them. If interim measures are required, a limited point load should be specified which places a limit on the equivalent area to which the figure of 5 lb. per square inch should apply, and there should be exemption for special load requirements for buildings with adequate means of ventilation to prevent the build-up of explosive mixture.
  If these Regulations are withdrawn, one way of dealing with the problem could be to replace them by Regulations providing, for instance, a simple set of
  1062
  rules, suitable for interpretation by nonspecialists, deemed to satisfy the functional requirements and suitable for simple structures of limited height and traditionally understood construction and conditions. In that case, factors of safety would be large. Second, there could be codes of practice suitable for interpretation by qualified specialists, deemed to satisfy, and kept up to date to present the current knowledge of materials and the loads or forces commensurate with different types of uses and wind conditions. In this case, factors of safety would be smaller. Finally, there could be a special application procedure to allow for cases where the owner, through his designer, takes responsibility for novel types of construction, analysis, or use of new materials. Incidentally, these would be very suitable matters for any inquiry.
  It is an illusion to believe that there can ever be absolute safety in building design or, for that matter, anything else. If regulations such as these were applied to the motor industry, there would be hardly a car on the road. Moreover, the cost of achieving safety rises exponentially, which means that every further increment of safety costs more than the previous one. It has been estimated that these Amendments will cost the nation between £18 million and £20 million. I am sure that any cost benefit analysis would show that such a sum of money could be used to save far more lives if spent in other ways, for instance, on the Health Service, than would ever be saved by these new Regulations.
  I ask my hon. Friend, therefore, to withdraw the Regulations and to ask his right hon. Friend to begin the urgent process of rationalising the present dangerously confused system of building controls.
  Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that five hon. Members wish to join in the debate on this Prayer, and speeches should be reasonably brief.
  10.29 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu), and I do so as, I think, one of the two qualified civil engineers in the House. Indeed, it is a curious reflection on the current desire to have more specialists in the House that this is the first time in 10 years that I have

  1063
  been able to say a word on a subject within my own professional knowledge.
  I agree with the hon. Member that it is wrong to treat Building Regulations in the way in which the Regulations attempt to do. The purpose of Building Regulations is to specify the conventional requirements, such as that there must be adequate drainage, or adequate strength against gale force winds, or adequate areas of light. In this case the building must be adequate to withstand the shock of an explosion due to gas in an upper storey in a block of flats. The Regulations derive from the gas explosion at Ronan Point.
  To state the conventional requirement like that is a proper and right duty of the law, but the law, having stated that the building must be able to withstand these various forces, does not have to state how the design shall cater for these requirements. In our society we have codes of practice which are not mandatory or statutory but are worked out by the profession to give the sort of loading calculations necessary to ensure that the conventional requirement is met. Throughout civil engineering there is a Building Regulation about the conventional requirement, accompanied by large numbers of codes of practice, coming down to detailed figures and methods of calculation as to how these functions are to be achieved.
  These are the "deemed to satisfy" proposals to which the hon. Member referred. This is a sensible way of proceeding, because in the construction industry—as in any industry—there is always change, including technological change, innovations, new ideas and new materials, and if we had a statutory or mandatory way of designing buildings or structures, within a few months, let alone years, we should be overtaken by change in methodology and technology. The system of working with a mandatory Regulation together with a non-mandatory code of practice is the right one.
  There is a further sanction, namely, that if a building is unsatisfactory, or collapses or falls down, it is normal for the engineer responsible for the building to find it difficult to get many more employments and to construct further building. That is the ultimate sanction—a
  1064
  professional sanction against bad design in our construction industry.
  In these Regulations none of these things have happened. They do not seek to specify the function; they specify a code of practice. They are in strict opposition to the report on Ronan Point, which said—and I quote from page 58—that
  "the building regulations should be amended to include a requirement that buildings should be so designed that they are not susceptible to progressive collapse."
  Progressive collapse is what happened at Ronan Point—a "house of cards" phenomenon in which, because all the panels, floors, and roofs of the flats were not properly joined together, each intermediate failure produced a progressive collapse.
  That has not been done. There is no mention in the Regulations of that requirement. Instead, they contain a series of detailed specifications as to how future blocks of flats are to be designed. I do not intend to go over the detailed points which the hon. Member so rightly put; he has covered all the ground. But the rules in the Regulations are ambiguous. They could be interpreted in many different ways. They mention the specific loading of 5 lbs. per sq. in., as the maximum likely pressure from an explosion in a block of flats. But that figure has no justification from research, experience or theory.
  It has been plucked out of the air by the civil servants. It is not related either to experience or theory. I ask the Minister to justify it. It seems incomprehensible that we should write this figure into our law when nobody has any knowledge of what the pressures resulting from a gas explosion are likely to be.
  Thirdly it ignores the technological possibilities which are certainly present, due to improved ventilation techniques in blocks of flats. If we can have a series of ventilation ducts it is possible that the force of an explosion can be taken away through them and therefore the pressure of force on the walls and spans of the building will be nothing like as great as hitherto. Even if a building were designed with adequate ventilation, to take the force of the explosion, according to this Intrument it would be impossible

  1065
  to weaken the structure and make corresponding economies. This is merely an example of the folly of trying to write what should be codes of practice into Building Regulations.
  As the hon. Member for Edmonton said, it makes large span buildings much more expensive. A loading of this sort placed on a wide span causes the strength of the upper supporting span to have to be increased out of proportion to the likelihood of the pressures coming from any explosion. The result of all this will be to cause the cost of building tower blocks of flats to escalate by a high degree. I would be the last to be against making every building as safe as possible. It is clear that out of this isolated incident at Ronan Point we will make a set of rules which will cause the technological improvement, design improvement, knowledge and technique to be frustrated by the insistence upon standards through the Building Regulations which would be far better done by means of altering the codes of practice.
  It is becoming a favourite British habit, every time we have a disaster or a collapse of any sort, that we automatically make all future construction of that type of structure much more expensive than we need to, indeed we greatly over-insure out of a sort of bureaucratic mania for making quite certain that no accident of that sort can happen again. All the professional institutions concerned have reacted unfavourably. I quote from a letter to the Minister, written by the Institution of Civil Engineers, of which I am a member, which says:
  "There should be a clear distinction between building regulations, which should lay down minimum acceptable standards, and codes of practice, which are compendiums of good practice and a guide to designers and may be incorporated as 'deemed to satisfy' provisions."
  The same is true of all the professional engineers that the Ministry has consulted. They have all made this point. This is the wrong way to go about it.
  It can be said that the Government have not accepted the report on the Ronan Point collapse. This was a highly technical matter on which their own expertise was nothing like as great as that of the professional people who wrote the report. Instead of accepting the recom-
  1066
  mendations of the report, they launched out on their own with a series of building regulations which are far too technical and far too expensive and which will do great harm to the advancement of building techniques. I agree that the time has come when the whole matter should be examined again. This Instrument should be withdrawn and the Minister should take note of the points which have been made and set up an inquiry to see how to deal with this problem.
  In a profession such as mine, if there is a collapse it is the responsibility of the engineer who designed the building. The curious thing about the report on the Ronan Point disaster is that there is no mention of the name of the person or persons responsible for designing it. It is an essential sanction in professional practice of this sort that those who make bad designs which lead to failure should be identified is that they can be refused further contracts by employing authorities.
  The responsibility is that of the owner, the person who orders, commissions or builds the building, but in the event of failure it is right that the name of the professional engineer involved should be made public so that he is not employed again. It is much better to rely on sanctions of that sort than to try to specify every little calculation, assumption and factor of safety which go into the design, because if we were to do that our whole attitude to design in a fast-moving and fast-changing industry would become atrophied.
  I hope that the Minister will accept his hon. Friend's suggestion that the Regulations be withdrawn so that these points may be closely considered with the institutions concerned in order that a better approach can be made to the problem in future.
  10.41 p.m.
  Mrs. Renée Short: Like the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), I have considerable reservations about the Amendment which we are being asked to accept. We ought to be quite clear what the Fifth Amendment does not do. It is not an absolute safeguard against another Ronan Point disaster—what the Tribunal called "progressive collapse". Indeed, there can be no such safeguard,

  1067
  because there is an appreciable statistical probability that a structure based on human design and subject to human error may collapse, never mind what Regulations are introduced. It might have been built according to the requirements but still collapse. We ought to be quite clear that it is possible for a designer to accept the Fifth Amendment and yet for the structure to be unsafe and, in unforeseen circumstances, for the building to collapse.
  The Regulations presume that a portion of the structure will be removed as a result of unforeseen and undesigned loading and that the building shall be so constructed that the failure is limited to a floor area of 750 sq. ft. and not more than three storeys or alternatively where this damage is exceeded the portion concerned must be capable of resisting an additional force of 720 lb. per sq. ft. This is not apparently intended to represent any particular explosive force but merely intended to provide some measure of structural stability based on very limited experience—that is, on the Ronan Point affair—and on subsequent design studies which took place after that.
  In the design of a building, normally a structural engineer designer determines the load that a building is expected to carry—the size of the load, the frequency of the occurrence of that particular load and other characteristics—and then designs the building to meet such a loading plus an additional margin of safety against collapse, deterioration or excessive deformation. But we have no measure of the loadings and their properties which would give rise to progressive collapse. Far too little is known about the whole problem and far too little research has been done into the whole question of progressive collapse.
  But we know that the greatest danger comes from internal gas explosions—and that was the position in the case of Ronan Point. I do not understand why my right hon. Friend has not excluded a major portion of the risk by banning all types of gas appliance from tall buildings, and—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady cannot amend these Regulations.
  Mrs. Short: It is a pity that we do not do as the French do and ban them,
  1068
  making the introduction of gas appliances a criminal offence, thereby having less risk of a danger of this kind. But more research is needed on the incidence of internal explosions, the risks they represent, the forces set up and the best methods of guarding against them. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take this to heart and do something about it. I have serious reservations about the way in which my right hon. Friend has dealt with this whole problem in these amending Regulations. He could have laid down a simple functional requirement demanding that buildings should have a reasonably adequate resistance to progressive collapse, and then could have referred to the need to satisfy provisions to show how these could be met.
  This need to satisfy provisions could have taken the form of a British standard code of practice or a special schedule to the Regulations. Instead, my right hon. Friend has decided to lay down detailed requirements in the substantive Regulations. These are detailed, in that they say how to design a structure, but they are not detailed in the way in which they say what can go wrong, although, in some respects, for immediate practical use, great detail is needed. I hope that my hon. Friend will soon lay an additional Instrument adopting the addendum to the British Standard Code of Practice CP.116, of which, contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) has said, a draft has been available for a year, but has been held up by my hon. Friend's Department. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to this suggestion tonight—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. He will not be able to.
  Mrs. Short: The whole history of the Ronan Point affair and the subsequent turmoil, particularly in professional circles, raised important matters of principle, and it is a convention of the constitution that, when something like this happens, the appropriate Minister sets up a tribunal of inquiry. This may often be a perfectly adequate way of finding out the facts and deciding what action should be taken for which the Minister takes responsibility, but the collapse of a major civil engineering structure attracts a great deal of public attention, partly because it happens so rarely. We

  1069
  should be very thankful that it does: this, of course, is proof of the competence and conscientiousness of the British structural engineers, whether they are consultants or contractors. After all, they are responsible for many thousands of millions of pounds worth of work a year, both at home and abroad.
  But I wonder if this procedure is absolutely satisfactory. Was the Minister right to appoint a tribunal of this kind—three men, none of whom had ever been responsible for the design or construction of a building in his life, and whose conclusions were almost universally condemned by the engineering profession as a whole in vital respects as being unfair and harmful to the construction industry? The consequences, therefore, of the tribunal have placed on my hon. Friend responsibilities which, in all fairness, I do not think that he should have to bear.
  Instead of setting up a tribunal of this kind, he should have asked the professional body mainly concerned, that is, the Institution of Structural Engineers, to carry out a professional inquiry. If a disaster comparable to Ronan Point had occurred, say, in the medical profession, or in some parts of the Health Service, obviously a qualified technical committee would have carried out an inquiry and reported. If a collapse of this kind had happened in practically any other European country, this is how it would have been dealt with. If necessary, then, the Director of Public Prosecutions steps in. I do not understand why we keep to this amateurish approach, which is not fair to the engineering profession. Also, my hon. Friend's Building Regulations Advisory Committee has not served him well here. This, too, needs a shake up.
  However, we should keep this affair in perspective. The Ronan Point disaster, considered from this point of time and putting aside all the television-inspired mass hysteria immediately afterwards, was an unfortunate occurrence. It caused five deaths and several million pounds worth of damage, a massive inquiry was held, expensive remedial measures have had to be taken to buildings, many column inches were taken up in the Press and much television and Parliamentary time too, but we should remember that, since Ronan Point, about 12,000 people
  1070
  have died on the roads and many hundreds of millions pounds worth of structural damage has been done by fire, but this hardly gets into the newspapers—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady will not be out of order if she talks about the Regulations.
  Mrs. Short: —and we do not have inquiries into those.
  I am not sure that I follow my hon. Friend when he says that the Regulations ought to be withdrawn. I have got very mixed feelings about that. There are many shortcomings, and many difficulties will be ahead for my hon. Friend if he accepts responsibility as laid down in these amending Regulations. Possibly, all things considered, we ought to accept them, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be prepared to lay an additional Instrument based on C.P. 116.
  10.50 p.m.
  Mr. Wallace Lawler: I, too, take a somewhat cautious approach to the terms of the Regulations. I am not a civil engineer and I look at the Regulations through the eyes of a layman and as a member of a leading housing committee—one of many who will have to see that the additional requirements are met if the Regulations are passed and who will have to face up to any additional financial obligations which may be entailed.
  I submit that if the Ronan Point flats had never been built, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) said, these Regulations would not be before us. There are many authorities in the country which are satisfied about the present safety regulations without these amending Regulations, but who will have to take the additional requirements into account if the Regulations are passed.
  I was concerned to hear the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) refer to a sum of from £18 million to £20 million additional expenditure that could arise directly from these amending Regulations. I was equally perturbed to hear another hon. Member suggest that the cost could escalate considerably. The Minister ought to deal with the question of finance. If we are expected to accept these Regulations, we ought to know what is involved in terms of additional

  1071
  cost of high buildings which are already the most costly of residential dwellings and already carry an exceeding heavy Exchequer subsidy. I say this with every desire to join in any move to ensure 100 per cent, safety to the residents of high storey buildings which may be built in the future.
  I speak as one who has always opposed the erection of high storey buildings for residential use, even in high density areas. If more and more money has to be found by local authorities for high residential buildings, we might well start to think in terms of ceasing to build high storey flats at all.
  I appreciate that these amending Regulations spsecifically exclude any of the buildings which are at present in course of erection and buildings for which plans have been laid before the Ministry before 1st April. But it seems to me to be important that the Minister in his reply should deal with the financial effect of these Regulations upon provincial local authorities which at the moment are engaged on building high storey flats on a fairly large scale in some of our larger cities.
  10.54 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I humbly congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) on having initiated this debate, because it raises some important matters—important not only to professional men like civil engineers and structural engineers, but also to the public because of the cost that may be involved. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us something about that side of the Regulations.
  Before large panel structures became the fashion, high-rise buildings had steel frames or reinforced concrete. During the war a bomb could blow out a floor in a high building and cause no other damage. In those days there was no question of the building collapsing like a pack of cards. Then large panel structures became popular, particularly in the public sector of building.
  Then there was the Ronan Point disaster. That, as the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) said, was followed by something of a public panic, with a gentleman saying on television that all
  1072
  these buildings could fall down like packs of cards. The Ministry—as all of us, I suppose—became a little panicky. There were many consultations for a few days, with the Ministry taking advice everywhere it could. The result was Circular 62/68, which required local authorities to carry out an investigation of their high-rise properties and ensure that any primary structure could take a load of 5 lbs. per sq. in. It was necessary for the Ministry to fix some figure, because a grant to local authorities was to be based on a figure. I agree that at that time some figures as a direction to local authorities had to be given and they had to be told, "If you improve buildings to this extent, you will get a 40 per cent. grant", now increased to 50 per cent.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss the grants for Ronan Point or similar buildings. The hon. Gentleman knows what these Regulations are about.
  Mr. Page: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will not develop that point.
  I was pointing out that this was the origin of the 5 lb. per sq. in. which is in the Regulations. It has been carried into these Regulations without real consideration of how it will affect general building. It is not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said, the way in which we have come to recognise building regulations. Normally, building regulations set out the functions required of any part of a building—what sort of function it should perform—and that is followed by the provision which we know as the "deem to satisfy" provision—that, if it is of such-and-such a strength or if it is of such-and-such a load-bearing, it is deemed to satisfy the general functional provision.
  That has not been carried out in this case—or, at least, only partially. We are left in some doubt as to the real meaning of paragraphs (4) and (5) of D19. As I understand those paragraphs, there are alternatives. Under paragraph (4), it would have to be shown that the structural failure consequent on
  "removal of one structural member would not occur within any storey other than the storey of which that portion forms part."
  "and (b) any structural failure would be localised within each such storey."

  1073
  The exception to that is in the brackets in the paragraph where it says
  "(other than a portion which satisfies the conditions specified in paragraph (5) of this regulation)".
  It seems, if I read these paragraphs correctly, that they are alternatives. Either one has to build in accordance with paragraph (4), or show that the conditions of paragraph (5) apply. It is ambiguous and it is not in a form in which we have come to know building regulations—the setting-out functions followed by a "deemed to satisfy" paragraph stating what strengths will satisfy that functional requirement.
  As these Regulations stand, they will apply to buildings other than those of the Ronan Point type, the large panel structures, and to that extent they do not follow out the Ronan Point inquiry report. That report said that there should be some Building Regulation of a functional character, saying what the function should be, but it did not say that any specific loading should be laid down as mandatory in the Regulations. These Regulations are to apply to buildings other than large panel structures, but safety can be achieved in other ways. It is inappropriate, I maintain, to apply these Regulations to steel frame structures. They will apply to any building having five or more storeys.
  Another way of achieving safety, for example, is to have three primary structure bearing walls and one wall which will blow out. This is a form of safety protection supported by some structural and civil engineers. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury mentioned ventilation ducts which, properly placed, may give some safety. To mention 5 lb. per sq. in. in the Regulations gives a false sense of security that if one does have that strength of structure, one will be safe. This is not so, because explosive force does not act evenly in all directions. It may act in a most peculiar manner, as in the Ronan Point disaster.
  These Regulations may not produce safety and yet they may cost the building industry, and therefore the public, a great sum of money. I do not know the amount involved. Various figures have been mentioned in the debate, but the House should be told what sort of esti-
  1074
  mates the Government have of the cost of this coming into operation.
  The House would be only too prepared to meet this expense if we could ensure that these Regulations produced safety, but my feeling at the moment—and I have taken professional advice and advice from practical builders—
  Mr. Lawler: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the House might meet this expense by additional Government subsidy, rather than that local authorities should carry it on housing accounts?
  Mr. Page: I was using the expression in a rather wide way. Let me say that the public would be prepared to meet the expense as it is passed on to them, whether in rates, taxes or the cost of buildings, if they felt that safety was being achieved in this way.
  I am not convinced that this is so, and that is why it is right that the matter should have been raised in debate and the Parliamentary Secretary should be given the opportunity to reply to that sort of criticism of the Regulation.
  11.5 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I share in the congratulations expressed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) on initiating the debate. I welcome the decision of hon. Members decision to debate the matter, which has arisen from such an important experience in building in recent years as to warrant the kind of examination and probing we have had this evening.
  Like the majority of hon. Members, I speak by no means as a professional. We have only one here tonight, and I was interested in what the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said. It would be a mistake to suggest, as I think he did a little unfairly now and again, that those who have prepared the amendment and are reviewing the Regulations generally—this is a matter that will come up at a later date—are bureaucrats or people just sitting behind desks. The advisory committee on this matter is comprised wholly of professional people and the amount of consultation that took place before the submission of the amendment surprises even me.
  Mr. Ridley: But the result of the consultation was very unfavourable to the Regulations. It is no good saying that we have had consultation if everyone consulted is against the principle behind them, as is the case in this instance.
  Mr. Freeson: I do not think that that is putting the position quite as we have experienced it. I would not say that everybody has been against them. A considerable number of those consulted disagreed with one another as well as having queries on the proposals the Ministry was considering. That is a rather fairer way of putting the position.
  There has not been a kind of battle between the professional people in industry and elsewhere and the Government. There have been differences of view expressed between the various interests we have consulted. That consultation has been immense. There seem to have been hundreds of organisations called in by the Ministry to express views through the Building Advisory Committee. So whatever has emerged has done so on the basis of professional consideration and not laymen's consideration.
  Perhaps it would be as well if I state briefly the purpose of the amending Regulations. They have been made in pursuance of one of the main recommendations of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Ronan Point collapse, which called for provisions dealing with progressive collapse to be included in the Building Regulations, 1965. The amending Regulations provide that in addition to safety against normal calculated loads on a structure, as already required in the Building Regulations, new buildings of five storeys or over must have inbuilt precautions against accidental load or damage.
  This may be achieved by the provision of alternative paths to carry the load if a structural member is removed, so that the damage from the removal does not exceed certain defined limits. However, where the removal of a structural member would lead to damage exceeding these limits that member must be constructed to be capable of supporting the specified additional load—the 5 lb. per sq. in. questioned by several hon. Members. I will return to this in a few moments.
  1076
  In practice, it may be desirable to devise the plan form and design of buildings to meet the requirements of the regulations rather than to try to fit these requirements into a preconceived plan form or design. This refers to the question about cost. The 5 lb. per sq. in. criterion is intended to be applied when the alternative path principle is impossible in respect of an individual structural member, or members. There is no reason why an individual building should not be designed using a combination of the two principles.
  Having stated that in summary form, perhaps I should now consider some of the points which have been raised rather more individually. The amending Regulations provide that in addition to the requirements for structural safety against normal loads, to which all buildings must conform, buildings of five storeys and above must meet certain requirements designed to guard against progressive collapse in the event of accidental damage, not necessarily the experience of an explosion.
  Mr. Ridley: Can the hon. Gentleman say why it should not be a four-storey building? Progressive collapse is just as likely with a four-storey building as with a building of five storeys or more.
  Mr. Freeson: I shall deal with that later. Several of the points which have emerged are a balance of professional judgment about which one cannot be absolutely categorical. However, I shall return to that.
  The additional requirements are set out in the new Regulation D19. They may be satisfied in either of two ways, by the provision of alternative paths to carry the load if part of a structure member is removed or becomes unserviceable, or, where for a particular structural member or members that is not practicable, by the special strengthening of that member or those members. That is Regulation D19(5). In an individual building, the requirements may be satisfied by a combination of these two approaches, as I have already said.
  The Ronan Point Tribunal recommended appraisal and strengthening of buildings of seven storeys and above. The Building Regulations Advisory Committee considered that it would be reasonable for new buildings to fix a

