Sitting of 24 February 1972

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

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday, 9th March.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Detergents (Labelling)
    Mr. Luceasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now studied the illustration on a recently marketed detergent, details of which have been supplied to him, in view of the danger it presents to children; and what action he will take.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): The manufacturers have modified the label. I see no need for further action.
    Mr. Luce: Does my hon. Friend agree that although this dish-washing liquid is thought to be only slightly toxic it is still dangerous for children to drink it and that, in view of this, although the manufacturers have added the words "For washing up" on the front of the container, the illustration of the lemon constitutes a danger to small children? Will he therefore reconsider this and take appropriate action?
    Mr. Sharples: The manufacturers have been co-operative about this. I understand that on the more recent containers
    1466
    the illustration of the lemon is almost obliterated by the words "2½p off".

    Magistrates' Courts
    Mr. Michael Cocksasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now expects to make a statement on the future organisation of magistrates' courts.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): Shortly.
    Mr. Cocks: I thank the Home Secretary for that very comprehensive reply but I would point out that he gave an undertaking to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) that this statement would be made before the end of the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill and I understand that this matter will begin to be discussed next Thursday. Can we have an indication that the Committee will not waste its time by not having this information before the end of the Committee stage?
    Mr. Maudling: The statement will be made not later than the appropriate part of the Committee stage of the Bill.
    Mr. John Fraser: When the Home Secretary makes the statement will he also deal with the areas of the probation service and say