  1077
  slightly lower limit for the application of precautions against progressive collapse. It recommended the limit at five storeys and above. It was not a recommendation without query. The comments received showed a wide variation. Some wanted the limit kept at seven storeys and some pressed for a limit even lower than the five storeys which emerged. This is what I meant when I referred to a balanced judgment which had to emerge. If we had taken the advice of certain of the people consulted, it could have come out at a level lower than five storeys.
  The application to all types of building and all forms of construction has been questioned. The tribunal of inquiry's report said that
  "the vast majority of tall buildings in this country had either steel or reinforced concrete frames. Such buildings are not liable to progressive collapse …"
  After considering the matter further, the advisory committee rejected this argument and recommended that the new requirement should be applied generally. Among the reasons for this view were the following four summarised arguments.
  First, it was fair that a new mandatory requirement should not be selective in its application and so not be thought to penalise a particular form of construction. Secondly, while it might be true that most framed and brick buildings were not susceptible to progressive collapse, some were. Thirdly, the new requirements were not unreasonable if they were applied to these other kinds of buildings and in so far as such buildings complied anyway, no additional burden was being placed on the designers of these buildings. Fourthly, the new requirements have been deliberately drawn up in fairly functional terms—several hon. Members have urged that sufficient account was not taken of this need—to facilitate their application to varying forms of construction and to permit of the flexibility of design which hon. Members have urged as a basis for policy in this matter.
  The 5 lb. per sq. in. requirement has been queried. This figure, quoted in the Ministry's Circular 62/68 in connection with the post-Ronan Point situation and appraisals, was taken as the only available basis upon which there could be any firm decision since there has not been
  1078
  the research to follow on from the Ronan Point experience to provide an alternative measure to write in. In saying this, however, I should stress that if the evidence of research produces a different basis for consideration in the future, it will be open to the Ministry and, of course, to the House to consider further changes.
  In the meantime, pending further knowledge and research on the subject, the advisory committee considered that the figure which emerged from the Ronan Point tribunal's report should be adhered to in the amendment to the Regulations which are before us.
  Mrs. Renée Short: Will my hon. Friend see that such research is carried out?
  Mr. Freeson: I understand that that is in the hands of the Building Research Station, as are other aspects touched on by my hon. Friend and to which I referred earlier, especially concerning the use of gas equipment in buildings, explosions and the like. Research is constantly being undertaken and the experience of the Ronan Point affair has led to even further research in this way.
  It has been stated and repeated this evening that the proposed amendment is aimed solely at protection against explosions. As I have said briefly, this is not so, or, if it is so, it is only indirectly the case. The amendment proposals are primarily aimed at protection against the effects of damage, however it is caused, or against progressive collapse experience, however it might be caused, in the future.
  Those are some of the main points which have been raised, but considerable reference was made to cost. Some commentators have criticised the amendments on the grounds that they would increase—some have said greatly increase—the cost of building. No commentator has given any figure, although a figure was quoted tonight. No commentator who has been brought in on the consultations or who has reacted to the amendment since it was published has given any calculated figure for the amount of the increase, either in general or in relation to any individual scheme. I suspect that the reference to £18 million is based broadly on the experience that we have already had with rectification and strengthening processes in the public

  1079
  sector following the Ronan Point disaster. I do not see any other basis for such a figure being quoted.
  The Ministry's professional officers have done some examination of typical constructions. Their advice is that provided the new requirements are taken into account in the settlement of the planform and design of new buildings at scratch, and not fitted into a preconceived planform or design, there should be little or no extra cost involved, whether for large concrete panel buildings, frame buildings or brick buildings.
  We have an impression—it has been reflected in some of the remarks tonight—that some engineers may still be apprehensive of the cost implications. The answer must be that such evidence as is available suggest that, with the proviso I have just given, the cost implications will be negligible. It is not possible, for obvious reasons, to do a calculation. We can only take individual examinations by our professional staff and draw conclusions from them. This is the basis for my remarks at this stage.
  I think that I have dealt with most of the points that have been raised. If there are other points on which hon. Members would like further consideration in detail, whether or not they have been raised tonight I shall be happy to arrange to reply to them.
  Mrs. Renée Short: I should like to press my hon. Friend on the point about adoption of the addendum to the British Standard Code of Practice, CP.116. Is he aware that this is very important to him and to his Department?
  Mr. Freeson: I shall certainly take note of the point that my hon. Friend has raised and examine it further in the Department to see when we may expect this to be brought forward for adoption.
  Mr. Albu: With the leave of the House. My hon. Friend's reply has been invaluable in the debate. I agree that the matter is too complicated to pursue further. I am sure that the professional bodies involved will want to consider my hon. Friend's reply and raise further matters. I hope my hon. Friend will take note of my more wider and perhaps sadly out of order remarks on the whole procedure in the Building Regulations
  1080
  and draw them to the attention of his right hon. Friend.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  FLEET SUBMARINES (ARMAMENTS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. James Hamilton.]
  11.22 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: I owe an apology, or certainly should express my commiseration to, the Under-Secretary for being the cause of his making a third major speech during the same afternoon and evening. In last week's defence debate the Secretary of State placed great importance on the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Yet when we come to look at B.A.O.R. we find that the only true tactical nuclear weapon that it possesses is Honest John, an American-made free-flight rocket with a 15-mile range which was completed about 1953 and is now considered obsolete.
  The Americans and the Germans, and, above all, the Russians, have longer range, lighter and more mobile tactical nuclear weapons. Thus, B.A.O.R. not only has to face a disparity with the Soviet army of two or three to one, but has to operate with semi-obsolete weapons in a sphere that the Secretary of State considers to be vital.
  Unfortunately, much the same story is true about our Fleet submarines, which are all nuclear powered. The first, "Dreadnought", was completed in 1963, "Valiant" was commissioned in 1966, "Warspite" in 1967, and "Churchill" was commissioned this year. Four are under construction and the White Paper tells us that the order for the ninth will be placed shortly.
  We were told in the Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy, 1967:
  "From the middle 1970s the main striking power of the Navy, apart from Polaris submarines, will be provided by the growing force of Fleet submarines".
  Yet, during the following year, the rate of construction was reduced to about one every 18 months, and by the end of 1971 there will, according to the Daily Telegraph, be only seven completed instead

  1081
  of the 17 originally planned. To be fair, we should include the four Polaris submarines, but that still leaves us about six short.
  I think that both sides of the House will agree that these are excellent vessels, costing from £20 to £25 million apiece. They are primarily designed to hunt enemy submarines and, in co-operation with surface warships, to protect convoys of merchant ships. These merchant ships must be protected from surface as well as underwater attack. Fleet submarines should, therefore, be armed with antisubmarine torpedoes, anti-ship torpedoes, and anti-ship missiles.
  I turn, first, to the question of torpedoes. In answer to a Question on 4th February the Minister of Defence for Equipment said:
  "… the anti-submarine torpedo … the Mark 23, entered service as recently as 1964."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1970; Vol. 794, c. 420.]
  I can find no reference to this torpedo in any Defence White Paper, but I understand, without going into any details, that It is an interim type which is relatively slow and short-ranged.
  The anti-submarine torpedo specially designed for Fleet submarines was to be the Mk. 24 wireguided torpedo referred to in the 1966, 1967, and 1968 Defence White Papers, but, strangely, not mentioned in the 1969 White Paper, a fact which I referred to in my winding-up speech on the Navy Estimates that year. In reply, the Minister said:
  "This torpedo, which was listed as a major development project in the 1968 Defence Estimates, is in production and is undergoing acceptance trials."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 1113.]
  That is the last official information that we had until late last year.
  In the Daily Express of 13th December, 1969, Mr. Chapman Pincher, who, in spite of the Secretary of State's views, most people consider to be extraordinarily well informed, showed that in spite of 10 years' development this Mk. 24 torpedo project had gone wrong. His article said that the £50 million project had collapsed, that the Navy had been warned two years ago that the factory at Alexandria, in Dumbartonshire, would be incapable of handling so complicated a design, and he added that G.E.C. had
  1082
  been called in to redesign the torpedo, which would take at least two years.
  Four days later the Minister of Defence for Equipment made a statement to the House that the production of the Mk. 24 torpedo had been suspended, that the entry of this weapon into service would be considerably delayed, and that the Government factory at Alexandria would close at the end of 1970.
  On 4th February, the Minister reassured the House that urgent steps had been taken to set up a project-type organisation, but at the same time he said that
  "their"—
  the Fleet submarines—
  "current operational efficiency is unchanged…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1970; Vol. 794, c. 420.]
  This apparently means that, not having yet been equipped with the Mk. 24 torpedo, these submarines are as efficient, or as inefficient, as they ever were. The point is that these five vessels are, for some years to come, not to have the main weapons for which they were designed. The position is rather like a Chieftain tank being armed with a machine gun.
  I do not for a moment attempt to blame the Minister or the Government for the failure of this advanced development project. It happens to all Governments. But I am surprised that the defects were not discovered sooner, and alarmed at what appears to be a cover-up operation, including the reference to the Mk. 23 torpedo. What is being done to provide adequate weapons as rapidly as possible? So much for the antisubmarine torpedo.
  But the story does not end there. As the Minister of Defence for Equipment said in winding up the first day of our defence debate, these submarines also have to operate against surface ships, and for this purpose they are equipped with a different type of torpedo. These torpedoes are a development of the pre-war anti-ship torpedo, the Mk. 8, and this torpedo is, I understand, the same as the one basically designed in the 'thirties. In other words it, too, is rather obsolescent.
  What is needed as well as the anti-ship torpedo is an anti-ship missile which can be fired submerged from a torpedo tube, which then takes to the air and

  1083
  can be exploded in mid-air and so destroy all communications systems in a fleet or convoy, or, alternatively, can drop back into the sea and act as a nuclear depth charge, somewhat similar to the American Subroc. I also referred to this last year, and the Minister, in his reply, said:
  "Further progress will be made this year with studies into ways of improving the effectiveness of submarine launched anti-ship missiles, which were referred to in the Supplementary Defence Estimates of 1968. … The importance of this is well appreciated.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 1112.]
  This years' Defence White Paper refers to
  "studies of naval requirements for anti-ship guided missiles"
  but does not say whether these are to be carried by surface warships, by submarines, or by both.
  Since then, there has been a further article in the Daily Express by Mr. Chapman Pincher, on 3rd March, saying that plans for a British anti-submarine missile have been scrapped and that we are now negotiating with the French to buy their missile, which seems to be based on the SUBROC principle. This is called the "Exocet", which the reference books tell us is designed to travel for more than 20 miles only 6 or 10 ft. above the water and to sink enemy ships before they can launch their own missiles.
  Clearly, as well as modern high speed long range anti-ship torpedoes, some form of tactical nuclear weapon for use against ships or groups of ships is needed. I hope that the Minister will be able to clear up the present confusion as regards both the anti-ship torpedo and the anti-ship missile.
  I sum up in this way. These submarines are of great importance to our national defence. We are, therefore, right to express concern at the reduced rate of building of these vessels and at the reported serious delays to the refits of H.M.S. "Dreadnought", the first of these ships to be taken in hand; at the lack of modern anti-submarine torpedoes at the end of a 10-year programme of development, and the apparent failure either to provide modern anti-ship torpedoes to replace the Mk. 8 or tactical anti-ship missiles, nuclear or conventional. I hope that the present unsatisfactory state of affairs has been exaggerated—by
  1084
  me and by the Press—but it is up to the Minister to allay the genuine anxieties and fears on this most important subject.
  11.33 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) has chosen a most appropriate subject for today's Adjournment debate. I, too, am sorry to keep the Minister out of his bunk but, as a one-time torpedo specialist myself, I understand something of the importance of the questions raised by my hon. Friend.
  I, also, am a little suspicious about the circumstances of the delay to the Mk. 24 torpedo. In 1959, I was in command of H.M.S. "Vernon", the torpedo school, and the principle of wired guidance for submarine-launched torpedoes worked amazingly well then; a lot of work had been done on it, and it was an established principle as a means of control. In 1964, when I left the Navy, the Mk. 24 was but a gleam in the designer's eye, but I had heard about it. In that same year, H.M.S. "Valiant", the second hunter-killer, as we called them, was completed, so presumably, the development of the torpedo was keeping pace with the development of the submarine.
  In 1966, the Mk. 24 was noted in the research and development projects enumerated in the White Paper. In 1968, there was a reference to the Mk. 24 and Mk. 31. Perhaps the Minister will say what happened to the Mk. 31. In July, 1969, we read that there was "no change in major projects".
  Then, at the end of 1969, quite suddenly, after five years or more of development, it was announced that an extensive re-design had been found necessary. The curious feature to my mind is that the Royal Naval Torpedo Factory at Alexandria is a factory for production, not a research establishment. For the Mk. 24 to have gone there for production, it must have passed its design stage and reached the stage of production. Also, I feel that it could not have been a small pre-production order; Alexandria would not have closed for lack of a small order of that kind. It must have been an extensive full production order.
  In the February 1966 Defence Review, there is a reference to the Weapons Development Committee, and it is said:
  "Occasionally, it may be necessary to ask the Committee to review a project, if, for

  1085
  example, it becomes clear that particular features are disproportionately difficult or expensive to develop".
  I hope that the Minister will be able to announce to the House this evening that what has happened is a genuine design fault and not an economy. That is the essential point that I wanted to make.
  11.35 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Dr. David Owen): The subject of this debate has been covered slightly in the debates earlier.
  I do not quarrel with the account by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) of the events, except that I would stress that the delay in the development of the torpedo which led to the closure of the R.N.T.F., Alexandria, was due to design difficulties outside the control of the factory, and inasmuch as the Press statement made allegations about the factory which were unjustified, I pay tribute to the factory, which has set very high standards and given faithful service.
  On the question of the production order, raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), the issue is that we made a decision, because of the need to get this into the Fleet, to go to production. The torpedo armament of the Fleet submarine is composed of both antisubmarine torpedoes and anti-surface ship torpedoes. Currently, the anti-submarine torpedo is the Mk. 23, which came into service in 1964 designed as a single-shot homing weapon which is wire guided.
  The anti-ship torpedo is the Mk. 8 mod. 4—a salvo weapon, the original version of which dates back to before the last war. Since then, of course, successive modifications have been incorporated into it and it remains one of the fastest torpedoes in the world. It continues to be an effective ship-sinking weapon.
  This torpedo is widely used by other countries, including Australia, West Germany and Holland, and has had a successful export record in that we have sold it to eight different countries over the past 10 years. The Mk. 23 has been purchased by one other country, and the
  1086
  prospects for wider sales appear very good.
  In the normal outfit of the SSN, there is a preponderance of Mk. 8 torpedoes. This is in recognition of the fact that it is a salvo weapon whereas the later Mk. 23 is a single-shot weapon. The Mk. 24 anti-submarine torpedo is the planned successor to the Mk. 23, and as the House knows—and as the hon. Member has reminded us—its introduction into service will now be later than we had earlier planned, and I will deal with this in some detail later.
  The Mk. 24, too, will be a wire-guided homing torpedo, and in speed, range and depth it will represent a substantial advance on the Mk. 23.
  With the measures we have already taken, we confidently expect the Mk. 24 to be ahead of any contemporary torpedo in most aspects of performance. We are also thinking of possible variants of it in a later timescale.
  The question might be asked, "If the Mk. 23 torpedo needs to be superseded after a relatively short period of time, why has no replacement for the older Mk. 8 anti-ship torpedo been mentioned?" The answer, I suggest, is simple.
  The speed of surface ships has not increased markedly over the last two or three decades, and the high speed of the Mk. 8 torpedo—it was well ahead of its time when first introduced—means that it remains effective as a ship-sinking weapon.
  On the other hand, submarines can now travel both faster and deeper. Our anti-submarine torpedoes must, therefore, be able to match the threat posed by the newest generations of nuclear submarines. It is, of course, our intention to phase out the Mk. 8 torpedo in due course, and we have studies going on at present aimed at producing a number of options which will enable us to select the most promising solution.
  As was announced to the House on Wednesday, 17th December, an extensive redesign of the Mk. 24 torpedo has been found necessary, and production has been suspended. Initial studies on the Mk. 24 torpedo began in 1959. The new torpedo is a very complicated weapon which may be compared with a guided missile.

  1087
  I do not need to emphasise to the House that programmes of this kind inevitably involve a great deal of experimentation. Certain technical problems have, however, arisen and it is these that have resulted in the programme being delayed.
  I recognise that it is always tiresome when Ministers plead security reasons for not going into detail on the precise technical difficulties that have arisen, but I believe that the House will understand that in this case, where we are designing a heavy anti-submarine torpedo, for obvious reasons I cannot disclose details on these technical points.
  We are, however, confident that the problems can be overcome, but it is impossible to give a precise time scale. We had to go into this when dealing with the question of the closure of the factory.
  As with all naval weapon projects, the Director General Weapons is responsible for the Mk. 24 torpedo programme to the Controller of the Navy, and both myself and my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Equipment have been closely involved in the arrangements which have been made to strengthen the management of the project. A project-type organisation of the same pattern which proved so successful in the context of the Polaris programme has been established. Sir Rowland Baker, who was previously closely associated with the Polaris programme, was asked to advise on the future of the project, and his views have been fully taken into account.
  I will not comment too deeply on the operational aspects of this. We have always known that we were trying to develop a highly-sophisticated weapon. We must persevere, learn what lessons there are to be learnt from the problems that we now face, and hope to remedy the defect as soon as possible.
  It has not reduced the present operational efficiency of the Fleet submarine or our conventional powered submarines. In 1964, we introduced a A/S new torpedo, but, clearly, the delay to the Mk. 24 is a setback to our plans for the future; but I do not think we should exaggerate the extent of this difficulty. Just as to talk about the Chieftain Tank as being armed only with machine guns is to exaggerate the problem that we face.
  1088
  By concentrating on the Mk. 24 torpedo one should beware of forgetting that the nuclear powered Fleet submarine is itself a complete weapon platform system in which its sensors and armament are complementary.
  The introduction of the faster, deeper diving nuclear-powered submarine provides a covert means of prolonged surveillance of both submarine and surface ship activity. The S.S.N. provides the most effective vehicle for long range sonar detection equipment, being able to select the optimum operating depth with regard to sea conditions. Furthermore, it is unaffected by weather or surface sea states and hostile air supremacy.
  An S.S.N. operating independently or in conjunction with other submarines, aircraft or surface ships can hunt, detect and attack enemy submarines. Operating with surface ships, the S.S.N. can form an integral part of the anti-submarine force. All this demonstrates the particular versatility of the Fleet submarine and the ability to undertake the rôles assigned to it.
  It also demonstrates the need for us to look at other means of weapon systems for Fleet submarines which the hon. Member mentioned. He knows that we have studies in hand. He asked whether these included ship launched or submarine launched systems. These are being studied and the studies are comprehensive. They will cover all these practical options. The sort of weapon system that he outlined is one at which we have been looking. He should not be too upset that reference has been made in two Defence White Papers, but there is nothing concrete to show yet. We are dealing with a highly-sophisticated technology, which has never before been attempted. There are missiles launched from submarines in other navies, but these are only when the submarine is surfaced. They may possibly be awash, but they are not guided missiles, launched from beneath the water.
  The basis of the hon. Member's case is that we have here a very expensive submarine—a submarine for which we make sacrifices in the rest of the Fleet, and this needs a sophisticated armament which balances all the capital investment which we have made in the Fleet submarines.

  1089
  A question was asked about the Mk. 31. This is an air-launched torpedo and. as such, has no relevance to the problem in hand. Dealing with Exocet, the Minister of Defence for Equipment has already said that we are always interested in weapons introduced by our friends. We will look at it. When our studies are completed we will have all the basic information on which to take decisions.
  I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will accept that this is an area in which we are well aware of the problems. We look on the problem of the Mk. 24 as a setback, but we hope and believe that it
  1090
  can be cleared up. I would emphasise that there is no other Navy with a torpedo of the sophistication that we hope to have for the Mk. 24. We are in the lead in developing this highly-sophisticated torpedo. It has now been put back. If we can produce it in a fairly short time there is every expectation that our Fleet submarines will be well equipped with a more advanced weapon system. I hope that this is the case.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at a quarter to Twelve o'clock.

SOCIAL SERVICES
  Professions Supplementary to Medicine (Pay)
  Professions Supplementary to Medicine (Pay)
  Andover Hospital (Extension)
  Andover Hospital (Extension)
  Accidents, Wellingborough (Treatment Facilities)
  Accidents, Wellingborough (Treatment Facilities)
  Local Authority Social Services Bill
  Local Authority Social Services Bill
  National Health Service (Green Paper)
  National Health Service (Green Paper)
  Occupational Pensioners (Unemployment Benefit)
  Occupational Pensioners (Unemployment Benefit)
  Low-income Families
  Low-income Families
  Health Services and Public Health Act 1968
  Health Services and Public Health Act 1968
  Adela Shaw Orthopaedic Hospital, Kirkbymoorside (Closure)
  Adela Shaw Orthopaedic Hospital, Kirkbymoorside (Closure)
  Copthorne Hospital, Shrewsbury (Pharmacists)
  Copthorne Hospital, Shrewsbury (Pharmacists)
  District Nurses, Hull
  District Nurses, Hull
  Physiotherapists, Hull
  Physiotherapists, Hull
  Scientology
  Scientology
  Hospitals (Nurses)
  Hospitals (Nurses)
  Health Centre, Lichfield
  Health Centre, Lichfield
  Lung Cancer (Filter Cigarettes)
  Lung Cancer (Filter Cigarettes)
  Exposure to Radioactivity
  Exposure to Radioactivity
  Eye Cataract Operations (Waiting Time)
  Eye Cataract Operations (Waiting Time)
  Ophthalmic Operations (Waiting Time)
  Ophthalmic Operations (Waiting Time)
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Hospital Pharmacists (Pay and Conditions)
  Hospital Pharmacists (Pay and Conditions)
  Hospital Pharmacists, Sheffield
  Hospital Pharmacists, Sheffield
  Northwick Park Hospital (Nurses)
  Northwick Park Hospital (Nurses)
  Dismissed Scottish Teachers (Unemployment Benefit)
  Dismissed Scottish Teachers (Unemployment Benefit)
  Hospitals (Cotton Terry Blankets)
  Hospitals (Cotton Terry Blankets)
  Home Helps (Report)
  Home Helps (Report)
  Hospital Treatment of Road Casualties (Fee)
  Hospital Treatment of Road Casualties (Fee)
  Heart Resuscitation Units
  Heart Resuscitation Units
  Disabled Persons (Invalid Vehicles)
  Disabled Persons (Invalid Vehicles)
  Male Sterilisation (Screening Services)
  Male Sterilisation (Screening Services)
  Educational Psychologists
  Educational Psychologists
  Limbless Drivers (Powered Chairs)
  Limbless Drivers (Powered Chairs)
  Nurses' Training Institutions Tribunal
  Nurses' Training Institutions Tribunal
  Industrial Misconduct (Unemployment Benefit)
  Industrial Misconduct (Unemployment Benefit)
  Tribunals
  Tribunals
  Disabled Persons (Benefit)
  Disabled Persons (Benefit)
  National Health Service Tribunal
  National Health Service Tribunal
  Children's Convalescent Hospital, Hornsea (Staff)
  Children's Convalescent Hospital, Hornsea (Staff)
  Meals on Wheels, Brighton
  Meals on Wheels, Brighton
  Oral Contraceptives
  Oral Contraceptives
  Self-employed Persons
  Self-employed Persons
TECHNOLOGY
  Steel Castings Industry
  Steel Castings Industry
  Power Stations (Fuel)
  Power Stations (Fuel)
  Victor Aircraft (Conversion)
  Victor Aircraft (Conversion)
  North Sea Gas (Conversion Costs)
  North Sea Gas (Conversion Costs)
  Strontium 90
  Strontium 90
  Rolls-Royce RB2-11 Engine
  Rolls-Royce RB2-11 Engine
  Transport Aircraft Requirements Committee
  Transport Aircraft Requirements Committee
  Manufacturing Industry (Machine Tools)
  Manufacturing Industry (Machine Tools)
  Manufacturing Industry (Capital Investment)
  Manufacturing Industry (Capital Investment)
  Victor Aircraft (Conversion)
  Victor Aircraft (Conversion)
  Natural Gas Conversion
  Natural Gas Conversion
  Boards and Committees
  Boards and Committees
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  Engineers (Emigration)
  Engineers (Emigration)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Missions
  Missions
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  New Hebrides
  New Hebrides
  Trefor Owen Williams
  Trefor Owen Williams
  International Civil Airliners (Security)
  International Civil Airliners (Security)
  Repatriated British Subjects (Passports)
  Repatriated British Subjects (Passports)
  CS Gas
  CS Gas
  Nigeria (Arms Supplies)
  Nigeria (Arms Supplies)
  U.S.S.R. (Sports Teams, Orchestras and Choirs)
  U.S.S.R. (Sports Teams, Orchestras and Choirs)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Family Expenditure Survey
  Family Expenditure Survey
  Construction Industry, North-West (Employment)
  Construction Industry, North-West (Employment)
  Dock and Harbour Employees (Strikes)
  Dock and Harbour Employees (Strikes)
  Malaysians
  Malaysians
  Educational Charities
  Educational Charities
  Apprenticeships
  Apprenticeships
  Vacancy Ratio
  Vacancy Ratio
  Training Centres (Employer-sponsored Courses)
  Training Centres (Employer-sponsored Courses)
  Captive-bolt Humane Killers
  Captive-bolt Humane Killers
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Malaria
  Malaria
  Youth Service
  Youth Service
  Teachers (Emigration)
  Teachers (Emigration)
  Living Arts (Grants)
  Living Arts (Grants)
  Social Science Research Council
  Social Science Research Council
  Survey Research Unit
  Survey Research Unit
  Social Survey
  Social Survey
  Examinations (Uniformity of Practice)
  Examinations (Uniformity of Practice)
  Independent Schools Tribunals
  Independent Schools Tribunals
  Boards and Committees
  Boards and Committees
  Teachers (Recruiting Advertising)
  Teachers (Recruiting Advertising)
  Medical Training (Entry)
  Medical Training (Entry)
  Special Schools
  Special Schools
  Nursery School Teachers and Assistants
  Nursery School Teachers and Assistants
  Students (Loans)
  Students (Loans)
  Schools, Cornwall
  Schools, Cornwall
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Inflammable or Poisonous Liquids (Labelling of Containers)
  Inflammable or Poisonous Liquids (Labelling of Containers)
  Air Raid Shelters (Demolition)
  Air Raid Shelters (Demolition)
  Immigration (East African Asians)
  Immigration (East African Asians)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  Stock Exchanges (Rhodesian Securities)
  Stock Exchanges (Rhodesian Securities)
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  U.S. Obscene Publications (Seizure)
  U.S. Obscene Publications (Seizure)
  Aviation Fuel (Tax)
  Aviation Fuel (Tax)
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Central Heating (Tax)
  Central Heating (Tax)
  Tax Assessments (Appeals)
  Tax Assessments (Appeals)
  Lawyers (Tax-free Fees)
  Lawyers (Tax-free Fees)
  Government Books and Stationery (Value)
  Government Books and Stationery (Value)
  Obscene Books and Articles (Importation)
  Obscene Books and Articles (Importation)
  Envelopes (Tax)
  Envelopes (Tax)
  Hand-Knitted Wools (Tax)
  Hand-Knitted Wools (Tax)
  Tax Rates
  Tax Rates
SCOTLAND
  Teachers Salaries Committee
  Teachers Salaries Committee
  Jetty, Isle of Scalpay
  Jetty, Isle of Scalpay
  Department of Agriculture (Houses)
  Department of Agriculture (Houses)
  Water Supply, Isle of Harris
  Water Supply, Isle of Harris
  Farm Income (Production Grants)
  Farm Income (Production Grants)
  School Leaving Age
  School Leaving Age
BOARD OF TRADE
  International Passenger Survey
  International Passenger Survey
  Livestock (Imports)
  Livestock (Imports)
  Live and Dead Stock (Exports)
  Live and Dead Stock (Exports)
HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Nuclear Waste (Disposal)
  Nuclear Waste (Disposal)
  Boards and Committees:
  Boards and Committees:
  Clywedog Reservoir (Severn Water Extraction)
  Clywedog Reservoir (Severn Water Extraction)
  Tribunals and Committees
  Tribunals and Committees
  Housing Lists (Mobile Home Residents)
  Housing Lists (Mobile Home Residents)
  Housing Subsidy, Lambeth
  Housing Subsidy, Lambeth
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Boards and Committees
  Boards and Committees
  Cornwall (Farm Amalgamations)
  Cornwall (Farm Amalgamations)
  Rabies (Quarantine Establishments)
  Rabies (Quarantine Establishments)
  South Africa (Bacon Market Sharing Understanding)
  South Africa (Bacon Market Sharing Understanding)
  Milk Production (Cornwall)
  Milk Production (Cornwall)
  Dairy Products (Metric Weights)
  Dairy Products (Metric Weights)
  Lamb
  Lamb
  Beef and Veal
  Beef and Veal
  ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT (SECTION 22)
  ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT (SECTION 22)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pension Scheme (Lump Sum)
  Pension Scheme (Lump Sum)
LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
  Boards and Committees
  Boards and Committees
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Uganda (Hydro-electric Scheme)
  Uganda (Hydro-electric Scheme)
  Glendon Hospital, Montserrat
  Glendon Hospital, Montserrat
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Second-class Mail
  Second-class Mail
  Bad Weather Conditions (Train Delays and Cancellations)
  Bad Weather Conditions (Train Delays and Cancellations)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Cake House, St. James's Park
  Cake House, St. James's Park
TRANSPORT
  Vehicles, Cumberland (Registration)
  Vehicles, Cumberland (Registration)
  Heavy Goods Vehicle Drivers Licences
  Heavy Goods Vehicle Drivers Licences
  Cornwall
  Cornwall

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

CONTRACEPTIVE PILL AND WARNING LEAFLET
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will ensure, in accordance with the advice of the United States Food and Drugs Administration, that all supplies of birth control pills shall be accompanied by a leaflet giving a warning of the possible dangers.]
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not consider that this would be desirable. Oral contraceptives are available only if prescribed or supplied by a doctor. It is the doctor's professional responsibility to give the patient any advice or warning that he considers necessary.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, while thanking ray noble friend, may I ask whether she will bear in mind (I hope that the Government's view will be reconsidered) that this advice was given after a most important Congressional conference in the United States of America, to which the most expert in this field gave evidence? Therefore, the Answer which the noble Baroness has just given me—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I wonder whether I might interrupt the noble Baroness. If she asks a question inviting one of my noble friends to bear something in mind, it is not an interrogative question.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I am sorry that I am not sufficiently perfectionist for my noble friend—
LORD SHACKLETON: For the House of Lords.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: —but may I try again? I feel that this is wasting a lot of time and I was just finishing. Will my noble friend bear in mind the fact that this whole question has been fully considered in the United States and, as a result of that consideration, this decision has been reached? May I ask her also whether it is not a fact that the women whom we have to bear in mind are generally young and very often have had a large number of children? Would she not therefore agree with me that they should have special protection?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, in answer to the last part of my noble friend's question, I am all for women being given special protection, but I am not in favour of taking away their freedom of choice. That is where the difference lies between us and my noble friend. With regard to the first part of the question, the F.D.A. advise the American Government and not my right honourable friend. Her Majesty's Government have very great confidence in their own expert advisers, and this is the advice, allied with mutual co-operation with the United States, on which we rely.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, arising out of my noble friend's question, would the Minister agree that if we wish to give special protection to young women the medical profession might do more research about deaths during pregnancy?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, if I may speak about the protection issue, I would not agree that Her Majesty's Government should dictate to the research bodies on what they ought specifically to research into. I believe that on this matter their advice is good. But on protection, again, I do not think that young women need any more protection than older women on this kind of subject. I insist on our point of view that there are various methods of contraception, some of which may be good or bad in the sense of what is personally preferable, and I think that women, on the advice of their doctors— and this is the point—ought to be allowed to choose which methods they use.

AGRICULTURAL LAND: ACQUISITION AND FUTURE USE
2.40 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: 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 (1) on what date they decided that agricultural land, in respect of which a local planning authority had indicated that it would be prepared to grant planning permission for a different use, should not be offered back, in accordance with the principle announced by the then Minister of Agriculture on July 20, 1954, to the former owner from whom it had been acquired compulsorily or under threat of compulsion; (2) on what date they informed Parliament of this decision.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it was decided, in February, 1966, that land surplus to the requirements of Government Departments should not be regarded as agricultural in character if the local planning authority had given, or indicated that it would be prepared to give, planning permission for the land to be developed for non-agricultural use. Ministers have made it known in Parliament and else-where, whenever explanation has been sought, that this consideration has entered into their decisions on particular cases.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, and ask him two questions? Why should the former owner be denied the right to have his agricultural land offered back to him simply because another person, with no title to the land, has been informed by a planning authority that a nonagricultural use might be permitted? Secondly, can the noble Lord point to any Answer given in Parliament since 1966 that informed Parliament of this decision before the Answer given on January 19 of this year?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, so far as the first part of the noble Lord's question is concerned, I think the principle running through this problem—and it is a problem—is that each case should be considered on its merits; and if land can be put to the best use from a national point of view, then that fact should be
596
taken into account when a particular case comes up for decision. This was so, and was intended to be so, right from the beginning of the Crichel Down case. As to the second question, I cannot point to any Parliamentary Answer before the particular one, which was stated in some detail, in January of this year, although I understand that the facts have been set out in letters to Members of Parliament. They were also, of course, given to the Parliamentary Commissioner.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, if this land had been offered back to Mr. Henly's successors, the Government would not then have made almost as good a bargain as they have already done by acquiring land at £41 a acre and selling it at auction the other day at £500 an acre; because Mr. Henly's successor would surely have been liable for either a development charge or the capital gains tax? Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord what his noble friend Lord Winterbottom meant in the exchanges on February 24 when he said that these instructions had to be interpreted in a way so as to make things easier to operate—or something to that effect? Is it true that this instruction is contained in a Treasury Minute to the Government Departments, and, if so, why was it not made public?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as I understand it, the successor to the former owner of the particular land in which the noble Lord and others have been interested was able to make a bid for this land. He attended the auction and did in fact bid, but apparently he did not want to pay the current market price. As to why it was not offered to him separately and before the auction, I think this instance illustrates the doctrine that each case should be considered separately. I understand that there are six owners involved for an area of 106 acres: five of the owners have not made any complaint about the procedure which was followed in this case.
As to the answer which was given by my noble friend Lord Winterbottom, it is conceivable that it might have been worded in a way which would have explained more clearly to the noble Lord what in fact happened. There was the statement in 1954, after the famous Crichel Down case, which was open to

597
a number of different interpretations. It needed to be clarified. There were administrative clarifications in 1957 and again in 1958. In neither case was the departmental discussion made public, nor should it have been made public. No great principle was involved; it was only a clarification. Similary in 1966, in order to clarify what was intended some note was made, but no great principle that required publication was set out.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, may I go back to the general issue? Is the noble Lord aware that the Crichel Down procedure of 1954 was enunciated to stop Government Departments from hawking land round to other Government Departments before selling it, and that it worked successfully? Can he explain why the Government should now have adopted a new procedure which appears to empower the Government Department concerned to avoid its responsibility under the Crichel Down procedure to offer the land back to its original owner, if that Department is able to hawk it around to a developer who may be willing to put in a planning application for its development? This seems to frustrate the original Crichel Down procedure.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, that was the impression that I had until I came to look at what was actually said in 1954. It is the impression that a number of people received at that time, but I do not think it is borne out by the words of the Statement which was made on July 20, 1954. There is no prescriptive right on the part of the owner to have back his land in that doctrine, which was set out by a Conservative Minister (who I do not think was treated very fairly) and by a Conservative Government. I would invite the noble Lord to look at that statement of July 20, 1954, and I would also invite the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, to look at it. I shall be interested to discuss it with him afterwards.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, it is a pity my noble friend did not answer on February 25 last, but I wonder whether I could ask him to look again at the question as to whether or not there was a confidential minute. Is he aware that it is this aspect of the matter which is concerning most of us?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as I have said, a Statement was made in 1954. With all the respect I can muster for the Government of that day, the statement was not all that clear, and subsequently clarification was necessary. The Conservative administrators in 1957 and again in 1958 sent out a minute clarifying certain parts of that procedure. They were not minutes which I think ought to have been published but at the same time there has been no disposition to hide them.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he thinks that the Statement made by my noble friend Lord Crathorne on July 20, 1954, really needs what he calls "clarification" when, after reference to the merits of the case, my noble friend said:
"…where circumstances show that the land can properly be offered to a former owner or his successor who can establish his claim, this will be done at a price assessed by the district valuer as being the current market price."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 530. col. 1192.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, that is quite so. That bears out what I have been saying, that each case will be considered separately and on its merits, and where the land is not to be continued in agricultural use, a different set of circumstances will arise.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, is not the whole purpose of the Crichel Down decision to see that things are not dealt with on the merits of the individual case but that a general principle of equity of compensation is laid down which is to be applied in all cases?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, with respect the final paragraph says:
" Nevertheless, the Government will in future consider each case on its merits"—
and then it goes on to say—
"with the desire that, where circumstances show that the land can properly be offered to a former owner or his successor who can establish his claim, this will be done at a price to be assessed by the district valuer as being the current market price."
They were talking here first of agricultural land and saying that in any event each case should be considered on its merits. This case was considered on its merits. It was thought that the land should not go back to agricultural use. There were, as I have said, six owners

599
concerned in an area of 106 acres and in the circumstances it was felt that to leave it open to general tender was the most satisfactory way of dealing with the case.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is the Minister aware that of course I read the whole Statement of July, 1954, before I put down my Question. I hope he will accept it from me that I, and I think, any other lawyer reading that whole Statement, would regard this as a complete breach of what was then promised.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, would the noble Lord be kind enough to ask a question? This is rapidly turning into a debate.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I was going on to ask this question. Does the noble Lord realise that he is begging the question when he says that this new principle can be adopted without making a leap in the dark? He said that this is not to remain agricultural land. How does he know that from the simple fact that somebody has applied to know whether another use would be permitted? Is not the owner deprived of having the land offered back to him with nobody knowing whether another use will eventuate or not?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the reason I say that this land was not to be returned to agricultural use, if for no other reason, is the price which persons were prepared to pay for it. It was not an agricultural price. Indeed, I am given to understand that when the land first changed hands it was known that sand was there, and that fact was borne in mind when the compensation was paid to the original owner.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, will the noble Lord recognise, regarding what he said in an earlier answer, that in fact the 36-odd acres of land which belonged to the Henly family were consolidated for auction purposes with another 70 acres, making 106 acres, and that the final price was well beyond the means of the Henly family? It was not that they were unwilling to buy.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I can understand that there was a difficulty, in that the land was offered in one parcel.
600
I confess that this point had not occurred to me. At the same time, if it was intended that the land should be put to the best use in the national interest, it was perhaps thought better to treat it as one whole. However, there is nothing here that is under the counter at all. Procedures were laid down. The matter was referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner, the Ombudsman (I think it was last year), to see whether the procedures had been followed, and his report confirmed that the procedures had been followed.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, would the Minister consider that in future cases where such land is offered to public tender it might be offered in the same lots of ownership as it was acquired, so that owners might be able to put in a bid for what they had previously had without having to buy extra land?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it is a point which might be considered, though I am inclined to think the answer would be that this is further justification for treating each case on its merits.

EUROPEAN SECURITY CONFERENCE AND HERR BRANDT'S VISIT
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 what conclusions were reached during discussions with Dr. Willy Brandt regarding preparations for an European Security Conference.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, the talks with Herr Brandt were, of course, confidential and I cannot reveal details; but I can say that they naturally covered the whole field of East/West relations. I can also say that we fully support the constructive efforts which Herr Brandt's Government is taking to improve relations with his Eastern neighbours.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in welcoming that statement, may I ask my

601
noble friend whether Her Majesty's Government will do their utmost to support the proposal for a European Security Pact replacing the present military blocs? Is it not the answer, both to nuclear deterrence and to conscription?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think my noble friend knows that I agree with him that the only real security for the world lies in a disarmed world in which our resources are devoted to more intelligent ends than the production of nuclear weapons or indeed any other kind of military establishment. But to come back to the subject of his Question, which is a European Security Conference, we are ready for constructive talks between East and West at any time in a way that is most likely to lead to results. A conference of the kind my noble friend suggests is one possibility, but I must say that we will not go into a conference with a limited agenda, such as the Warsaw Pact proposes, the only effect of which would be to ratify the status quo in Europe on Soviet terms. If there should be a chance of a European Security Conference which will yield real results then of course we shall support it and be present at it.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, has not even the Soviet Government made it clear that it would go into this conference without preconditions? And is my noble friend aware also of the great longing by many Members on these Benches for a foreign policy by Her Majesty's Government which would express the constructive initiative that Dr. Willi Brandt is reflecting in Western Germany?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, as I have said, we fully support Herr Brandt's Eastern policy and think it is constructive and useful, but on this question of a Security Conference I think my noble friend is aware that in the original Warsaw Pact declaration on this subject the Warsaw Pact countries called for a European conference on the non-use of force and on economic, scientific and technological co-operation. That is apparently the agenda of the Warsaw Pact, and that to us is too limited. There is no need for a conference to discuss those matters; they are not the real issues of European security. Nothing that has come out of Moscow since then has been any more constructive or informative. If
602
anything comes which is more constructive or informative we shall examine it sympathetically.

BRITISH UNITED AIRWAYS: PROPOSED TAKEOVER
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given Private Notice; namely,
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the proposed takeover of British United Airways by B.O.A.C."
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I propose to answer the noble Earl's Question by way of a Statement at a convenient moment after half-past three. May I also take the opportunity of reminding your Lordships that dinner will be available to-morrow and again on Wednesday.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM IN ENGLAND
2.58 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Tuesday last by Lord Kennet (on behalf of Lord Shackleton), That this House takes note of the White Paper, Reform of Local Government in England (Cmnd. 4276).
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I suppose I should do as other noble Lords have done and first disclose the interest I have in this matter. I have never been certain how far our practice about disclosing interests extends to interests that are not financial, but it is, I think, usual for noble Lords to disclose, and I must therefore confess that I have been for five years President of the Association of Municipal Corporations, a Vice-President for very many years and that I am still a Vice-President. Subject to those qualifications I propose to say no more about it.
This While Paper, and the Report of the Royal Commission upon which this White Paper is founded and which we are invited to note this afternoon, is really the latest phase in the controversy which has raged around local government for nearly a quarter of a century. Indeed one could date the beginning of the controversy from Mr. Neville Chamberlain's Act of 1929, the end of the old Poor Law and the winding up of the guardians system. It is something

603
like half a century since this controversy really began.
After the war, in 1945, the Government of the day set up a Boundary Commission of which my noble friend Lord Silsoe was the Chairman. They did their work and they presented a Report. The Government of the day considered that the Commission's Report was outside their terms of reference, and accordingly it was packed up and put away and nothing more was heard or seen of it.
Then, in 1958, came the second Boundary Commission, the Chairman of which was Sir Henry Hancock. They set to work in a meticulous and careful fashion. Certainly they were not very rapid in the conclusions they came to, but they did their work well, and I have no doubt that, if they had been allowed to live, a satisfactory solution would have been found to the troubles of the local authorities. But that did not happen. There were rumours that the Commission was to be wound up. The Minister declared that he was going to scotch these rumours; but within a few months he had changed his mind, and the Commission was brought to an end. Now we have the Royal Commission over which my noble friend Lord Redcliffe-Maud has presided with such immense skill and industry. And whatever we may think of his conclusions, we shall all be most grateful to him. As I say, for something like a quarter of a century local authorities have lived in this atmosphere of uncertainty, criticism and un-sought advice. Whatever the result of our consideration of this White Paper and of the Bill which will come, that state of affairs ought at least to be brought to an end as soon as possible. I hope that that, at any rate, will be one of the results of the controversy which is going to rage around this White Paper.
I turn now to the White Paper itself. Before I begin to discuss the details of the White Paper I think it astonishing that we should be asked to consider this White Paper without being told what the financial resources of these proposed new authorities are likely to be, or indeed before we are told anything about the financial and economic position which will arise under the proposed new set-up. We shall not know what will be the finan-
604
cial effect of these proposals, or what the financial position of these all-purpose authorities is likely to be, until we know a great deal more than we know to-day about the financing of this scheme. I know that there is to be a Green Paper. But we ought to have had this Green Paper with this White Paper. It is essential that we should consider the financial aspects of this matter before we make our conclusions. Unfortunately, that has not been done. I want to ask the Minister whether any estimate is being made of the financial burden that is likely to fall upon these new authorities by reason of the change to the all-purpose authority. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an assurance which, when we come to debate the Green Paper, will enable us to consider the matters that we ought to be considering to-day.
To come to the White Paper itself, the overriding question of principle to which the White Paper and the Report of the Royal Commission give rise can be shortly stated. Are we here to end the organisation of local government upon what is called the "two-tier system", as it exists at present, and as it has existed in local government since the year 1894? The two-tier system has been a remarkable piece of administration. It was originally a device to enable expensive services to be provided in areas where the resources of the local authority were not sufficient to pay for them. It spread responsibility over a much wider area, and for more than half a century it has worked well and has made possible the extension into areas which are not well off of services which are really beyond their means. The question is: are we going on with that system, or has the time come to change it and to introduce something else?
The alternative would be to have what is called the "all-purpose authority". As the county boroughs are responsible to-day, so the all-purpose authority is responsible for every local government service, both financially (except in so far as the burden may be eased by grants) and administratively; and in the county boroughs it has been found to work well. Most people with experience of local government administration point to the county boroughs as a more expeditious and

605
readily understood system than the two-tier system. The real question of principle at the basis of this controversy is whether we are to depart from the existing two-tier system, and in its place adopt a system of all-purpose authorities.
The Royal Commission have come down on the side of the all-purpose authority. They have, I think boldly, set to work to carve up this country into areas which would be suitable as areas of all-purpose authorities and, with one or two exceptions on which I shall say something in a moment, it is proposed to extend the all-purpose authority system to the whole of this country. In Scotland and Wales it has already been decided to adhere to the two-tier system. But in regard to England it is proposed that this momentous change should be carried out.
The noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, in his speech on Tuesday last, gave a most fascinating account of the menial processes by which the Royal Commission came to their conclusions. They started by all being in favour of the two-tier system, and then, as they listened to the evidence about the administration of various services, it became clear to them that the all-purpose system was easier administratively, more effective and less productive of delay and frustration than the two-tier system. Accordingly they decided in favour of the all-purpose system. The question your Lordships will have to decide one day is whether that decision can be supported, and whether we should change from the two-tier system which we now have to the all-purpose system. I am bound to say that I think the Royal Commission, in recommending the all-purpose system, are recommending a view of local government administration which is widely held by those who are highly experienced in local government work. Naturally, as a spokesman for the municipal boroughs, I like the all-purpose authority. Undoubtedly, from an administrative point of view it is an easier and more satisfactory system of administration.
The Royal Commission have retained the two-tier system in the big conurbations of Manchester and South-East Lancashire, of Merseyside, and of the West Midland Area around Birmingham. They propose to retain the two-tier system there because they considered that the metropolitan area authority was too
606
big to give a satisfactory service and that it was essential that what are called the "environmental services" should be in the hands of a larger authority and the personal services should be in the hands of the smaller authorities. They then proposed that the metropolitan areas themselves should be divided into district areas, with separate district councils— indeed, the form of government they recommend is very similar to the form of government which was adopted in Greater London.
I should like to say first of all about the district councils within the metropolitan areas that, in my view, they are not necessary. They are an added complication and will contribute little to the efficiency of the administration of the services. I think that the Royal Commission were unduly apprehensive about the size of some of the areas. They were always concerned to make sure that the areas were not too large. I think it is more likely that the areas will prove to be too small. I feel doubtful whether an authority with a population of only a quarter-of-a-million will be able to support all the local government services for which they will be responsible as an all-purpose borough. I suggest that something like half-a-million would not be too high a figure.
Is it necessary that the personal services should be administered by a smaller authority? After all, the old London County Council administered all these personal services. They administered them with a very high measure of efficiency, and the size of the area over which the service was administered made very little difficulty and very little difference to what was done. I should have thought that the apprehension that the Royal Commission appear to have felt about the size of the metropolitan areas is without justification and we ought to adopt a higher figure altogether.
The Royal Commission and the White Paper, in the apprehensive fear that the new authorities seemed to be too large, introduced what seemed to be an astonishing device: they proposed to set up round the new unitary authorities (as they are called in the Royal Commission's Report) district councils. These district councils were to have no executive functions at all, except that the Royal Commission recommended that they should be allowed to join in the provision of certain local

607
and relatively unimportant services. Apart from that, their function was not an administrative function at all; it was a purely critical function. They are there, as the Royal Commission point out, to bridge the gap between the members of the unitary authorities, the area authorities or all-purpose authorities, and the local populations they serve.
I am quite sure that that is an arrangement which would not work satisfactorily. I do not like setting up bodies which have no administrative responsibility at all. They are simply critics, and. as critics, they will be in the way of the unitary authority without adding very much to its influence over the local population. I very much hope that the Government will take the view I am putting to them now and refrain from setting up these local councils on the heels of the all-purpose authority. The Government have gone a step beyond that. Although they advise that the local councils should be entitled to join in the carrying out of works of local amenity, and so forth, as the Royal Commission recommended they should, they recommend that the councils should be set up and that they should have this co-operative function with the unitary authorities.
In addition to the councils, they pro-pose that there should be set up district committees to whom may be designated some of the powers of the unitary authorities. In local government we have had a good deal of experience in recent years of district committees; they are a very common instrument in most counties' administration. They are not a satisfactory instrument. They are not satisfactory either to those members of the unitary authority who are members of them, or to the members who are appointed by the local councils. They are bodies in which there is a great sense of frustration. They have to carry out a policy which is not their own, and often a policy in which they are not particularly interested. I hope the Government will not persist in this proposal for district committees. My experience of divisional committees as they exist at present, in planning, in education to some extent, in transportation—and indeed, I think all the experience of local government—is that they really do not fulfil the purpose which those who set them up had in mind.
608
In conclusion, I should like to say a few words about the economic planning councils. The economic planning councils have done most useful and valuable work, but they are not part of local government; they are agencies of the central Government and have no real link with the local authority at all. The history of all these advisory committees is that as they get older they get more ambitious. I am afraid that has happened in the economic planning councils, and proposals are being put forward for elected members. I think it is no disparagement of the principle of democracy to say that election is quite out of place in the case of these economic planning councils. The councils are formed for the purpose of giving certain advice, not to the local authority but to the central Government, and there is no guarantee that on an elected body like the county council, or an elected body like the new provincial councils, if they are set up, the persons who are qualified to give the advice which the Minister desires to have will necessarily be elected, or will necessarily be members of the provincial council.
I hope that the Minister will accept the position which he accepted a short time ago: that these bodies are agencies of the central authority and are not part of the local authority. I know that was the Minister's view a few months ago, and I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, if he will tell us whether it is still the Minister's view, or whether, when the proposals for the provincial areas are formed, there will be some proposals for integrating these economic planning councils with the top tier of the local authorities. I am quite sure that if we do that, the economic planning councils will lose much of the authority and much of the ability which they possess to-day. It does not by any means follow that persons who are qualified to give the advice the Minister wants will be willing to stand for the provincial authority, and unless they do stand the Minister will not get the advice which the Council is set up to furnish him with.
If I am not repeating myself, may I say that I hope that this White Paper and the Report of the Royal Commission will mark the end of this period of uncertainty for local government, and that the local authorities may be able to go

609
forward into the future working a system which they and the public accept and which frees them from the criticism and uncertainty in which they have worked for so many years. Indeed, it surprises me sometimes that men and women can be found to serve local councils either as elected persons or as officials, in the atmosphere in which the local authorities have had to do their work. I hope that, whatever sacrifices we may have to make and whatever steps we may have to take, which are not always entirely in accord with our own wishes, your Lordships will ensure that local authorities may go forward into the future properly reinforced with an accepted constitution.
3.21 p.m.
LORD TANGLEY: My Lords, when the present pattern of local government was formed, housing outside the administrative County of London was not a local government function; education was not a local government function; the first town planning Act had not been passed, and the modern conception of town and country planning had never been dreamed of. One can lengthen almost ad infinitum the list of new functions which have been reposed in local authorities since the present pattern was created. Even where one had the rudiments of local government functions in those days, they have developed to such an extent that they are hardly recognisable to-day. I wonder what a local government member or a local government officer of 1906 would think of the Seebohm Report on the personal social services. I do not think he would recognise the world which was being inquired into. So, my Lords, we have reached a stage where it is not merely undesirable that the present pattern should continue; we have reached a stage where existing local government functions cannot be efficiently dealt with by a local authority of the size and area of many of the local authorities to-day.
But that is not all. The face of England has changed in those years. Then, industry was still largely anchored to the coalfields as its source of fuel, and the railways brought in, as they always had done, the raw materials from the ports to the factories and took the products of the factories to the ports and the markets. To-day that has utterly changed. Electricity, the main source of power, costs
610
pretty much the same in every part of the country, and every part of the country is accessible by road, so that to-day it is the proximity of labour forces and the proximity of markets which dictate the location of industry. That is the reason for what is quite wrongly termed the drift from the North to the South-East. There has been no drift from the North. It is simply that the South-East and the Midlands have developed much more rapidly than the North, and that in its turn has greatly widened the geographical scope of the area over which local government powers and responsibilities, such as planning, have to be exercised.
I have noticed in the course of this debate that there is no real question as to whether local government must be reformed. The only question I know of is: How? I believe that everybody— and among "everybody" may I include my colleagues and myself who studied London government for so long—is agreed on certain principles, and the first principle I think is this: that, where possible, local authorities should be responsible for all local government services. Where they are split between authorities there is constant danger of overlap or gaps or duplication. As an example, I remember one instance of a disabled person who needed housing and a wheel-chair. The local authority looked after the housing, and the chair came under the jurisdiction of the county, as welfare. But there was no machinery whatever for ascertaining that the door of the house was wide enough to admit the wheel-chair, and ad hoc machinery had to be set up to deal with that problem. That is a tiny instance, but there are many of them, of the necessity of combining all services in one authority when one can.
The second principle that I think we are all agreed upon is this: that a local authority should not be too large so that a sense of identity is lost. When I say "too large", I mean partly in terms of population and partly in terms of geographical extent, because the two are related to one another. There may be one area where it is relatively easy to find half a million people gathered together and capable of supporting the full range of local government services. In another part one may have to bring in many miles of town and country in order to collect your quarter-of-a-million, which is the minimum suggested; and there, I think,

611
geography may be just as important in losing a sense of identity as actual numbers. Then the third principle is this: that where there must be a very large authority a two-tier system is inevitable. When one gets to the million mark or beyond, then the authority is too big. One cannot have a sense of identity. The authority is remote, and one must have a second tier nearer to the people whose services one is providing.
The fourth principle, which is perhaps the most important of all, is that when one has a two-tier system it is essential to have a clear-cut distinction, a clear-cut allocation of responsibility between the two tiers. We must have no ideas of delegation of one to the other. It has been tried and it can be done, but it takes a legion of angels and archangels to make delegation work in a two-tier system. And legions of archangels, or even angels (I speak in the present of the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Guildford) are in very short supply— at any rate, in this world of time and space. So I think that those principles are pretty clear and generally accepted. It is when we come to the application of them that the difficulties arise and there is room for division of opinion.
Of course, for a unitary authority we must have fixed an upper and a lower limit of population. There the difficulty is that different levels of population are required for different kinds of services. This is absolutely irreconcilable in principle and in logic. All one can do is to have a compromise and, in my humble judgment, the Royal Commission and the White Paper have made a very sensible compromise in choosing for their unitary authorities a lower limit of 250,000 and an upper limit of one million. Contrary to the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, I would incline to the lower figure rather than to the higher one, wherever one can. I say "wherever one can" because one cannot always do it. But I am suspicious of Whitehall. They keep on "upping the ante". When I started in London I was told that 100,000 was the limit for administrative efficiency; by the time we had finished our work I was told it was 200,000; now it has gone up to a quarter of a million. Of course, it is easy for Whitehall to say that sort of thing, because it is so convenient to
612
have to deal with as few authorities as possible. So I approach the matter with that slight air of scepticism; and, for myself, I should think that, on the whole, without being rigid, it is best to tend to the lower rather than to the higher limits.
Another point I would make in the application of these principles is that we must not let education rule the roost. I hope your Lordships will not misunderstand me, but I have got into the habit of regarding education as the rogue elephant of local government administration, for this reason. We have a State education policy, but we have no State schools except borstals and reformatories (to give them their old name), and, having studied this matter very thoroughly in London—and I think the lessons we learned there are of general application— I am certain that you cannot devise a perfect fit for education in any form of local authority authorisation or any form of local authority organisation.
That means that any way in which you fit education into any local authority system is bound to be subject to criticism. In London, my Royal Commission suggested a modified two-tier system, which was rejected, and I think rightly rejected, by the Government. Then the Government put forward the suggestion that the lower-tier authorities should be the education authorities. That was rejected in Inner London, at any rate, in favour of the Inner London Authority, so as to maintain continuity between the original London School Board, which was inherited by the London County Council, and then the Inner London Education Authority. I do not quite know how best to fit education into the local authority world—I think you can criticise any way of doing it—but I am inclined to think that in the White Paper the Government have got it about as near right as one can expect to get it.
There is just one general point more that I want to make on the application of these principles, and that is this: how to reconcile size, both geographical and in terms of population, with the sense of identity. In the metropolitan areas it is proposed to deal with that by a two-tier system, and I think rightly so, inevitably so. In many of the areas it is proposed to deal with it by a unitary system, and I think rightly so. But I am wondering whether it is necessary to be quite so rigid

613
in the distinction drawn between the unitary system and the metropolitan system; whether there are not a few borderline cases where one could not have with advantage a two-tier system outside these metropolitan areas. I think this applies particularly where two sets of circumstances exist: one is the difficulty of collecting a sufficient population without a great geographical spread, and the other is where historical roots are very strong.
In many areas historical roots are not strong. I know that if one is studying local government, as many of your Lordships have done, one finds that the evidence of every local authority goes back to at least Saxon times, and it comes as a bit of a shock to find that this noble borough is the result of a forced marriage of two or three rural or urban districts about 25 years ago. But there are many areas which are older in their governmental systems and in their governmental habits than central Government itself. One can think of places like Norwich, Bristol, the County Palatine of Lancaster (the case for which was so movingly put before us when this debate was first started) and various other parts of the country where the historical roots are very real; where were bred the people who have made government in this country; communities where they learned the art of living together and the art of self-government, which is the same thing, and from which they came and, with that knowledge behind them, established the procedures which made Parliament, in both its Houses, an effective body. Where one can avoid cutting these historical roots, where one can avoid too great a geographical spread, I think it would be worth while to consider whether one must be rigid and say that one is not to have a two-tier system except in the metropolitan areas. I believe it is possible, my Lords, to offer up too much on the altar of administrative convenience.
I want to mention only two other points. The first is this question of the provincial councils. Now I have been in two minds about the Government's decision to postpone this question. If it is genuinely a question of postponement and not a postponement to the Greek Kalends, then I believe it is a wise decision. I believe that these councils are absolutely necessary and that the
614
necessity for them will certainly appear as time goes on. But I have been frightened lest they should be regarded as a substitute for some regionalisation of central Government. I believe it is just as important to draw as clear a line of distinction between the functions of central Government and the functions of local government as it is to draw a line between the functions of an upper and a lower tier body of local authorities.
Now if we had before us proposals for some form of regionalisation of central Government, so that central Government held out its hand which could be grasped by the hand of local government stretched out through the provincial councils, I should be happy; but merely to stretch out a hand from the local authority world into a vacuum is a dangerous thing, because it could be mistaken for the real thing, and it might be grasped by those hybrid creatures, the regional development councils, which are neither one thing nor the other nor something of both. I would certainly beg the Government to give very serious consideration to the necessity, if one has a provincial council, to have alongside it some appropriate regionalised organ of the central Government with which it could work. Otherwise, there must be a growing amount of confusion and difficulty.
My last point is with regard to the provincial councils. Here, I am afraid, I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Ilford. I believe that these councils have a useful part to play. I ask the Government just one question about this: am I right in thinking that a rural district council is automatically disqualified from being one of these local councils? I gather that a borough or a county borough or an urban district might be, or a parish or a group of parishes; but I cannot see anything in the Report or the White Paper which suggests that a rural district council of itself could be a local council—and, if not, I wonder why not. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and I have the felicity to live within the confines of an exceedingly effective rural district council. It has been doing marvellous work in preserving an area of exceptional natural beauty; an area which is particularly vulnerable because it is so near to London. The new unitary authority will

615
inevitably fall into the hands of the "townees" and the "suburbanites", the way it is drawn on the map, and I should feel much more happy being protected by my old friends the rural council than by a newly jumped-up body of two or three parish councils joined together. I would wonder why it is—if I am right in thinking so—that rural councils are apparently disqualified from being local councils.
My Lords, I have no more to say except this. It is perhaps a relief to your Lordships to hear one who has not had to declare any interest in this matter. It gives me great pleasure to add to what has been said in praise of the work of the Royal Commission. I have been through it myself in London; and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, and his colleagues on the fact that they did not have to deal with the L.C.C. But indeed they have done noble work, for which we are all very grateful. I should like to finish by thanking Her Majesty's Government for giving us the opportunity to discuss this matter, which I think of great importance, while policy is still to some extent at a fairly malleable stage.

BRITISH UNITED AIRWAYS: PROPOSED TAKEOVER
3.41 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, with permission, I will now repeat the Statement regarding the British United Airways and the B.O.A.C. proposed takeover to which I referred earlier. It is as follows:
"The proposed purchase of British United Airways by B.O.A.C. results from an initiative by the principal shareholder in B.U.A., the British and Commonwealth Shipping Company. The negotiations took place between a willing seller and a willing buyer.
"B.O.A.C. sought the Board of Trade's approval for this investment. The Board of Trade came to the conclusion that it was acceptable in principle, subject to their being satisfied on a number of financial points.
"The Government's policy remains as set out in their White Paper of last November. This was to welcome a merger of independent airlines that
616
would have strengthened the industry. The Government could not, however, accept as a condition of such a merger the transfer of a significant part of the Air Corporation's routes.
"Following the issue of the White Paper, B.U.A. sought from us a guarantee that such transfers would take place, on the lines of the applications they had already made to the Air Transport Licensing Board to take over by stages all of B.O.A.C.'s African routes. We could not, consistently with the policy in the White Paper, give such a guarantee for this or indeed any substantial transfer.
"In view of the British and Commonwealth Shipping Company's apparent unwillingness to participate in a 'second force' without such a guarantee, and their decision instead to offer B.U.A. for sale to B.O.A.C, there was no ground of policy for the Board of Trade to make any objection of principle.
"It has now been reported in the Press that Caledonian Airways propose to make a competing offer to purchase B.U.A. and have applied to the Air Transport Licensing Board for B.U.A.'s routes to be transferred to them. It is for the shareholders in B.U.A., in the first instance, to consider any such offer and for the A.T.L.B. to consider in the usual way any applications that have been made to it. But I shall of course be glad to consider any points that Caledonian may wish to make to me.
"As far as the proposed purchase by B.O.A.C. is concerned the Government are awaiting further financial information before reaching a decision."
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that Statement although I doubt whether many Members will particularly welcome its contents and the possibly disturbing effect that it may have on civil air transport. I wonder whether the noble Lord could advise us on what ground the Government consider that such a tie-up between B.O.A.C. and B.U.A. will assist their White Paper policy. Secondly, how would it assist, in particular, the principle of competition which both the Edwards

617
Committee and the White Paper agreed was important? Thirdly, how will it assist the viability of a second force? Could the noble Lord also give us an assurance that the decision as to which airline shall operate the licences currently held by B.U.A. will be left to the body set up by Parliament; namely, the A.T.L.B.?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, before he replies to that question, whether we can read into the Statement that the Government have now given up the idea of creating a second force private enterprise airline in this country? If they have not, is there not a lot to be said, since British Eagle have now gone, for trying to encourage Caledonian Airlines to take over the mantle of B.U.A. rather than fit it into the nationalised system?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Earl says that he feels that the House will not be able to welcome what I have said. But what I have said is simply a statement of the facts of the situation. The fact that this company went around asking to be taken over, has nothing to do with the Government. I am simply stating the facts: this is what they did. The noble Earl also asked whether this fits in with the White Paper. The answer is, No; it does not. But, again, B.U.A. apparently did not take this into account when they conducted their affairs in the way they did. As to the third question, about the A.T.L.B., I stated in my original remarks that Caledonian have now applied to the A.T.L.B. for B.U.A.'s routes to be transferred to them. This application will be considered in the first instance by the A.T.L.B. and then, if there is any appeal, by the Government.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, whether it would not have been better to encourage Caledonian to take over B.U.A. There is a case, if you are planning the affairs of aviation, for that. But in this situation a private company went in a confidential way to a Government Department, and it would have been a breach of confidence if, following that, the Government Department had begun negotiating with a third party.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will allow me to correct that. I did not suggest that the Government should have done that. What I was asking was, since this has now happened, would
618
it not be better if Caledonian were now encouraged to take over B.U.A. rather than to put B.U.A. in the nationalised sector in which case we have a very thin private field?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, Caledonian Airways now have an opportunity which they have seized; and it is a question of whether the shareholders of B.U.A. and the finacial interests of Caledonian Airways can come to an agreement.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying in his reply that, whereas the proposed take-over is not quite consistent with the White Paper or with Government policy, the Caledonian offer would be consistent with Government policy and the White Paper? Further, can he say that if B.O.A.C. in fact do take over B.U.A. they will be doing charter and trooping work?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the two private companies had come to an agreement to merge, or for one to take over the other, it would have been in accordance with the general proposals set out in the Government White Paper. This is true. I could not quite follow what the noble Lord said about charter work or trooping. Whatever B.U.A. have been doing will of course be the responsibility of any company which takes them over.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, assuming that this merger takes place, is it not clear that its impact must be so great upon civil aviation that many of the conclusions and recommendations of the Edwards Committee must go by the board, and therefore that many of the premises of the Government White Paper must be amended in that the second force becomes a distant shadow and competition on the main domestic services is abolished? Therefore, once this merger has gone forward should not the Government consider issuing a fresh White Paper and certainly look again at their proposed legislation?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, B.U.A. were a very significant part of the aviation scene, but if they were found to be less substantial than was at first thought I do not think it necessarily means that Government policy must be recast.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, does it not alter both the domestic and the foreign basis of the Edwards Committee recommendations?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it is, I think, a question of emphasis rather than of a change of principle. It may well be that, in consideration of the facts disclosed in this matter, these independent operators were not as well-founded as they appeared to be at the time when the Edwards Committee were making their investigations. Nevertheless, I should have thought that the general principles behind the Edwards Committee's recommendations still stand.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I put one further question on this point? Is the noble Lord aware that if B.O.A.C. take over B.U.A. completely, the private sector will be very weak? Is he aware that the private sector has a valuable contribution to make and that this was well demonstrated by the revival of the South American route which B.O.A.C. could not make profitable? Does not the question follow: do the Government really wish to see developed a second force of private airlines, and if so, what will the Government now do, by means of the transfer of routes, to encourage the remaining private airlines and make them a viable effective force?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I must confess that to some extent I cannot follow the reasoning of noble Lords opposite. They are advocating the virtues of private enterprise, of private companies. They want us to allow these private companies to have more scope for their enterprise. This private company, of their own volition, sought to sell themselves to a public corporation. Is the noble Lord saying that we should tell them they should not do such a thing?
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord is not being entirely fair. Is he aware that B.U.A. asked for certain transfers of routes in order to make themselves viable in this very competitive world and that this was the kind of concept that the Edwards Committee visualised? Is the noble Lord aware that if he genuinely wants to see a second force, he really must do something to help it happen?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I cannot think that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, or any of his friends, had they been in power, would, in advance of any legislation, have given guarantees to B.U.A. for which B.U.A. asked. It would have been quite wrong in the circumstances, irrespective of the merits of whether you should carve off gratutiously part of the Corporation's network. So far as the independent companies are concerned, there are some good, sound, enterprising companies which are making a profit, which are expanding. I hope that they will continue to expand and, given the legislation which the Government are contemplating, will have a better opportunity in the future than they have had in the past.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, if B.O.A.C. take over B.U.A., will B.O.A.C. be competing with B.E.A. on routes now operated by both B.E.A. and B.U.A.? For instance, the London-Gibraltar route? If that is not the case, what will be Government policy, or B.O.A.C. policy, in this respect?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord's question is a little too detailed for me to give a satisfactory answer to now. It was contemplated, or it is contemplated, that if the B.O.A.C. take-over goes through, certain of the routes taken over by B.O.A.C. will be made over to B.E.A.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, I apologise for asking a further question, but are we to understand from my noble friend's Statement that it is intended that if B.O.A.C. take over B.U.A., B.O.A.C. will be able to finance this purchase out of their own resources? Or does it mean that B.O.A.C. will have to come to the Government for assistance?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I understand that the Corporation could finance this out of their present resources.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, does this not mean that in fact B.O.A.C. are coming to the aid of the private investors, who, but for the action of B.O.A.C, would have lost the money they invested in the undertaking?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, is it not the case that the Government reserve to themselves the right to look into all kinds of mergers to see whether they are in the national interest? Surely in this case they will consider this merger from that aspect and, if necessary, will arrange that only parts of B.U.A. are taken over, and that a certain amount is hived off in other ways?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, so far as the question of mergers is concerned, taken as an industrial problem there was nothing about this proposed deal which would have contravened any of the principles which the Government follow. In principle, they accepted that this merger was justifiable. But I must say that in the aviation field, where we ought to try to plan the routes properly, responsibility in the first place is with the Air Transport Licensing Board. There are applications now before that Board and I have no doubt that they will be looked into very carefully.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord gave the assurance about B.U.A. licences for which I asked. I asked whether the licences currently held by B.U.A. will be left to the body set up by Parliament, namely, the A.T.L.B., to decide upon their future? Secondly, would not the noble Lord agree that perhaps the main reason for B.U.A. having discussions with B.O.A.C. in the first place was because they had to plan their future regarding the next generation of aircraft, particularly the jumbo-jet, and they could hardly do that with no assurance of any Government support?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Earl a categorical assurance about each one of these licences. As I have said, they will be looked at by the Air Transport Licensing Board. I am not sure what powers the Board have to revoke; I am not sure whether they could put a limit on a licence. There is a time period for most of the licences and it could well be that the Board will allow them to run out within a particular time span. I cannot therefore give a categorical assurance. All I am saying is that Caledonian now have applications before the A.T.L.B. and these will be considered. As for the noble Earl's second question, which I
622
have almost forgotten now, I think he was asking the same question as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford; namely, could an assurance be given to B.U.A., which it would be quite wrong for any Government to give.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM IN ENGLAND
4.58 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, I should like to join in the general expression of thanks voiced to the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, and his colleagues for their Report on this extremely important subject. In his speech on Tuesday the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, revealed the thoughts of the Commission when dealing with this problem. All who heard the noble Lord, or who have read his speech, will be impressed by his frank admission that he was prejudiced in favour of two-tier government, but that after hearing arguments and over 2,000 representations which were made to them, the Commission realised how difficult it was to accept a general pattern for all the types of local government that we have in this country. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, who would have spoken before me to-day, is unable to be present because I feel that it would have been helpful to hear from her about the approach of the Commission.
Like many other Members of your Lordships' House I must declare an interest, because my association with local government goes back over many years. As in the case of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield, local government was my first love and remains my love. I began in the days of the old board of guardians, and I remember the changes that took place when the old boards went out and their functions were handed over to the public assistance committees of the county councils. There was a general cry that this was taking democracy away from the people. But since then we have seen these functions go from the county council to the present social welfare organisations. Although the boards of guardians did good work for the poorer people, I feel that the benefits these people receive now are much greater than they were in the old days.

623
When we talk about democracy in the administration of our affairs, I think that we must have things in the correct perspective.
Any change in the structure of local government is a highly controversial matter. When, like my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield, I first went into local government all those years ago, change was imminent and all the changes that have taken place since have become accepted. But every time there is a change in the pattern of local government fears are aroused among those whose powers are being abolished that it will prove to be a retrograde step. This attitude reveals a high sense of attachment to their work, and pride in it, among those who have been performing the duties that are the subject of change. This is a healthy thing in our democratic society, and one of the difficulties we inevitably face when change is proposed is to preserve that interest and pride in any new structure we may adopt. The present system has served the nation well, as has already been said on more than one occasion. But we must face up to the fact that the functions of local government to-day are vastly different from those obtaining when the present structure was inaugurated at the turn of last century. What was appropriate in those horse-and-cart days can no longer be efficient or satisfy the needs of our present way of life. All the many duties placed by Acts of Parliament on the shoulders of local government demand this change.
But, my Lords, although the need for this change has been apparent for many years, no Government have tackled the job until now. It has always been looked upon as a hot potato, and it was considered that the changes required would be so highly controversial that it would take many years before agreement could be reached. For this reason I warmly commend the Government for the way they have dealt with this matter. Early in their life, in May, 1966, they established the Royal Commission on Local Government. The Commission took over three years to investigate the whole subject—which they did fully—and to issue their findings. Again I commend the Government for so quickly making up their minds on the basis of what changes
624
would be required. Several noble Lords have said that they felt that the Government have acted a little too precipitately. I do not think so. In my view, the Government have done a good job of work in conducting all the discussions they have had with so many vested interests and in taking a decision so quickly.
The task of administering town and country is tremendously difficult in itself, and those of us who have had experience of both kinds of local government recognise this. I speak as one who was in two-tier government (as it were) in my local area and then represented a city, which had final powers, for 21 years in another place. So I have something of a nodding acquaintance with the different interests and the difficulties in both tiers. Those who have been associated with urban and district councils must know how little real authority is vested in these bodies. Their chief functions are to collect rates and to undertake administrative work on behalf of the higher authority, the county council. Here I would pay tribute to the large number of men and women who have served so excellently on these local bodies, and who have so often felt extremely frustrated when, having taken a deep interest in their locality, they find that planners sitting in a remote place have been overruling all their points of view and that policies affecting their locality have been decided by someone else.
Then I come to the parish councils. It is interesting to those with knowledge of country life to find that elections of candidates for parish councils often awaken more interest in the villages than county council elections. Very often you get an 80 per cent. poll for a parish council, with such little power, as against only a 30 per cent. poll for a county council, with the tremendous power that it wields. It is important that I mention this because, somehow or other, in this new structure we have to preserve that sense of interest and of pride. Although the local councils suggested in the Government White Paper have been denigrated by some bodies outside this House (the Rural District Councils Association, for instance, quickly expressed the opinion that local councils were only an after-thought of the Commission; and noble Lords here have expressed doubt as to whether it is possible for these local

625
councils to be effective bodies), the fact is that the duties defined in Appendix E of the White Paper considerably extend the powers that a parish council had previously.
We also understand from the White Paper that although these local councils will vary greatly in size, from a small local village to a local council of a town with a fairly large population, it will be possible for them to be split up and adjusted in a way that will enable them to meet the amenity needs of their local people. It is meeting these amenity needs, such as the provision of swimming baths, playing fields and so on, in this lower tier that can have an important bearing on preserving the interest of local people. Those of us still mixing among this type of thought know well the controversy that takes place over the provision of these additional amenities. It is a difficult problem, I agree, but I believe that the line which the Government are proposing, of not having, as it were, fixed units of numbers in these local councils, can do a great deal to preserve a healthy democratic interest. One thing about which I am a little concerned in the local councils—and I speak as a countryman—is that at parish level, although they will have power, by raising a rate or whatever form is adopted for raising the funds, to finance certain amenity projects, they may experience difficulty in accomplishing their objectives. This is something that I suggest the Government must look into further before they introduce a Bill.
The establishment of unitary authorities (and, in passing, I should like to say that I sincerely hope some other name than unitary authority will be found, because I think it is an unfortunate name) will, I feel, cut out the many spheres that exist to-day in local government. They will be able to take decisions themselves, and will have power to raise and spend money without having to approach a central Government. This is indeed a good step forward. At the present time, far too much expansion by local authorities is being held up or thwarted because of the difficulty in getting consent from the central authority. One appreciates that the central authority as outlined in the White Paper must of necessity have overall power where any development is going to affect the national economy and interest; but if
626
these unitary authorities are able to spend according to their own priorities, as I have heard suggested, about a quarter of the cash which they raise in their own areas, that, too, will be a good step forward.
We have the difficulty of the densely populated areas and the establishment of metropolitan authorities. This is where it has not been possible for the Commission—or, as indicated in the White Paper, the Government—to accept a single line of approach. There have to be the two different approaches. Where you have densely populated districts there are so many services passing over the boundaries of local areas that there is constant friction, and it is common sense that there should be an overall planning authority like the senior body envisaged. I am pleased that in looking at the Yorkshire set-up the Government have not just accepted the proposals of the Commission but have indicated their agreement to the establishment of another metropolitan area in Yorkshire. However, on looking at the map I feel a sense of disappointment, and I hope that the Government will have another look at this before coming to any final decision.
The suggestion is the establishment of a metropolitan authority consisting of areas 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11—in other words, Bradford, Leeds, Halifax, Huddersfield and mid-Yorkshire, centred in the Wake-field area. If this metropolitan authority is to be set up, I cannot for the life of me understand why areas 12 and 13 in the Report—that is to say, the Sheffield and Doncaster areas—have not been included. The interest is completely interwoven, and it is difficult to know when one is passing out of one area into another.
If your Lordships will look at the figures you will find that the five areas suggested for inclusion in this metropolitan area have a population of 2,207,000, expected to increase by 1981 to 2½ million. In the Sheffield and Doncaster area the population is 1,300,000, and is expected to increase by 1981 to 1,486,000. If you take the area, you find that there are 1,295 square miles in the first and 619 square miles in the second. Those of us who know the area (and those who do not know it will appreciate the fact if they look closely at the maps provided in the Report)

627
are aware that the physical, geographical and general industrial background is all so bound up that if a metropolitan area is going to be established, it is common sense to bring in all those seven areas and not just confine it to the two. I hope that my noble friend, when he replies, will give me an indication that he is prepared to look at this problem again. As I understand it, the objects of this White Paper, and of the Commission, are accepted in principle by the Government, and they are prepared to discuss the question of boundaries and certain functions. Therefore I feel that I am perfectly justified in asking for a promise that the boundary changes will be considered.
I am sorry that the Green Paper on finance that we are ultimately to receive is not available for discussion to-day. Naturally it will be available before the Bill is presented. I should like to express the same remark with regard to the Report of the Crowther Commission. I think the Government are very wise indeed in rejecting the present proposals so far as the provincial councils are concerned. We have various Regional Development Councils; they are considering this matter very thoroughly, and evidence is being given to the Crowther Commission, too. The Reports of those two bodies have to be weighed up carefully. I hope that the findings will not be too long delayed and that we may be able to give further consideration to them in time for the proposed legislation. We have the White Paper on certain changes which are suggested in the Health Services. This is the opportunity for a revolutionary line of approach to harness and keep the goodwill of local people in administering the local services that are so near and dear to them, and, at the same time, to get the local service administrative machine into a much more efficient state. That would prevent the overlapping and the wasteful expenditure that takes place in the town halls and council offices because of the small size of the schemes. It is not always the most efficient machine that is most democratic and is able to keep the interest of the public. In our way of life it is possibly worth sacrificing a little efficiency in order to maintain the goodwill and interest of the people as a whole. This is a difficult problem; it is not
628
something for which there can be any set pattern.
My Lords, I would conclude in the way that I began. I congratulate the Government in presenting the White Paper so speedily and outlining in principle its views, because it is necessary that this matter should be carried through quickly and that there should not be endless discussions which would prevent change from taking place. I hope that the suggested date of 1971 or 1972 for the legislation to be enacted and on the Statute Book will materialise, irrespective of which Government is in power after the next Election.
4.24 p.m.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, towards the conclusion of his very interesting speech, the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, referred to the fact that the House must have been pleased to hear someone who had not an interest to declare. The noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, who has just spoken had an interest to declare and so, I am afraid, have I— albeit not a personal one. For twenty years I have had the honour to be President of the Urban District Councils Association. I am not going to make any special pleading, or anything of that sort, but the few remarks I shall make will be directed to the broad question of reform of local government. I do not speak officially on behalf of the Urban District Councils Association, but the views which I shall broadly express are more or less theirs, and have been made public from time to time.
There is one matter on which there is general agreement in the House, and that is that some reform is necessary. The proposals that are before us, both those of Maud and those of the Government, are not reform; they are largely destruction of much of the fabric of the present local government, embracing old loyalties and traditions which exist to-day. We all enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, the other day and, in passing, I should like to pay my tribute to the work that he and his Commission did. The noble Lord referred to the pockmarking of the face of England which must somehow be ended. He incurred a good deal of wrath later in the debate from the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, for that remark.

629
I do not believe that the right approach is to tear the thing up by the roots in order to reform local government. That point was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, and also, I thought, by the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, in the latter part of his speech. To brush aside the things of the spirit in order to get a tidy plan on a map is, I suggest, a questionable approach to the problem of the reform of local government. It is certainly alien to the way in which in the past we have adapted our old institutions to meet the changing needs of time with considerable success. I believe that we have, by and large, the most stable political system in the world.
May I refer to an occasion in Westminster Hall, not many years ago, which many of your Lordships may remember. I should like to make a quotation from that occasion, which I think I may do without impropriety, because it will bring out the point that I am trying to make. In 1965, Her Majesty The Queen came down to Westminster Hall to receive Addresses from both Houses of Parliament on the occasion of the 700th anniversary of the first Parliament of Simon de Montfort. I dare say some of your Lordships will remember this. It was a very moving occasion. There we were, the modern Parliament, sitting in the same Hall as the Parliament which first met there 700 years ago, with a Sovereign who was able to trace her own descent back as many centuries. In the course of Her remarks in replying to the loyal Address on that occasion, Her Majesty said these words:
"The evolution of our system owes much to the mixture of shrewdness and caution which prompted our predecessors, throughout the centuries, not hastily to devise and then discard new forms of government, but always where possible to adapt old forms to the needs of the present time".
I do not believe there is anybody who would disagree with the tenor of those remarks made upon that occasion. I asked myself: does that mixture of shrewdness and caution characterise the present destructive proposals? I think not.
In that connection, I should like to refer to a leader in The Times, which appeared shortly after the setting up of the Royal Commission. I am sorry to have to quote again, but I must do so
630
in order to bring out the point that I am trying to make. The Times said:
"Representative local government has intrinsic value not because it is part of our Victorian inheritance but because it is capable of engaging a broad section of the people in the active conduct of public affairs, of diffusing civic responsibility and of shaping administrative decisions in accordance with the wishes of those affected by them. All of this is of the essence of a free society …".
The passage continues but it is not necessary to quote any more.
That brings out the next point I want to make. These proposals, in my submission, will not provide the opportunity for a broad section of the people to take an active part in the conduct of their local affairs; and for that reason, and the remoteness which characterises these proposals, I believe it is utterly wrong to destroy the second tier which is near the grass roots. Nobody wants to preserve every small existing local authority. We all know the arguments against that —the impossibility of getting good officials; although many of the small authorities in the past have had many good officials. There are the greater expenses of running services these days, and so on. There must be many mergers —and that is certainly accepted—including mergers between urban and rural authorities. Certain services need to be administered over wide areas, but there are others of a personal nature best administered, as in the past, by authorities in close contact with the people for whose personal needs they cater.
But there is more to it than that. These proposals recommend the abolition of every familiar unit of local government and put in their place a new set of large and remote authorities with no effective second tier with power nearer the grass roots; and I do not believe it is satisfying to people simply to be able, possibly, to have a job merely in an advisory capacity. They will have the feeling, I am perfectly certain, that if they advise a very much larger local authority they will receive a courteous note intimating that their advice has been considered— and then exactly the opposite will be done, and there is nothing they can do about it. I believe that the grass roots here have to be elected and have definite power. Tom, Dick and Harry ought to have a chance to give service in their own place and their own locality; and unless we have a fairly close second tier

631
it is impossible for them to do it. Why should the bus driver, the tram driver, the trade union official or anybody else in his local area not be able to render service in his locality? I believe that this is one of the imponderables and one of the important things of the spirit to preserve in local government. So, my plea is for a viable second tier, not merely consultative but with power, so that a broad section of the people, as The Times has said, can be engaged in the conduct of their local affairs. Surely this is the path of wisdom and democracy.
I want to turn briefly to one other point, and for that I must quote a paragraph in the White Paper on the Reform of Local Government. Paragraph 67 says this:
"The Commission recommended, as did the Committee on the Management of Local Government in still more specific terms, a reduction in statutory control over the internal administration of local authorities. The Government accept this recommendation."
Now we find that in the Local Authorities Social Services Bill, which has already had a Second Reading in another place, Clause 2 requires each local authority to establish a social services committee; Clause 6 requires the local authority to appoint a director of social services and to consult before such appointment is made with the Secretary of State, who may veto the appointment. Clause 7 requires local authorities to act under the general guidance of the Secretary of State. I cannot myself square this Bill which has just been introduced with the declared intention of the Government in their White Paper to remove statutory control from local authorities. It seems to me that here the Government have gone entirely counter to the policy which they themselves have laid down. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to say a word about that. My Lords, in conclusion my plea is that, in going about this business of the reform of local government, we shall have—and I put it very succinctly—evolution and not revolution.
4.35 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I suppose it is inevitable that some kind of parish prejudice should creep in and colour our approach to this problem. In my own case it may be thought that
632
I am county council-minded. For 22 years, until I retired just over a year ago, I was a county alderman with a finger, at one time or another, in almost every corner of the county council pie— chairman of the council, vice-chairman of the council, chairman of a £60-million-a-year finance committee, chairman of the fire brigade committee, chairman of the local taxation committee, leader of the council and leader of the opposition—though I hasten to add that those last two posts were not held concurrently. But I was also the finance committee Chairman and Party leader of a second-tier authority—one of the fastest-growing urban district councils in the country. Long, long before that, when I came out of the Army at the end of the First World War, but before I degenerated into journalism, I was a local government officer with the City of Birmingham Corporation, perhaps one of the most outstanding examples of the all-purpose county borough type of authority.
With this admixture of experience, I feel that all my prejudices have cancelled each other out and that I can stand before your Lordships this evening almost as a virgin. Where do I stand? I am a two-tier man. But there is something further that I should like to make clear. In recent years, in my view, far too much mud has been thrown at the existing organisation of local government. For all its shortcomings, it has educated millions of children to a higher standard than ever before; it has built millions of houses; it has given greater care and consideration to the mothers and infants, to the old people and the orphans. It has provided us with a fire service and an ambulance service better than we have ever had before; it has given us, too, parks and playing fields, green belts and swimming pools, and many other amenities.
Having listened to some of the speeches in the earlier stages of this debate, and having read the two documents upon which the debate is based, I have a feeling that there is a great danger that we are going to be mesmerised into believing that the organisational shape of local government is far more important than the services which it is supposed to provide for the people. When all is said and done, my Lords, it is not the meticulously tidy, well-organised household that

633
is always the happiest; and we do not judge our butcher by the design and shape of the fancy gadgets on his sausage machine; we judge him by the quality of the product that comes out at the end.
I have said something about the feathers in the cap of the existing system of local government, but I do not want to suggest that no change is necessary. As has already been pointed out, the existing system was framed for our forefathers, and things have changed very much since then. I want to congratulate the Government on having had the courage to set up this very intelligent Royal Commission, and on their determination not to shelve the question of reorganisation simply because difficulties have arisen or may arise. But the question is: is the policy set out in the White Paper the right solution? In some cases it is; in others I feel that it is not; and I shall say a word or two in a few minutes' time about those differences. In the meantime, I should like to digress for a moment or two to explain that for several years past I have been advocating a scheme of re-organisation which is different from that set out either in the White Paper or in the Report of the Commission. I have advocated this scheme persistently, in speeches and in lectures; in papers presented to professional organisations, in the local government Press and even, about three years ago, during the regional government debate in your Lordships' House.
Briefly, the scheme that I propose is this. Amalgamate the county councils with the county boroughs within their geographical areas—Nottingham with Nottinghamshire, Derby with Derbyshire, Leicester with Leicestershire, Southend with Essex. I used to call this new type of local government unit a "province". It is true that some counties would be too small to sustain that kind of treatment. In such an event they would be merged, and the large conurbations, obviously, would form provinces by themselves. I have always visualised about 30 of these provinces, each with a population of a million and a half, or something more. I have seen them administering all those big public services which require a good deal of elbow room; and, in so far as strategic planning, industrial planning and transportation are concerned, I have seen them working in close
634
collaboration with the existing, though somewhat fortified, Regional Economic Councils. That is the policy I have been preaching all these years, and I am glad to say that the Government have walked some distance along that road, although, to my mind, not far enough.
At this point, my Lords, I part company with the White Paper. I have always felt that we must have a second tier of local government: a second tier to administer all those smaller services, more localised services, the on-the-door-step services which are too remote from the large, top-tier authority. I have not visualised, however, that these second-tier authorities should be the small bodies that they are at present. I have always had in mind a population of about 150,000, and sometimes more, but I am delighted that in the White Paper the Government have adopted this system for five of the most important districts in the country. There is a strong supposition that it will be adopted also for Scotland and for Wales, which means that 42 per cent. of the population of the Kingdom will be able to enjoy this boon of two-tier local government. It is a boon, my Lords. Otherwise, why have the Government adopted it? But we are told that 58 per cent. of the people must be content with unitary government.
Let us have a look at these unitary councils. It seems to me that many of them have been spatchcocked together in a higgledy-piggledy way, with neither rhyme nor reason. Local maps have been ripped up, communities have been spiritually raped. Let me look at the constituency represented by my local friend, the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden. That constituency, a most historic unit, is being cut up into four pieces and divided between four different counties: part of it to East Hertfordshire, part to Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely, part to Ipswich, Suffolk, and the remaining part to stay in Essex. I wonder what the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Unitary Districts 42, 44, 50 and 51, would say if he were in the House this afternoon.
Then look at the way in which some of these unitary councils have been patched together. Take, for example, unitary council No. 41: Peterborough-North Fens. That is to consist of bits

635
and pieces from no fewer than seven different counties: Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely; Lincolnshire (Holland); Lincolnshire (Kesteven); Huntingdonshire, Norfolk, Northamptonshire and Rutland. What chance of a happy civic childhood has that council when it was conceived on such a hybrid patchwork bed as that?
Next I come to Essex, my own county. Harlow, the brightest jewel in the county's crown, is to be pitchforked into East Hertfordshire; the three seaside towns of Frinton, Walton and Clacton are to be pitchforked into Ipswich, Suffolk. Colchester, the home of the University of Essex, is to go into Ipswich, Suffolk. As I have mentioned, Saffron Walden is to be rent in twain and rent in twain again. Stansted—of holy memory! —is to go into East Hertfordshire; and Epping Forest, upon whose sylvan glades I gaze each morning from my bedroom window, is to go into East Hertfordshire. This is not mere parish-pump advocacy: I mention it because I know something about it. We in Essex have a proud spirit of county patriotism. Many of us, from the Lord Lieutenant downwards, have done our best to cultivate this. We have succeeded in some measure, and that is not surprising. At one time we were a Kingdom, with a King of our own; but that was before my time.
Let us look also at Yorkshire. Yorkshire is to have slices carved off its territory, put on a plate and handed to Lancashire. Is this not sacrilege? Where are the souls of the people who thought up such a suggestion? It is like grafting red and white roses on to rhododendrons. And, incidentally, why is the proud county of Lancashire, one of the most competent administrative units in this country, going to be carved up into seven separate parts? If I may lapse into the idiom of Lancashire I think that is one of the "daftest" suggestions I have ever encountered.
My Lords, I have another objection to these unitary councils; namely, the diversity in their size. Some of them are to be of under 300,000 people, some of them are to be of about a million people. Eight of them are to have under 300,000, and 23 under 400,000—and 23 is nearly one-half of the total number of unitary
636
councils proposed for the whole country. I feel that these smaller councils will not be big enough to sustain many of the public services that have devolved upon them. Will they be able to provide a full range of education services—not merely primary and secondary education, but special schools, art colleges, technical colleges, commercial colleges, along with the speech therapists, school psychologists and all the other experts who are necessary to-day? I do not want noble Lords to tell me, "But this is being done already by some county boroughs that are smaller than these units." If I am told that, my answer to that will be, "You have already hoisted these county boroughs upon the scaffold and sentenced them to be hanged by the neck until they die. So that is hardly a legitimate argument to put forward."
Then what about the fire service in these very small unitary authorities? Fire risks are growing every day; more and more sophisticated appliances are needed: turntable ladders, machines for producing inert gases to pump on the fire instead of pumping water. What role are all these little councils to play in regional planning? What is the role they are to play with regard to main roads and main sewerage?
My Lords, let us put ourselves for a moment into a comparative mood. These little unitary councils—some of under 300,000 and nearly one-half the total under 400,000—are told that they are to be the education authorities. Yet the district councils in the metropolitan areas with two and three times as many people —500,000, 800,000, 900,000, or even a million—are told that they cannot be education authorities. I do not know which is right and which is wrong, but there certainly seems to be something a little incongruous about this proposal. The more I study this suggestion for the unitary authorities the more I come to the conclusion that the smaller ones will fragment our whole conception of strategic regional planning, while the big ones will be too big to carry out efficiently and economically those smaller domestic, localised services which can better be carried out by a two-tier authority.
Further, look at the whole lack of intimacy that will occur under the new system. A total of 30,000 councillors is to be reduced to 6,000. This inevitably

637
means that most of the contact between the people and the authority will have to be conducted through the medium of the paid officials. I am not going to say a single word against local government officials. In the last three years I have been commissioned to write 36 syndicated articles explaining the good work they do and the fine way in which they do it. They are a grand body of men and women. Many of them are highly professionally qualified and they are dedicated public servants. But that is not what we mean when we repeat that oft-repeated phrase about "grass roots democracy". And it seems to me that the Commission themselves realised this at one stage in their deliberations, for they conjured up this fairy-like idea of the local councils: local councils with hardly any responsibility, hardly any duties—local councils which, if they want to provide an amenity, have to get the permission of the unitary council: and if they want to spend capital they have to get the sanction of the unitary council.
I am not going to waste any more words about these local councils; they are little more than eunuchs, and the White Paper itself seems to realise that. It tells us that under the new system, as a result of the execution of the 24,000 councillors, there are to be expected more grievances, more complaints, more injustices. So the Commission come forward with a proposal for appointing a team of 10 super-officials, the local ombudsmen, who are to take the place of the 24,000 dismissed councillors. This is hardly my idea of what we call local grass roots democracy.
My Lords, let me take the scowl off my face and break for a while into a smile. I think there is something good about the idea that the unitary councils shall marry town and country. But let us be under no misapprehension. Who is going to call the tune? The townsmen on the council will gang up into a solid block in defence of their own town interests, whereas the countrymen, scattered in their villages, North, South, East and West, are going to be unable to unite in a similar common front. I think some of the country districts are likely to get a raw deal, simply because of human nature itself.
Ought we not to realise that there are some big services which require big areas and big populations, and which there-
638
fore justify the case for a top-tier authority? But are there not some more localised, more domestic services that can better be served by a second-tier authority? The Government have realised this so far as 42 per cent. of the population of the country is concerned. Why cannot we seize the logic of this and extend that principle to the whole country? We would then have more democracy and less bureaucracy.
My Lords, I cannot hold back the hands of the clock; French Cabinets can, but unfortunately I cannot. So I will have to give in catalogue form the few remaining points on which I should have liked to address your Lordships. We are told that one of the underlying ideas is that more power is to be given to the local authorities. Yet at this particular moment power is being taken away from them; they are to lose several of their health services, and they are to lose their docks and harbours. I am not criticising the decisions in these respects as a matter of policy; I am merely pointing out the contradiction. Then we are told that they are to have more freedom under the new system to plan their own expenditure, at the very moment when an order goes out from Whitehall saying that next year's expenditure is not to exceed this year's by more than 4 per cent.
Is the new system going to be more expensive for the ratepayers or not? There is a marked absence of evidence in the White Paper on this point, and it makes me suspicious. Is the new system going to give more opportunity to ordinary working-class men and women to serve on local councils? No. There will have to be daytime meetings and long distances to travel. We are told that the new system is going to give greater independence to councils. Yet they are not to have sufficient independence to appoint their own town clerk or chief executive officer, and there is a suggestion that similar restrictions will be imposed in regard to the appointment of other departmental chiefs as well.
There is nothing before us as to the financial resources which these new councils will be able to command; and, of course, the extent to which you can do any work at all is dependent upon the extent of your financial resources. I am not going to press this point. I realise that a Green Paper is to be produced.

639
I appreciate that there is room for argument as to whether the organisational chicken comes before the financial egg, but if, in my domestic circle, I was planning the reorganisation of the sartorial equipment of a schoolboy son by sending him out to buy a suit and an overcoat, I should say in advance, "You can expect to receive so much money from the central exchequer of the family and the rest must come out of your own personal money box". That is what the councils would like to know with regard to the resources they are expected to command.
The last of the catalogued items concerns the redistribution of Parliamentary constituencies. We know that these normally follow the boundaries of local authorities. We know also that industrial towns usually tend to vote one way and country districts another. If the industrial towns are to be diluted by the adhesion of the country districts, we might find a very revolutionary, unfair and unjust disproportionate change in the Party representation in the following Parliament.
To sum up, I believe in two-tier local government with the top tier larger than the existing counties and with the second tier larger than the existing second tier. Finally, I would mention one passage in paragraph 9 of the White Paper. This says that there is no right solution to the problem of reorganisation. That confession of failure dismays me. We must find the right solution. I plead with my noble friend and his Ministerial colleagues to think again in search of this right solution. He knows that I make this appeal to him as one of his most devoted and dedicated followers.
4.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Grimston, and others, I have to declare an interest. It is probably rather boring to your Lordships to hear this again, but I am connected with the Rural District Councils Association. Having heard the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, I think he, and not I, ought to be the President of the Rural District Councils Association, because he has put far more eloquently than I could many of the points which concern people in rural areas. I
640
think he has covered the whole question of the tiering of local authorities very well and far better than I could. I had some points I was going to make but which he has made, and I will not weary the House by repeating them. The only advantage I have which no other noble Lord has had, so far as I know, is that I had excellent coverage in the Press of the speech I was supposed to have made on Tuesday of last week. It was not made by me, although it was a very good speech and I should like to claim all the credit for it; it was made in fact by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, who is not here to-day, but I mention it to put the record right.
I have been a member of a county council and a rural district council. I am even an alderman, which is very disgraceful and not at all in fashion. About the only thing I agree with in the Redcliffe-Maud Report is that aldermen should be abolished, at least in the way they operate at present which allows political manoeuvring to take place. I think that there could well be honorary freemen in counties or boroughs or areas, so that people could still give to their councils the benefit of their experience, without their actually being aldermen, which to my mind is not really a democratic way for people to serve, although I am an alderman myself and I know of other noble Lords who are also.
1 will pass quickly from that rather controversial subject and deal briefly with one or two points which affect the country areas in which I am particularly interested. It is the view of the rural areas that local government as envisaged in the White Paper will become less local and more remote, and that in some areas where there is a sparsity of population it will be extremely remote. This reinforces the arguments which have been made by a number of noble Lords, that a two-tier system would be better. I think it would be better for the top authority, the unitary authority—and I do not like the name any more than does anybody else, but I have not been able to think of a more clever or better one; nor, I think, has anybody else— to be larger, so that they could deploy their resources in the provision of the services to which Lord Leatherland has quite rightly referred, where those services require large resources and large areas

641
of deployment. If these unitary authorities were larger, then it would be more convenient for the district councils, the second tier, to administer many of the environmental functions affecting people, because people are more interested in how their own local area is administered.
I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, and others have said regarding who are to be the councillors on the new unitary authorities. I have thought carefully about this matter and have come to the conclusion that they will be people who have retired from work, who have independent means or who are going to be paid by their employers to spend a lot of time on council work. That is all quite laudable, but it does not happen very often. For example, the nationalised industries, in particular the railways, allow their men off for so many days of the year to serve on the bench; but if they exceed the number they lose a certain amount of advantage and the possibility of promotion. Therefore it seems to me that the councillors are not going to be grass-root people. Probably they will be people who have nothing else better to do and therefore go on the county council, or whatever it is going to be called—the unitary authority, I suppose.
Equally, it seems to me ridiculous to have three systems of local government working in the British Isles: one for England, one for Scotland and one for Wales. After all, all these areas cannot be self-supporting financially; they must have central Government financial assistance. It does not seem to me to be sensible to divide the country up in this way. As has been mentioned, half the population will have two-tier local government; the other half will have one-tier local government. It is with one-tier local government that there is going to be this element of remoteness. That is a most important point.
I quite agree that town and country must come together. In many ways there is far less division between town and country now than there was even when I first entered local government 25 years ago. There is more communication now. People go out for drives in their cars, there are more telephones and there is a better means of communication by television, local radio and so on. Therefore the objection that some rural areas might
642
have to joining up with a nearby town is, I think, not valid, and has indeed been rejected by all the leading thinkers in rural administration. But that does not mean that we should put a whole block of the countryside into the same administrative pot as a town, with the result that, as the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, quite rightly pointed out, the town representatives would probably team up to outdo the country representatives. We must avoid that; we must not allow that to happen.
Whichever Government is in office when the legislation is prepared must keep an open mind about some of these problems. They must allow flexibility of thought and not impose a solution from the top; otherwise they will be doing something which will be greatly resented in many parts of the country. It will not work. It will cause a lot of upheaval. There will be a terrible loss to the people in those areas because they will not know where to go for their services and for the advice that they have previously been able to get from their local office or local councillors. It will take many years to put that right.
The problem is not so bad in regard to London, one of the largest cities in the world, but the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, who has great experience of these matters, indicated in his speech that the London Government reorganisation caused a great upheaval which has still not finally sorted itself out. That kind of upheaval should not be brought about unless a proper solution has been found, and that will be found only by consultation between all the various interested parties.
I conclude by saying that there is a far wider measure of agreement about local government reorganisation than many will admit. To-day the speeches have shown that there is not a great deal between the various people who wish to see reorganisation brought about. It is a matter of consultation and of the sharing of knowledge between various people who have great experience in these matters. I think that the present Government were a little unfair to the local authority associations and the councillors in trying to rush this matter through. They did not give enough time for consultation. There may have been other, political reasons. It is not for me, speaking from these Benches, to say what

643
those reasons were; but, whatever they were, I do not think they were good ones. I think that this might have been a far better White Paper if more time had been allowed for consultation and for the possibility of reaching agreement with the local authority associations, which was close to being brought about. I hope that in his winding-up speech the noble Lord the Leader of the House will bear in mind those points which have been made, far more forcefully than I could make them, from all quarters of the House.
5.7 p.m.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, as it is fashionable to declare one's interest, may I say that I have been connected with the County Councils Association for many years; and, possibly nearer the mark, I have been directly engaged in the communications that have taken place between the associations at various times during the past twenty years and, on occasion, with Government Departments. Therefore I have seen the whole story as it has developed.
I have been struck most by the remarkable reversal of roles which has taken place since the publication of the Commission's Report. In the past, our dilemma has always been the point at which a town became large enough to become an all-purpose authority. The argument was whether the population for such a change should be 200,000, or whether it should be 50,000. One had the small town arguing the case for being given all-purpose powers at as low a figure as 50,000, although the association to which they belong would not really support that figure. But certainly people were thinking in terms of an all-purpose authority of 75,000, and in many cases of 100,000.
I think it ought to be borne in mind that there was a perfect right for a borough to apply for county borough status provided that a certain numerical status was achieved. In another place it was my duty on a number of occasions to oppose applications for county borough status because I felt that this would not make for good local government. Now we have gone full circle. We no longer talk in terms of these bodies at some stage or other becoming all-purpose authorities, and we have gone the other
644
way in this amalgamation of town and country. We say that the larger authority now shall be a unitary authority or, to put it as we used to call it, the all-purpose authority. This is probably right, but having gone so far, I cannot understand the logic of the Royal Commission, or even the logic of the Government for that matter, because we had what was the basis of a unitary authority in the counties as they existed. Here they were, all administering these very services, and now they are proposing to split many of the counties up in order to be able to administer the same services. For the life of me I cannot see the logic of this.
I would argue that some boundaries might need adjustment and amalgamation, but it seems to me that there was something to build on, rather than to scrap the lot and start afresh with the new boundaries with all the upheaval that will be involved. It may be that the Commission felt that this would be leaning over backwards in favour of the counties and would create some upheaval and trouble among other local government units. But it would certainly have been the logic of the case, because there are units already in existence administering the services which it is admitted have to be administered on a wide basis. After dealing with the conurbation side, there was something that was ready made. One cannot really understand why the Government intend to split up the country, or why the Commission wanted the country split up to such an extent, with all the upheaval that would be involved.
If one looks at some of the unitary authorities—and I read very carefully what my noble friend had to say in introducing the White Paper—as I see it there is no question of dividing any of the unitary authorities. That is a very good thing. Their boundaries may be trimmed, but they are not to be made any smaller. The Government are willing to look at the desirability of some further amalgamation of some of the proposed unitary authorities, and it seems to me that, having had second thoughts about Hampshire and Yorkshire, at least they must have some second thoughts about Lancashire. What has been done with regard to Lancashire is quite illogical. To carry the boundary of Liverpool nearly up to Preston when there already exists, right

645
across that part of Lancashire, a very fine local government unit based on what is already there does not seem to me to make sense. One might also suggest that, if there is to be a metropolitan area there Cheshire would have made a better metropolitan area than by adding part of it to Liverpool. It would have made a sensible suggestion centred, as it might have been, on Chester. However, these are details which might possibly be the subject of amendment at some stage.
I am very interested with regard to the proposal regarding the district committees to which the Government appear to be committed. They accept the idea that the unitary authority, with a complete centralisation, would not be democratic and would be too remote, and that therefore there must be some devolution—presumably of the actual day-to-day functioning—to district committees. It will be rather interesting to see exactly how this devolution will work.
If we look at this merely from the point of view of efficiency, a centralised local government is the answer. I have sat on many committees of all sorts and kinds, and frequently I have prayed for a committee of one so that we could come to some conclusion on the deliberations on which we had been engaged from time to time. The trouble is that the one might have been someone other than myself, and therefore I should find myself in disagreement.
But essentially local government is a question of compromise, and when it comes to the actual administration of local government politics are not involved at all. Each local authority tries to do the best it can for its area; and in spite of what has been said about the town hogging it and the country being left out, my own experience is that it does not happen precisely in that way. In the days of immobility probably this was so, but in these mobile days the townsman wants just as many amenities in the country as in the town and, therefore, he will be concerned to see that amenities are available throughout the whole of the area. I do not fear any difficulty from the fact that two or three towns may be the dominant partners in one of the unitary authorities.
I am concerned as to exactly what the district committee will be, what sort of
646
area it will cover, and I hope that we may get some information from the Government as to how they think it will work before it is inserted in a Bill. If the district committee is to work, then first of all it must have some say in the preparation of the budgets. It really cannot just be told that they have a few odds and ends to attend to. It should have some say—not in the final stages of the budget—on the sort of things it wants in its area. It will not get all it wants, no committee ever does, but at least it should be done in that way. Is it proposed that there shall be committees at the district level which will be comparable with committees at the central level? If it is not, I can see enormous complications arising from the point of view of the chain of authority. It is equally important as to how the officers are to be controlled. I have some experience of local county officers serving on area health committees, and the question of the control of those officers has caused a good deal of friction. The officer usually tells the committee, "You cannot do that" because his chief has told him something different. His chief has taken his orders from the main committee, and therefore something cannot be done or ought not to be done. I should hate to get started on this new system of the district committees where the same thing might happen, unless we have some clear understanding as to where the chain of authority is to lie.
I am also concerned about the position of the district councils. I am all in favour of democracy and consultation, but it must be borne in mind that the planning authorities have throughout the years strongly resisted any idea of giving the parish councils a statutory right to be consulted on planning matters. They have had a right by agreement, where a planning authority has been willing to do it, but the planning authorities have always resisted any idea of a statutory right to consultation. I am aghast at what will happen if a unitary authority is going to be statutorily obliged to consult all the local councils as they exist to-day—I am not talking of how they may exist at some future time, but the Government's intention is that all the existing councils shall be there. Consultation will be difficult, if not impossible. If we are going to proceed with reorganisation on a decent basis;

647
and if we proceed to reorganise the councils—whatever their ultimate functions may be—at the same time, so that we know precisely what the basis is going to be, then we shall have some bodies large enough to be consulted without gumming up the works too much; and they will be able to operate over a sufficient area to ensure that there is reasonable consultation.
Another problem with district councils will be precisely how they are going to appoint members to serve on the district committees. The first thing that the unitary authority will insist on—and they are bound to insist on this—is that the majority of the members on a district committee shall be members of the unitary authority. They will not accept, for example, that some non-elected members of the main body could be in the majority and could carry in the committee decisions which were against the unitary authority. They can carry decisions only within the policy of the unitary authority. Therefore, the representation from the district councils will have to be less, in total, than the representation from the main body to the district committee. I shall be interested to learn how this will work, with the multiplicity of councils that we have at the present time.
There is another point that I want to make: whatever form the district council takes, or whatever its powers, something must be done about it before the law is changed at all; and this ought to be embodied, so as far as the main ideas are concerned, in the legislation. I know that the adjustment of boundaries will take place differently, but we ought to have some idea about the size of these authorities, because we cannot have every authority—parish councils, rural councils and urban councils—all with a right to send a member on to the district committee. So I ask the Government to give us some idea as to where they want to go in this matter. We must also know much more clearly about the powers of these committees. I have said something on the possibility of amalgamating some of the authorities. Some of the unitary authorities could be made larger if there were effective district committees—in fact, I think it would be better if some of them were larger. For example, with effective district com-
648
mittees I can see no reason at all for dividing Surrey. Surrey is a large county, but with effective district committees operating there would be no need to make many of the divisions which are proposed.
The other question is what exactly do we do with district councils, even assuming that we have reorganised them? Exactly what powers should they have? My view has always been, and the whole of my arguments throughout my negotiating career have always been, in favour of two-tier authorities, and I still consider that there is not much logic in changing that view. My view is that a two-tier authority is better, but that view has been qualified to some extent by the decision to take the local health functions away from local authorities. I am not arguing against the general idea that there should be an amalgamation of health functions; I think that is logical and acceptable. But I certainly think that those essential personal services should have been something for local government. Had it not been for the implacable opposition of the B.M.A., it is more than likely that we could have made a very good case— which the Government might even have accepted—for placing health functions under local authorities, which would have added much to the work and to the credit of local authorities. However, apparently the stage is set and there will be only a local health authority, which will not be a democratic body at all. It will probably function. A committee of one will usually function better than a committee of ten, so it will probably function quite well.
Then there is the question of the police, who have only recently been reorganised. They are now to be reorganised again. This does not make for efficiency, and it is extremely difficult for services of this kind if we keep on chopping and changing them about: who is going to be the chief officer of the new body and so on? This is very important in the case of the police and the fire service, if they are going to be changed around at frequent intervals. I hope something will be said about how they can be re-organised with the minimum of disturbance to the existing arrangements.
To sum up, I suppose that what I have said has damned the White Paper with faint praise. I was looking to the

649
Opposition to see what sort of an alternative they would provide, but the noble Lord who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench gave me no guidance at all; in fact, he did not seem to have very many ideas about what the Conservative Party would do. That is understandable, of course, because any re-organisation of local government is not going to be popular. Therefore, the Opposition want to keep all their options open so that they can say that whatever the Government do is wrong, without having to declare their hand as to what they would do if they were the Government. But I hope that at some stage we shall be given some clarity from the Opposition as to where they are going and what they want to do about local government, if they want to do anything at all. If we can have that I shall be most grateful, because some of the things they said might have my support, and I should be very sorry to deprive them of my support if they give me the opportunity of showing it.
I am grateful for the way your Lordships have listened to what I have had to say. I hope that my noble friend will say something more about district committees and district councils, because, unless we know a little more about what the intentions are, these will remain matters of grave disquiet.
5.25 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, in rising to speak on the Motion, That this House takes note of the White Paper Reform of Local Government in England (Command 4276), I assure noble Lords that I shall be brief. I would start by expressing my sincere thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, and his distinguished colleagues on their great work in producing this very important Report. I must first of all declare an interest, as I am a vice-president of the Urban District Councils Association and a past member of nine years standing of West Suffolk County Council. Also, I live in Newmarket, which is in an urban district council area.
I have given this great problem profound thought. I attended a two-day conference of the Urban District Councils Association last October in the Central Hall, Westminster, and I also attended the special meetings of the West Suffolk
650
County Council and the Newmarket Urban District Council on this great matter. I have come to the definite conclusion that the whole of England should be reorganised on a two-tier basis. There should be strong main and district councils for the 58 per cent. of the area of England which the Royal Commission Report states should be reorganised on a unitary basis. The remaining 42 per cent. should be reorganised on a two-tier basis, as recommended by the Royal Commission, and the great conurbation areas of Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool should be divided into metropolitan areas and districts. But I feel very strongly that the proposed unitary authorities would be far too remote to carry out all the main services, and I shall give my reasons for coming to that decision.
In the case of my own area, it is proposed to form a unitary area, No. 44, estimated to have a population of 750,000 people (Royal Commission Report, page 307). The area will be the seventh largest in the country, comprising 1,587 square miles, and will contain as many as 500 towns and villages. How can a chief education officer, for instance, keep in touch with his schools and their headmasters in such a large area, as he is able to do to-day in West Suffolk with a population of 165,000? Also, how will the members be able to keep in touch with their constituents, which is so important? Because under the proposals for a unitary authority, each member will have to look after some 8,000 constituents. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said last Tuesday:
"Beyond about 500,000 the danger of bureaucracy usurping power becomes greater and greater. We need to look carefully and critically at every case where the Commission propose to create by amalgamation a new authority greatly exceeding half a million population, to make sure whether so large a size is unavoidable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3/3/70; col. 244.]
For my own area I should like to see two main authorities, one for the West and one for the East of the county, carrying out most of the main functions, with a strong second-tier authority with specific duties, such as housing and so on, laid down by Parliament, and not delegated from the main authority, because that would only lead to difficulties. It has been suggested that all the staff should belong to the first-tier authority, but I

651
do not think that that will work, as there will be divided loyalty.
In conclusion, I should like to say a few words on the vital question of finance. The terms of reference that were given to the Royal Commission contained no specific mention of the need to consider the subject of local government finance—an omission which I think was unfortunate. But the Commission devoted a chapter in their Report to the subject, in the course of which they argued that the opportunity of reorganisation should be taken to examine and remove the existing shortcomings in the system of local government finance. The Commission expressed the view that although local rates are likely to remain the chief local tax, some new tax is also required to give local authorities a wider and more buoyant tax base. With that, my Lords, I thoroughly agree.
May I remind your Lordships that to-day the central Government contribute to local authorities some 55 per cent. of their total income; and that local authorities spend approximately £5,359 million, which is 30 per cent. of the total public expenditure in the country of £19,595 million, which is the provisional out-turn for the year 1968–69 as recorded in Public Expenditure 1968–69 to 1973–74 [Cmnd. 4234, page 65]. I should also like to point out that education takes nearly 50 per cent. of the total local government expenditure. In the provisional out-turn for the year 1968–69, the education bill amounted to £2,232 million, as recorded on page 50 of the White Paper on public expenditure. These are very large figures, and I only wish the Government had been able to issue the proposed Green Paper on local authority finance at the same time as they issued this White Paper on local government reform.
Already the Government are subsidising domestic ratepayers of this country to the tune of 5d. in the pound per year, and with the coming year's rates it will amount to the cumulative total of 1s. 8d. in the pound. Before we embark on such large scale reorganisation of local government I think the financial implications must be looked at very carefully. Most of the troubles of local government to-day
652
have been caused by the continuous "Stop-Go" policy of successive Governments since the war on local authority services, and it is really a miracle that they have done such a good job in such difficult circumstances.
5.33 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, like a number of other Members of your Lordships' House, I, too, have to declare an interest as a county alderman, which office paragraph 76 of the White Paper is to abolish. Having said that, in order to show that I harbour no ill-will as a result, may I join with others who have congratulated the authors of the White Paper on having produced such a clearly written and well-constructed document; and indeed congratulate the Government on their decision to seek a re-shaping of local government more in keeping with present-day requirements.
I have no wish this afternoon to pursue the future general structure of local government beyond extending a warm welcome to the proposal in the White Paper to provide for two additional metropolitan areas and expressing the hope that consideration may yet be given to establishing a two-tier system in other parts of the country where circumstances are appropriate, though not necessarily with the proposed metropolitan distribution of functions. The type of two-tier system, coupled with district committees, put forward by the County Councils Association with a promising measure of support from the Urban and Rural District Councils Associations, would seem to me to merit close examination as an alternative method of strengthening local democracy in the proposed unitary areas. But of one thing I am sure: that in any two-tier system of local government it is right that education should be the responsibility of the upper tier; and I warmly welcome the Government's decision to make provision for this in the proposed metropolitan areas.
But it is particularly in regard to paragraph 39, on pages 13 and 14 of the White Paper, that I wish to speak this afternoon, and to note with approval that, while the Government see no instance of a unitary area which could be divided into two without making one or both parts too small, or dividing tasks

653
which ought to be dealt with as one, they, as the White Paper puts it,
"do not exclude the possibility of joining certain of"
their proposed unitary areas
"together, if in the course of further consultation with the authorities concerned strong arguments for doing so should emerge".
I hope my noble friend who is to reply to the debate will agree that these words regarding the possibility of joining certain of these areas together cover the situation of those existing county areas, notably around London, which, under the Commission's Report, were scheduled to be severed but which Mr. J. L. Longland, in his note of reservation, cogently advocates should be kept together. I trust that my noble friend the Leader of the House, when he replies, will be able to give an assurance that if strong arguments are advanced by those authorities who wish to avoid this severance, the most serious consideration will be given to them by the Government.
Your Lordships will know that Mr. Longland argues the case for avoiding severance of the counties around London not only on educational grounds (where, in my view, there are overwhelming reasons for not severing the county areas) but also on the basis of ensuring that there should be strong authorities around London as a counterweight to the enormous power of the Greater London Council, and in the belief that, as he says,
"the good and efficient administration of Herts, Kent and Surrey should not be divided ".
My Lords, if I may touch on the case of my own county of Surrey, which it is proposed should be divided into two, East and West Surrey, I must point out that a combination of these two proposed unitary areas would still be smaller in acreage than twenty-two of the Commission's other proposed unitary authorities; and perhaps it may be relevant at this point to draw attention to the fact that the density of population in the county, 2·37 per acre, is a very heavy one indeed. Indeed, it is the highest of any county in the country. But, even so, the combined population of the proposed areas 53 and 54, as they are known, would still be substantially less than that which the County of Surrey had reached before the London Government Act; and I dare to say, my Lords, that the government of Surrey when it was responsible for
654
a population of a million and a half was, so far as its major services were concerned, indeed good.
It will be obvious that the gratuitous severance of a county would have serious disadvantages in the resulting needs to duplicate unitary halls, headquarters administrations, specialist institutions and staffs, training facilities and the like. I recall all too well how, at the time of the Greater London severance, it was found impossible to reduce headquarters establishment in the neighbouring counties in anything like the same proportion as the loss of population; and two administrations would undoubtedly be much more expensive than the present one. Moreover, under the present criteria, the proposed East Surrey would be far too small to be a separate police authority and presumably would need to be linked with West Surrey under a combined police control. Fire Brigade headquarters would have to be duplicated and West Surrey would find itself with need to build new headquarters. The setting up of combined authorities—and combined authorities would be needed in the case of fire as well as police unless West Surrey built new headquarters—removes the services from the direct control of the unitary authorities and surely defeats the objects of the exercise.
The same would apply to the ambulance service, although, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, that seems destined to leave local government in any event, under the proposals of the National Health Service Green Paper. There are many other instances which could be given, such as the need to set up new supply departments for the divided county and the additional expense and staff that would be involved. I hope I have said enough to indicate that a county council such as the one on which I am privileged to serve in Surrey will undoubtedly be in a position to produce the strong arguments which the Government suggest they will consider. I hope that when my noble friend replies he will give a definite undertaking that the consultations will be not just a matter of form but that the arguments will be most seriously considered and that it will be the strength of the arguments that will determine the outcome of the consultations.
5.43 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, speak in favour of the retention of an effective second tier. I will not enlarge on that, beyond offering your Lordships one simple argument which I have not yet heard during this debate. It is the same argument that I have heard advanced in favour of retaining a Second Chamber in Parliament: that there is more work than one tier can do, and do properly, unless the balance of responsibility and the relations between the elected Members and their official advisers is to change.
Since we have in this country such a very well worked-out understanding between the elected representatives and their advisers, I feel that it would be a disservice to local democracy if that were upset. In saying that, I do not mean that I want the elected councillors to be bogged down on all sorts of details, but I think they ought to be fully seized of all policy matters, even small ones—for that is what they were elected to do—and not just hear about them after the event. There is a tendency to-day for too much of our government to be done by officials, whether central or local. We had an instance of that at Question Time to-day. I think it would be a disservice if we were to speed that progress.
My main point refers to the "inter-dependence of town and country", a phrase which I take from the Reports and which has been mentioned a number of times during this debate. In my view, there is no doubt that town and country are coming closer to one another. Education and improved transport are bringing this about, and we may have underestimated recently the extent of that movement. But there are still very great differences in their interests and local loyalties. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, when he spoke last week underestimated these differences. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, did so. I am sorry that neither he nor the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is here this afternoon to hear the second part of this debate—which we could almost call their debate. And I think that the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, also underestimated these differences.
656
Admittedly, the structure in the countryside is often quite outmoded. We all know of examples where a county town is surrounded by a county council and where there is every temptation for rivalry between councillors and rivalry between officials, which is worse, and not in the interests of good local government. Smaller boroughs can be found embedded in a rural district, and often there is very little difference between what is called an urban district and a rural district. Many of your Lordships may not know that a large part of the English Lake District, some of the highest and wildest land in this country, is in an urban district. Few would be against some change, quite substantial change; but many have fears that the coming changes will be over-drastic and tend to under-estimate, if not actually trample on, rural interests. Surely geography as well as population must be taken into account here. There is a great deal in these White Papers and in the Maud Report about population, but there is very little about the significance of geography. In a democracy it is the number of people that matters, and not the square miles, when an issue arises which can be decided only by vote.
My Lords, during the first day's debate there were most impassioned speeches, some very sincere and moving speeches, from Members of your Lordships' House who have an intimate knowledge of the problems of both Cheshire and Lancashire. I would add to-day that in both the Maud Report and the Government proposals there is included a proposal to tear Westmorland in half, not only to divide it between two unitary authorities but also to put one half in one provincial area and the other half in another. Further, it is proposed to cut off the southern tip of Cumberland, so that in North-West England where there are four counties they propose to damage all four. Then, for good measure, they propose to cut the Lake District National Park in half, too; to allot one half to one unitary authority and the other half to another unitary authority; and, as in the case of Westmorland to divide them again between two provincial areas. If that is their best judgment in this province I think that one can be excused for doubting it in others.
I should like to speak briefly about proposals for regional organisation. I

657
appreciate that the Government have made it clear that no decisions have yet been taken, but it seems to be a fair guess that they will all be based on some centre, or it may be centres, of dense population. In some parts of England, perhaps in most parts, there could be reason in this; but I do not think it applies in the same way in large rural areas which are a very long way from any dense centre of population. I have in mind, in the South-West of England, Devon and Cornwall; and in the North-West of England, the land which lies between the Solway and Morecambe Bay. Neither of these large areas has any close affinity with a large town or a city.
Bristol I would suppose to be paternalism itself compared with Manchester or Newcastle. But if the area between Morecambe Bay and the Solway—the whole of two counties and part of a third—were to be included in a North-West Region, then it would command only something like 5 per cent. of the population of that region and would hence be in a permanent minority when any issue came to a vote. Furthermore, people in that area will long remember the overbearing attitude of the Manchester authorities over the water problems in the Lake District. It will take many a long year to forgive and forget this.
I have already referred to the geographical factor. From the centre of this area to Manchester is something like 100 miles. This will impose an enormous burden on councillors who will have to travel and be expected to attend frequent meetings. They will come to the headquarters like strangers from another land. I do not think we ought to ask councillors to travel these long distances.
If the feeling about Newcastle was better until the other day, the absurd policy of the Northern Economic Planning Council, which is as pretentious as it is bogus, has stirred up widespread resentment. Noble Lords opposite will know why I am not saying any more to-day. I have criticised this Council in the House before, and no doubt I shall have other opportunities to do so; but I do not wish to say more to-day.
My Lords, why should not this whole area between the Solway and Morecambe
658
Bay first be made into one unitary authority—which would be a marriage of two counties rather than a tearing apart —and then be treated as a separate region, too? An area of 3,000 square miles is a biggish tract of country, and a factor which ought not to be over-looked. Are we not in danger of thinking far too much about achieving a uniform pattern on a plan at the expense of the differing geography and different way of life of people who live in several parts of the country?
My last point I wish to refer to quite shortly. I have looked in vain in both of these Reports for a reference to Scotland, because liaison across the Border in respect of local government is very important. Both Cumberland County Council and Dumfriesshire County Council have made great advances in the planning sphere. They would like to do more in that direction, and all credit to them! Much more credit, in fact, than to the bureaucratic mind which, whether drafting Bills or White Papers, always forgets that England and Scotland are not separate islands.
5.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, the Maud Report and the White Paper have set us a very difficult puzzle; and I feel that, to make it harder, two of the most important pieces have not been given to us. I refer to the Crowther Report, which we are awaiting (and whatever its outcome it is bound to have an effect on the Local Government Bill when it does appear) and, what is even more important, the lack of any financial guidance. This, of course, was not within the terms of reference of the Maud Report, and therefore we can hardly complain if it is not dealt with. But to my mind it is the key to local government in the future.
We complain that local government is too much in the hands of Whitehall. What are the facts? In the case of the authority in which I sit—and I think this is true of nearly all authorities— Whitehall provides more than 50 per cent. of our revenue. Is it conceivable that any authority which does that is not going to insist on control? I think this is a problem which has to be faced. Whether we have unitary authorities or two-tier authorities, with all the pros and cons for and against both of them,

659
someone has to produce a scheme by which these local authorities are made financially independent of the central Administration. Otherwise, in my opinion, we shall not get any local government.
There is only one other matter to which I wish to refer: I do not think it has been touched on very much in the debate. I refer to the question of staff. There is a reference in the White Paper (in paragraphs 93 and 94), but naturally in vague terms, because it would not be reasonable to expect that the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government will be able to tell us very much about the numbers of staff that will be necessary under the new order. But it is an immensely important question to those who are serving in local government. Although, naturally, they are ready to co-operate in any scheme which may be put forward, they are all somewhat apprehensive, as one would expect them to be, and are wondering what is going to happen to them.
One would hope that if we get rid of a great number of local authorities—and I think we all agree that this should be an objective—we shall also materially reduce the number of staff. But I very much doubt whether this will happen. No doubt there will be some redundancies among the more senior members, and they will be looked after. But the replacement of the London County Council by the Greater London Council did not result in any great saving of staff. I think this is a matter which must be looked at seriously. The whole question of administration in government is, in my opinion, getting completely out of hand. Since the present Government took office the increase in the number of civil servants in Whitehall has been of the order of 60,000 to 70,000. In local government it has been something like a quarter of a million.
As your Lordships know, central Government to-day is a Socialist Administration, while local government, by and large, is controlled by the Conservative Party. This leads me to suppose that neither Party has found the answer to this question. Local authorities cannot Control staff salaries, which are rising fast, but they can control staff numbers. This is one of the few things they can
660
control. Yet, to quote the case of my own authority, in the last three years the numbers have risen by 20 per cent. They have nearly doubled in the last ten years, and I imagine that the story is much the same around the country.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? He may not be aware that the non-industrial Home Civil Service increased by nothing last year. The figure was the same at the end of the year as it was at the beginning.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I am very glad to hear it, but that has not been so in most cases, and I think it is something that has to be dealt with. I made the point to the noble Lord that the local authorities are largely Conservative controlled, but that is not so, of course, in all cases. I think it possible that if we get a new system, by which the local authorities are more or less comparable with one another, there will at least be some yardstick by which we can see whether one authority has been much more extravagant than another. At present that is difficult to do, because every local authority says that it has special problems; and very often it has.
My Lords, that is all I have to say. I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, who is to wind up the debate from these Benches and who had a great deal to do with the Local Government Bill for London, that it may well be that when the time comes he will be tackling the Bill for the country as a whole. All I can say to him is that if he thought the London Bill was complicated and difficult—as indeed it was—he will find it absolute child's play compared to what lies ahead of him if it falls on him to introduce the Bill. Nevertheless, I wish him well.
6.0 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this has been a long and long-drawn-out debate, but I think that it should prove a useful one if the Government are prepared to heed the advice they have received from a large number of speakers who know a great deal, far more than I do, about the ins and outs of local government. There has been no shortage of advice. There has been the advice which we received in a typically winning speech from the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, the Pied Piper of the Commission, as my noble

661
friend Lord Amory termed him. There has been the advice received from the Pied Piper of the County Councils Association, Lord Amory, as no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, would have termed him, had he been following my noble friend. We have had many other Pied Pipers, the Pied Piper of the Rural District Councils Association, Lord Gainsborough; the Pied Piper of the Parish Councils Association, Lord Merthyr, and the ex-Pied Piper of the Association of Municipal Councils, Lord Ilford. I regret very much indeed that we have not had the speech, which we all expected and were looking forward to, of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, the deputy Pied Piper of the Commission. I understand that this is because of illness, which I very much regret.
I should like to say that many of us on these Benches were deeply impressed by the speech of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor at the outset of this debate. To my great surprise, the noble Lord the Leader of the House at one moment termed "totally unintelligible" the proposals which my noble friend was making. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, termed my noble friend's speech "wholly illuminating and cogent". I can only say that to me my noble friend's remarks were not only illuminating and cogent but also wholly intelligible.
I must confess that I have found some similarity in this discussion between the reform of local government and the reform of your Lordships' House. The structure of local government, like the structure of your Lordships' House, is manifestly out of date. With both, it is almost universally agreed that a reform of some nature is long overdue. Somehow, miraculously, albeit creakingly, both organisations work after their own fashion. With both there is the widest possible disagreement about the form which reform should take. I only hope that the proposals for the reform of local government meet with a happier fate than those on which the noble Lord the Leader of the House and other Members of your Lordships' House spent a good deal of time some months ago.
That being so, I think it is worth noting how wide an area of agreement has been disclosed in these discussions. I think that we are all agreed on the vital
662
necessity of having real vigour and real health in our institutions of local government. I think that we are also agreed, certainly we on these Benches are fully agreed, that the structure of local government stands in need of drastic and urgent reform—I mean radical reform. If local government in this country works —and indeed it does work, but not so well as it should—it is not due to the system but in spite of the system; it is due to the devotion of the councillors and officials who have to work that system. There is also need for urgent reform. My right honourable friend Mr. Peter Walker made it clear a fortnight ago in another place that, should the responsibility be a Conservative responsibility, we should wish to proceed with a substantial but sensible reform of local government in the early period of a new Government. In repeating that statement, I should like to under-line it.
But our area of agreement does not, I think, end here. Most of us would concur, I feel, in the need for fewer but stronger units of local government. Almost all of us would agree that the resulting structure should reflect not only the difference but also the inter-dependence of town and country. All of us, I am sure, concur that the Royal Commission's Report is one of exceptional value and exceptional perception. We all owe an enormous debt (and this is no mere form of words) to the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, and to his colleagues on the Royal Commission.
I do not wish to minimise the importance of this common ground. I have always believed myself that when we are seeking to embark on the reform of any of our major institutions, be it the Second Chamber or be it local government, it is wise for the Government in power to search for the highest common factor of general agreement. Given the opposition which in many quarters the Government's proposals have aroused, I believe it would have been quite easy for the Opposition to mount a great campaign against them. The Opposition have studiously refrained from doing so. That is one reason why I believe that the Government's proposals, imperfect though I hold them to be, if there is give and take on all sides—and it is not a question of Party here, as speakers from the Benches opposite have made perfectly evidence—could

663
provide the basis for a solution which could be worked out over the next two or three years and which could form a satisfactory basis for local government in this country for the remainder of this century.
I do not wish to labour a Party point here but, having just heard my noble friend Lord Mersey, I cannot refrain from contrasting the attitude which my right honourable friend and the official Opposition have taken with regard to these proposals with that taken up by the then Opposition to the then Government's proposals for the reform of London government. We know the strained and tortured language which we heard then. I think that it was the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who termed the local government Bill "as about as evil as anything I can remember in this country". I was reminded of that when that evil man, the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, the author of these evil proposals, spoke to us an hour or so ago.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, with respect, the London Government Bill was nothing like the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Tangley.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it seemed to me to bear a remarkable resemblance to the proposals from the Commission presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Tangley. Then there were the great demonstrations, that armada up the Thames, and we all (not least my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn) recall that remarkable filibuster in your Lordships' House, the 785 Amendments, the 85 Divisions and the 115 hours of debate. In contrasting, maybe rather sanctimoniously, the irresponsibility of the then Opposition with the responsibility of the Opposition now, I can only express the hope that in answer to what my noble friend has just said we shall be spared the 115 hours of debate, if and when these proposals are embodied in a Bill which comes before your Lordships' House.
I hope that I have said enough to make it clear that there is much in both the White Paper and the Commission's Report with which I personally agree. But in summing up from this side of the House I think that it would be most useful if I were to attempt to draw together
664
the main lines of criticism of the Government's proposals which we have voiced in this long debate. As your Lordships will recall, these criticisms have not been confined to any one political quarter in your Lordships' House. The first criticism concerns the devolution of responsibility from Whitehall. In the White Paper, and in Lord Kennet's speech, lip service, at least, has been paid to the Government's desire to decentralise from White-hall to local government as many powers as possible. The Government have argued that it is quite reasonable to determine the restructuring of local government before the Report of Lord Crowther's Commission is received and acted upon. I find this argument quite impossible to accept. The Commission under Lord Crowther, if I am right, will not only be dealing with the right structure of devolution within the Celtic fringe of these islands, but will also be reporting quite specifically on the possibility of devolution to the English regions.
It is, I suppose, just conceivable that by some happy fluke what that Commission propose for the regions and for the Provinces of England may fit the Maud or the White Paper structure. But it is equally possible that the Crowther corset, if I may so term it, will not fit the Maud figure. Consequently, it seems to me quite irrational to try to plan a sensible structure for local government without any real idea of what powers are going to be devolved from Whitehall and of the structure of provincial or regional government on which those powers are going to be devolved.
Of course, I should be the first to grant that the decision to set up Crowther may have been something of an afterthought. But it strikes me as folly on the part of the Government, having had that after-thought, to preempt vital decisions before awaiting what Crowther has to say. It may not, of course, be so difficult for the Government here: they may already know what they have in mind, or something of what they have in mind, so far as devolution from Whitehall, and so far as the provincial or regional structures, are concerned.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: Nothing.
EARL JELLICOE: That is also quite possible. At any rate, we certainly do not have that knowledge, and that makes

665
decisions and judgment for the rest of us virtually impossible. As I have said, a sensible Government, in a vital area which affects all of us, would be seeking the maximum possible area of consensus, and therefore we should all have the same possibility of access to the evidence.
The second main line of criticism which has been advanced in the last six days concerns finance—the sinew of all government, both national and local. We have all read what the Royal Commission have had to say about the finance of local government. Already the Exchequer contribution to local government finances represents some 57 per cent. of the whole. Soon it will be 60 per cent.; and that percentage, unless some alternative means of finance can be found, is bound to rise. Again, the Government pay some tribute—lip service, I fear it may be—to the importance of the matter, and they have promised to let us have their views in a Green Paper. Again they claim that it is perfectly reasonable to proceed with the reform of the structure of local government without awaiting decisions on the financing of local government. But I have listened to what my noble friends Lord Gage and Lord Ilford have said on this aspect, and again I beg leave to doubt that claim.
Let me take one example, my Lords, by way of illustration. A local sales tax is one of the possibilities that has been advocated as a reinforcement of the local property tax—our rates. Anyone who has looked at this matter will agree that if we are to have some form of local sales tax—and the same, of course, would apply to a tax on vehicles or on petrol— it will have to be imposed over a pretty wide area. If we take final decisions now or in the near future about the size and structure of the number of echelons of local government, be it in the metropolitan areas or in the unitary areas, we are bound to pre-empt decisions concerning what structure would best suit possible alternative forms of local taxation. It is extraordinary that these proposals should have been submitted without our having any idea of what are the Government's proposals regarding the finance of local government.
The third area of criticism concerns the boundaries which are advocated in the White Paper. It is clear from what
666
has been said in the last six days that most of us welcome some form of two-tier structure for the great urban metropolitan areas of this country. On the other hand, I very much hope that the Government will recognise the weight of opinion expressed in your Lordships' House last Tuesday, in two memorable speeches by the noble Lords, Lord Clitheroe and Lord Rhodes, and echoed to-day by the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, that something may have gone seriously wrong with the new design, at least so far as the North-West—Lancashire and Cheshire—is concerned.
LORD INGLEWOOD: And Westmorland.
EARL JELLICOE: My noble friend has taken the words from my mouth. It is in the North-West, I think, where the greatest disquiet has been expressed. I personally am inclined to welcome what the Government propose so far as West Yorkshire and South Hampshire are concerned. But I have real doubts—and, what is more important, those who know those areas really intimately have great doubts—about what is proposed for the North-West. I would ask the Government, at least so far as that area is concerned, to think again.
By the same token I would also ask the Government to heed the strength of feeling expressed in your Lordships' House, and indeed in another place, about the extent of the metropolitan areas themselves. A general view—not a universal view—has been voiced that the hem of these metropolitan areas has been let down too far (I recall what my noble friend Lord Amory said on this point) and that they may well be acquiring too wide a rural fringe. Quite frankly, I found the pleading of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in his speech at the start of this debate, to be very special pleading on this particular point. Again, I would ask the Government to suspend any final judgment here, and to heed the arguments very closely indeed.
I hope in this context that the noble Lord the Leader of the House may be able to enlighten us as to the type of procedure which the Government are proposing to follow as regards the final determination of the boundaries in the reformed structure. In some of these areas—certainly in Lancashire, and in

667
other counties in the North-West—these are going to be violently controversial. I suspect that the same may also be the case in Sussex. I should very much like to know what sort of procedure for determining these boundaries, and, above all, for consultation, the Government have in mind. Clearly, they feel a need for speed, and it may be that the full-dress procedure of a public inquiry, such as the Roskill Inquiry, is inappropriate. On the other hand, it seems to be absolutely essential, in a matter of this import, arousing very strong feelings in the parts of the country affected, that all those concerned not only should have but should also be seen to have their day in court. I would ask the Government for enlightenment as to the type of procedure they have in mind.
I turn now to my fourth area of criticism, and the final area of criticism which I wish to touch on. That is the fundamental apprehension which has been voiced in your Lordships' House; namely, that the progeny with which we are now faced, the White Paper out of the Commission, may drain the essential local element from local government. I spent part of my summer holidays reading the Royal Commission's Report in somewhat idyllic circumstances, on the sunny veranda of a villa in the Piedmont of the Italian Alps, looking out over the wide Venetian plain. Perhaps it was those idyllic circumstances, or perhaps it was due to the power and logic of the Report itself, the power and logic which we found reflected in the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, but I found myself at the time three parts persuaded that the unitary principle was right. I am the first to admit that powerful arguments can be found in support of that unitary principle, the all-purpose authority. There is a great deal to be said for grouping the personal social services together under the umbrella of one authority. All of us who have read Seebohm and the Commission's Report would recognise this.
There is a great deal to be said for forging the closest possible links between the personal social services and the environmental services under one authority, if that can be done. Those arguments I found, and still find, very compelling. I still have a nagging doubt, however, which has, if anything, been
668
reinforced by what we have heard in this very long debate, as to whether this tidy, logical and efficient solution is also the best solution so far as local involvement, local representation and local democracy are concerned. We cannot fail to recognise that a different system—a two-tier system—is proposed for Scotland and Wales. I had myself thought that presumably what is sauce for the Celtic goose is not necessarily sauce for the Anglo-Saxon gander. Then we find that this two-tier system is sauce for 42 per cent. of the Anglo-Saxon gander.
As the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, reminded us, if you add together the three populations of the metropolitan areas proposed in the Commission's Report, and if you add the two further metropolitan areas proposed in the White Paper to the G.L.C. area, you end up with 42 per cent. of the population of this country, which will be involved in a two-tier structure. If, therefore, the proposals for Scotland and Wales are accepted, more than one-half of the population will have a two-tier structure. That suggests that there is nothing sacrosanct about the unitary principle. My nagging doubts therefore remain.
I believe that the Royal Commission themselves must have entertained such nagging doubts, and that is why we find in Chapter 9 of the Royal Commission's Report their proposals for local councils. I must confess that those proposals have always struck me, as they have struck the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, as the skinniest part of that Report. That is one reason why I regret that we have not heard the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, this afternoon; I was hoping she could add real flesh and blood to that part of the Commission's Report.
Most of us would agree about the importance of the local element here—of the potential of parish councils, of local amenity bodies, of neighbourhood and community councils, and so on. Yet the Commission's ideas—some of which are reflected in the Government's proposals— strike me as open to very real question. In the first place I find it hard to accept, like other noble Lords, that the same principles should apply for a small parish council or group of parish councils as apply for great cities like Bristol, Bath or Exeter. Equally, I find it difficult to

669
accept that the same principles and structure should apply for small parish councils, or a group of parish councils, that apply for even smaller cities and towns, but still historic ones: the Yorks, Canterburys and Winchesters of this country. It seems to me odd that we are at the moment still unclear whether the system of local councils will be applied in a unitary form to these towns and cities of which I have spoken; whether there should be one local council or a plethora of local councils.
Then there are the powers. I should like to refer to only one unitary area, Area 44, which was referred to in another place in the debate there a week or so ago. That unitary area embraces three main towns or cities, great urban areas, Ipswich, Colchester and Bury St. Edmunds. By 1981 it is estimated that Ipswich will have a population of 380,000, Colchester 312,000, and Bury St. Edmunds 150,000. As I see it, according to the Government's proposals, those great urban areas will all have much the same powers as local councils, as will a parish council or group of councils. I cannot believe that that is right.
By the same token, I am inclined to believe that the Government themselves have had nagging doubts here. Hence their proposal for district committees. This is a proposal which has been strongly criticised in your Lordships' House in the two days of this debate, and it is a proposal which I cannot believe will meet the demand, which is very strong, for a real involvement of those most concerned below the level of the unitary authorities themselves. I hope that in this area, the lower echelon, below the unitary authority, the Government will preserve a more open mind than they seem to have at the present time, because I cannot convince myself, for all the logic and virtue which may be found in the unitary principle, that the answer is correct here in this area at the present time.
I suggest that the eventual solution might lie somewhat along the following lines. First, that beneath the main authority, the senior authority, in the unitary area we could have junior, albeit elected, authorities. I am not concerned about one tier or two tiers. What I am concerned about is that the second echelon should be elected. Secondly, I hope that
670
really substantial powers would be entrusted to that less senior authority. A glance at the Royal Commission's Report, paragraphs 3S7 to 389 on page 102, shows that the Commission themselves felt that in one vitally important field—housing—these local councils should have a very real measure of responsibility. I therefore hope that a very real measure of responsibility will be entrusted to an elected second echelon.
Thirdly, there is the question of the boundaries. If we are to have an elected second echelon of authorities, with substantial and real, albeit subsidiary, powers, in the unitary areas, I cannot see any reason at all why the boundaries of this echelon of less senior authorities should not follow, broadly speaking, the boundaries which we know to-day; the boundaries of our historic towns and cities, on the one hand, and the boundaries of grouped or amalgamated district councils, on the other. I should have thought that some such system could, with good will, be worked out, and worked out without driving a horse and cart through either the Royal Commission's proposals or the proposals in the White Paper. All I myself hope—and here I wish to express the strongest possible hope—is that the Government will not look at this matter in a dogmatic or theocratic cast of mind, but will remain flexible and will recognise that their proposals and the proposals of the Royal Commission in this particular area have aroused deep disquiet and that there is still a consensus which could well be found.
My Lords, to sum up, I should like to recognise three needs here. The first is the need for speed. We need to move on, and to move on quite fast. As my noble friend Lord Ilford has said, local government has been too long in doubt about its future. That doubt should not remain unresolved too long. Secondly, there is the need for due consideration. I would urge that the Government should wait for the further evidence, the evidence of Crowther and the evidence of the Green Paper on Finance, before taking final decisions on the structure. I would also, in the context of the need for due consideration, ask them to look again very carefully at some of the proposed boundaries, in particular around the fringe of the metropolitan areas in the North-West, and, above all, at the point to which I have just been addressing

671
myself: the structure for the lower echelons of the unitary authority, where many of us entertain very real doubts about the present proposed solution. Those doubts have been voiced all around your Lordships' House.
There is a third need which is the need for consensus, the need to which I referred at the start of my too long remarks; that is, in a vital matter of this kind, the desirability of seeking a broad consensus before going forward if what is decided is going to stick and be stable. I myself believe that if the Government find a reasonable compromise between the need for speed and the need for due consideration there is a reasonable prospect of finding that broad consensus which would permit us all to have an enduring and successful reform of local government in this country. And that is the aim which all of us ardently desire.
6.33 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has made a speech which I am quite sure he intended to be helpful and which I believe was helpful. But he has not been able, any more than this debate has been able, to solve some of the underlying problems which still confront us. We have had a very good debate. A vast number of topics has been covered. The idea that I could, in a winding-up speech, come to any kind of finality on many of the issues which have been raised would be foolish. One of the things the debate has shown is the extent to which local government is really the forcing ground of so much of our political life.
Almost without exception (and I con-fess that I am one of the exceptions, though no Member of another place working in his constituency can fail to be deeply conscious and involved in the work of local government) noble Lords who have spoken in this debate have had a long and varied experience of local government. I must admit that if I were an observer just turning up from Mars, or from America or some other place, and had listened to this debate, I should not know where I would have come from and where I was going to, because the range of experience that has been referred to indicates the variety of our national life, the nature of the problem we are confronted with and the difficulty
672
in arriving at any solution which will produce what the noble Earl so eloquently pleaded for: a true consensus. None the less, it is right that we should try to seek this.
I must admit that, listening to this debate, I was reminded of much of the discussions that we have been having elsewhere —and noble Lords will realise that it is not possible to discuss what goes on in Government Committees. But so much of the ground is familiar; I have heard so many of the arguments before; I myself have wavered so much on the different points. But at the end of the day we must arrive at some kind of decision, and I believe it is important to do so with reasonable despatch. I do not believe we can seek the degree of agreement which might postpone decisions in an area which I believe is more important to the good government of this country than practically any other single reform we can think of.
The noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, of course made a notable speech. I share the views of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in his regret that we were not able to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, to supplement and, as I hope, reinforce the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud. The object which the Government are seeking, and which I think we are all agreed is the right objective, is to reform the main structure of local government and to create a new pattern of authorities capable of meeting the needs not only of the 1970s but of the decades to follow.
I would say here and now—and in any event it must be apparent from this debate—that the Government do not expect to obtain any easy popularity out of this issue. I hope we shall not arouse quite the fury that the noble Earl succeeded in arousing over London government; and, if I may say so, his remarks were moderate when I think of some of the things said to him during the notable debates on that subject. There is no easy recipe, either, for the solution of our problems or for popularity in Government. Yet at some point the Government must come to a decision; and they ought not to delay the decision too long.
We have the massive work of the Royal Commission, and we are proposing that over most of the country the main work

673
of local government shall be in the hands of unitary authorities whose areas will reflect the interdependence of town and country—and as I say that sentence I know that I am arousing arguments and feelings of all kinds—but we believe this is necessary and desirable, where it is possible. Certain areas have to be planned as single units but are too big for the unitary administration of the personal social services and for a number of other local government functions. Here we accept that there should be two tiers of operational authorities. The Government are showing a great deal of flexibility in this matter. We can be chided with indecisiveness; we can be chided with making our minds up too quickly, or we can be chided because we have not brought everything in front of the House. We are always, inevitably, in any area of reform of government trapped in a labyrinth in which there are all sorts of ways in which one can go and all kinds of influences that need to be brought to bear.
We are convinced of the virtues of a single tier of operational local government. I do not want to traverse the ground already covered, but I hope your Lordships will recall what the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, said when he spoke last week. I was immensely impressed by his description of how the Commission had started off with two basic presumptions. The first was: that the division between counties and county boroughs should be ended—and, as somebody who represented a county borough for many years in another place, I confess that I started off with a prejudice that every county borough man has. The second presumption was that a two-tier system of local government will have to continue in some form or other. This was the starting point of the Royal Commission, and it was also the starting point of many of the speeches of noble Lords on both sides of the House. He then went on to describe how the Commission became more and more impressed by the strong and growing links between all the main Government services and the need for a substantial population base of at least a quarter of a million people to support each of the main services. They came to apply these principles to the map of England, and they found they were able —building so far as possible on existing
674
local government units—to recommend strong, all-purpose authorities of the right population size for all but three parts of England outside London.
I was glad that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, finished their speeches by expressing an open-minded approach to this problem. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said that while he was not happy about either the proposals of the Commission or those of the Government about local councils he felt some doubt about the right solution. The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, said that the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, had nearly led him to tear up his own notes—rather an un-likely thing for another "Pied Piper", as the noble Viscount called him. I believe the noble Lord may be better aware of the philosophy behind the Commission's proposals. In particular the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, brought out first, how much the local council of a biggish, tightly-knit community will be able to do. Secondly, he showed the logic which brought his Commission round from their initial supposition that two tiers of local government were needed everywhere.
If I may, I should like to use a distinction which some noble Lords may feel a little imprecise but I think is a useful shorthand method of trying to describe the role of different authorities. The crux is whether there should be two sets of authorities everywhere to govern. For the bulk of the country the Commission favour the idea that there should be one tier to govern and another with certain powers to act and advise. It was pointed out that there would be serious loss— this was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud—in intelligibility to the public and therefore democracy, as a result of dividing up responsibility for the government, and the weakness that this revision inevitably means for local government. I agree with him on this point. I do not think that in this day and age local government can afford the amount of division which exists to-day, and which I think is implicit in those who still want to preserve much of the old system.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, pointed out that for acting and advising in the interests of

675
strongly localised communities, local councils of the kind favoured by the Commission will be better designed than units intended to take a hand in governing. For modern government the latter would inevitably be larger and less local, and although many of us know how useful and vital a parish can be, the extension of the concept to larger communities which is this concept of the local council, is a bold one, and I believe it takes some time to adjust one's mind to it, as we found when we were discussing this in the Government. Even now the Government believe that the White Paper shows that there is much more work to be done with the help of local government in translating it into practical terms. That is what a lot of the discussion is about.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will allow me to make one point? I do not think anyone who has spoken in the debate, and certainly no one I have heard, has suggested that the present degree of fragmentation of local government would be a good thing to continue. But there seems to be a great deal of room between the present situation and that which is proposed. Personally, I think it might be helpful if we were to think in terms of the new authorities not being unitary but main authorities. That is something I mentioned in my speech, and I should have thought that it exactly reflected the aim that many noble Lords who have spoken had in their minds.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I take the noble Viscount's point, but I am dealing with a complicated argument which it is difficult to get clear in my own mind, let alone to expound it, and if I may I will go on with that argument. I accept what the noble Viscount has said. What I am endeavouring to say is that I believe that first reactions to the concept of local councils are inevitably critical because it appears to be an imprecise and rather unfamiliar concept except to those who are particularly familiar with the work of parish councils. I hope that noble Lords will have given this a little more consideration, bearing in mind that we are going to have discussions on this also with the local authorities, and I believe some noble Lords will subsequently come round to this idea.
676
Before advocating, as many noble Lords have done, that local government should continue everywhere to be divided vertically, one should think twice or three times and make sure that one really has digested the thinking that led the Commissioners to propose what they have in fact proposed, in spite of their preconceptions to the contrary.
My Lords, I know that there is an argument that what must be right for one part of the United Kingdom, namely, Scotland or Wales must also be right for England. I make no apology—and I should have hoped that the Liberals would have seen the point of this—for different solutions. It is made very clear to those who consider that we ought not to say there is only one right solution; this appears in the White Paper in quotation marks, "there is no single right solution". I can only say that we have come to the view that the nature and distribution of population and employment in England lead to the sort of solution that the Redcliffe-Maud Committee put forward.
As to the metropolitan areas, my Lords, the arguments rest primarily on the need to establish strong authorities to deal comprehensively with planning and transportation, housing policies and education over the whole of the five great areas that are described in the White Paper. We have thought it right in these areas to follow the Royal Commission in recommending a second-tier metropolitan district to deal with housing, the personal social services and all the other Government functions which are set out in Appendix C to the White Paper. But I would remind your Lordships that here, too, we have thought it necessary to go to districts of a substantial size, of up-wards of a quarter of a million where-ever possible. We believe that districts of this general size will be necessary to create effective housing and social service authorities.
There are those who will chide us with seeking efficiency at the price of democracy. That is a perfectly valid point, but equally we shall have to take a decision as to where efficiency and democracy can best be served. I believe passionately that democracy will be better served if one can improve efficiency in local government, and I do not

677
believe that there will be any dispute between us on this point.
Therefore, my Lords, I believe that our proposals are clear. They are in line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I have listened most carefully to what noble Lords have said in favour of a much wider two-tier system, but I am still far from clear—and I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, with the greatest respect—about what noble Lords who want a two-tier system have in mind, either in size of area, size of population or division of functions. It is, I think, wise of them not to commit themselves too precisely. At some stage decisions have to be taken. Therefore, I hope that the closer study which we shall be able to make following this debate will convince them, as it convinced the Royal Commission, that a unitary system is indeed right where it is possible.
I could reply—and I was rather tempted to do so—in kind to some of Lord Brooke's more Party political remarks, but I think it so important that I should try to approach this in as unpartisan a mood as possible that I will not in fact do so. But I should like to urge him to consider some of the arguments and to realise that there is a very strong, and to my mind compelling, case for having authorities of a certain size, and if we are to move to a different sort of solution then I think we shall inevitably have to put the clock back for a very long while. If we go back on the Royal Commission and the White Paper and seek a two-tier solution, I am afraid that it will mean going right back to the beginning. We should have to start again on considering the areas and the boundaries of the two-tier authorities; we should have to work out the division of functions between them and we should have to embark again on the lengthy process of collection of views and consultation on the proposals. I am absolutely certain that at the end we should have no more general agreement on the proposals than we have now. If the two-tier system won support among the county councils it would be deplored by the great county boroughs. If Lancashire was preserved—and I well understand the argument of those who lament the decision with regard to Lancashire and Cheshire—would Blackpool and Preston
678
and Burnley and Blackburn welcome the status of county districts? Wherever we turn we run into controversy.
I should like to know what is to be gained by seeking to preserve two tiers everywhere. 1 think the two main arguments that have been deployed are that we could then achieve a more evolutionary approach, building on what we have now and causing less disruption, and that there would be less remoteness and more democracy. I do not believe that a reformed two-tier system could be introduced with any less disruption and loss of continuity than the present Government reforms would lead to. It has been suggested in some quarters that the object should be to have districts with populations somewhere in the 60,000 to 100,000 range. I would ask your Lordships to consider the realities of the figures. Only 55 of the present 1,086 county districts have a population of over 60,000; only four have a population of over 100,000. There would have to be wholesale groupings and amalgamations. What about the county boroughs? Forty-nine of them have populations of over 100,000; 20 over 200,000, and nine over 300,000. Would they be incorporated as demoted districts, or would they be divided? And what about the 10 counties with populations under a quarter of a million: would they be suitable for top tier authorities?
The fact is that any worthwhile reform is going to involve very extensive redrawing of boundaries and discontinuity from existing authorities. The Royal Commission and the White Paper have shown every consideration for existing boundaries and loyalties where it is possible to do so. The most valuable thing that can be done to preserve the continuity and momentum of local government is, in my view, not to debate and re-examine the matter indefinitely but to grasp the nettle firmly and implement the reforms the Government have put forward.
The hour is getting late. I should have liked to go at some further length into the question of district committees. The new main authorities will be administering all the main services over quite large areas, and for quite large populations. They will certainly need to decentralise, and they will need to have local offices for people to go to on all the matters on which they will have to have dealings

679
with the main authority. It is our view —and this I say in reply to those who suggest that this Government is always dictating to local authorities—that it is for the new authorities to make what arrangements they think fit in this matter, and I think it would be wrong, if it can be avoided, for central Government to wish to control the internal organisation of these new authorities, unless it is absolutely necessary.
We believe that in conjunction with administrative decentralisation it will be highly desirable to arrange for local people to be able to take a part in the administration of some services in their areas. We already have some rather limited experience (I do not think many people know of this and certainly I was not aware of it) of the kind of arrangement that already exists in some counties where district committees, composed of members of the county council and of the county districts, deal with planning control. The way in which these schemes operate may give us some useful guidance in developing the new district committee proposals. But the new district committees will be more directly integrated with the work of the main authorities and we hope that this will avoid the dangers of frustration and conflict which the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, saw in the proposals.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, asked what procedure we would have for consulting local authorities, and this bore mainly on the question of boundaries. I do not think I can add anything more than is suggested in the White Paper. Clearly, there will have to be extensive consultation. I hope it will not be necessary to take too long over it, and I think it would be wrong to have a forensic style of inquiry. I think the noble Earl would himself agree about this. The noble Lord, Lord Grimston, also raised the question as to whether main authorities should be required to consult local councils about proposals—and this is another form of consultation—which particularly affect their areas. We believe that this is necessary and it will be one of the ways in which local people will be able to take part in the planning and provision of services, and the right to be consulted must be real and not nominal. But equally the arrangements in this area
680
must not be so rigid that they defeat their object.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, if I may intervene, I must say that I am really amazed to hear that the position will be left so vague as to how the boundaries are to be dealt with. I am wondering whether, when the noble Lord asks us to change our minds on various matters, we shall be given any opportunity to change our minds. Has he any intention of submitting to Parliament any of the matters which are left so vague— the question of finance, the system of determining boundaries and some matters about these local councils which the noble Lord says should be left entirely to the unitary authorities?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Viscount slightly anticipates me on matters I am coming to. I do not see why he should be angry because the Government wish to carry out consultation and listen to what noble Lords and local authorities have to say. I have made it very clear that the concept of district committees is a new and experimental one; it has been conducted in certain areas, but we want to talk to the local authorities about it. When we have done so we shall come back and report further. I wish to emphasise that whereas certain parts of the proposals which my noble friend Lord Kennet spelled out are firm, there are other areas where we intend to have extensive consultations.
I shall not, I fear, have time to deal with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. I am inclined only to say that I should hesitate to talk about the "Crowther corset"; it is rather more the "Crowther crown". The Government have deliberately decided, I think rightly, to proceed with the reform of local authorities as urgently and as quickly as possible. On the matter of remoteness and the need for local involvement, may I say that it is not true that the unitary authorities proposed by the Government are going to be larger or more distant than anything we know to-day. We have remarkably little evidence for the assertion that a second tier of districts is somehow going to bring local government miraculously closer to local people and local communities. We believe that within the local community concerned with amenities, and in the sort of work that the district committees will

681
do, is the right area for special local involvement.
I would now turn to another important point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, and others: the question of areas and boundaries. The details of the new map of the main units will arouse the keenest interest. Indeed, it is obvious that they arouse a great deal of controversy. That is inevitable, but it is also the reason why we shall be arranging full consultations. Certain decisions have been made clear. The Government have settled that there should be five areas outside London with a two-tier structure, and that elsewhere responsibility for services will be concentrated in the hands of unitary authorities. Those are firm decisions.
The Government agree with the Commission about the size of the unitary areas and the metropolitan districts. The Government also agree that the Commission were right to draw the boundaries of the metropolitan areas widely—the hem argument that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, raised. But, subject to those conclusions, we shall be open to alternative suggestions about the pattern of unitary areas. I should like to remind your Lordships that the White Paper says explicitly that the Government do not exclude the possibility of joining certain of these areas together if, in the course of further consultation with the authorities concerned, strong arguments for doing so should emerge. Those were points that the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, and my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy made.
I would make it clear that whether the proposal is to join Northumberland and Tyneside (a most difficult area on which to take decisions) or two parts of Surrey, these are matters on which I can obviously make no—
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I intervene? The noble Lord mentioned the Northern Counties and talked about drawing boundaries. If parts of Northumberland found that the system proposed in Scotland was much more to their liking, would they be able to join with Scotland?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think that is a most attractive concept; but I shall not be crossing the national boundaries at the moment. There are
682
those who have made certain suggestions, but it would be most unwise for me to pursue them in this matter. I am dealing particularly with Lord Gage's point, because I think it was he who interrupted my noble friend Lord Kennet, and I hope that I have given him a clear answer. We see no case in which a proposed unitary area, considered on its own, could merely be divided into two. We shall also be open to suggestions concerning the pattern, and even perhaps the number, of metropolitan districts which ought to be established in each of the conurbations. I do not think I can hold out any hope that we shall be prepared to consider such drastic restrictions of the metropolitan areas as would be involved in confining them tightly to the built-up areas of the conurbations. On the other hand, certainly I should like to assure the Lord Lieutenant of Lancashire, my noble friend Lord Rhodes, that the division of the district of Saddleworth is a matter that can be looked at in the boundary consultation.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, I understand from what my noble friend is now saying that he would also be prepared to look at the position of the Yorkshire metropolitan area, by adding the other two areas to the five already proposed.
LORD SHACKLETON: No, my Lords, I did not say that. I think I had better be a little cautious at this point and not make promises that I cannot fulfil. Concern was voiced about the disappearance of Lancashire and Cheshire. We acknowledge that these are councils of the highest esteem. But it is not possible to reform the present structure and yet keep it in being as it is. If we are to achieve the new pattern as a whole, I am afraid that we must accept the consequences in particular areas.
Noble Lords spoke of the disadvantages of dividing the central part of Lancashire into four separate parts. May I remind the House that there are at present four county boroughs and some forty districts in this area, all operating separately. Any Lancashire M.P. who has not been confined purely to a county borough will know the wide range, both in size and nature, of the different districts, and it is rather difficult against that background to talk about fragmentation of Lancashire.

683
May I deal with one very sensitive subject which raises the question of local government loyalties? The White Paper is concerned with administrative arrangements for local government. It is true that the present county councils will disappear; but county councils as we know them are comparatively modern creations. At quieter moments during the debate I have been looking again at the Local Government Act 1888. There must be people alive to-day who were born before the first county councils were ever elected. The ancient division of the country into separate counties goes back many centuries before county councils were thought of; and, indeed, counties have a legal existence to-day for purposes other than local government. It may be that the local government changes will affect these other functions which are based on countries. That is why the White Paper says that we shall need to look at the Lieutenancies, and at the matter of the High Sheriffs and the administration of justice.
But quite apart from any changes we may make for local government purposes or in these other fields, counties are geographical parts of England which exist in their own right. They do not depend on the Government, whatever its complexion. Durham and Northumber-land, Kent—and indeed, Lancashire and Cheshire and Westmorland—are parts of England which will claim their loyalties whatever we do about the areas for the administration of local government services. People who to-day regard themselves as native sons of Devon, or Hereford, or Norfolk, do not need the Government's permission to continue doing so, and I cannot see them changing in this respect just because we alter the machinery of local government.
I had intended to say a word on the subject of aldermen, and on members, and their expenses and allowances. But I think I will pass on to the subject of taxation, because this concerns matters of financial control and is crucial. The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, took a very good point when he suspected that the financial stringency of the last ten years was responsible for a good many of the controls that we have had to operate over that period. When local government expenditure amounts to 15 per cent. of the gross national product, central Gov-
684
ernment cannot abandon all control of this enormous block of expenditure, which must have a very significant effect on the economy as a while. And when, as in recent years, there has been particular need to control the public expenditure share of the national product, and to ration the fiercely competitive claims of the many services for which local government is responsible, there has been the more need to maintain controls over local authority expenditure.
We believe, however, that there is a good deal of room for more freedom for local decision on how the total resources available to local government should be used, and on the relative priorities to be given to various functions. In particular, the Government intend to relax the irksome details of the present system of control over local authority borrowing, even in advance of local government re-organisation. We intend to replace detailed control over borrowing for individual projects with control over the total capital programme for the more important sectors of the major services. We shall have a Green Paper—and, let me stress, my Lords, that it will be a Green Paper, and will be open to debate and discussion. I want to emphasise that we are trying to approach this whole problem in an atmosphere of debate and discussion.
It is not only financial controls that cause problems: some of the non-financial controls are in some ways even more irritating. There is on the Statute Book a whole mass of minor, and sometimes obsolete, controls over local authorities which will be entirely inappropriate in the new local government system, and we have asked for the assistance of the local authority associations in examining those, with a view to giving the new authorities considerably more freedom of manœuvre. We also intend to discuss with the associations the scope for a revised and extended general power for authorities to spend money for the benefit of the areas. We believe that the best answer to this is to be found in the creation of strong local authorities, with the necessary powers and areas to enable them to cope with the big tasks that need tackling. The freedom which we believe should come in important areas to local government will come much more easily when there are fewer, bigger and stronger local authorities.

685
My noble friend Lord Fiske, gave examples of how Governments have matters pushed up to them because there are defects in the system of local government. It is very much in the interests both of national and local government that there should be a reduction in this amount of control. I am concerned, as is the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, to keep the numbers of public servants, whether in local authorities or in the Civil Service (which is a particular responsibility of mine), as low and as efficiently employed as possible. This is an important contribution towards this end. My Lords, we have delayed a long
686
time, and we have now had a Royal Commission who have made the most thorough and comprehensive study of local government in this country that we have ever had. We have had consultations and debates, and we shall go on having further consultations and debates; but we shall not delay. The Government, having reached their conclusions on the main structure, believe that we must carry them through as quickly as possible.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past seven o'clock.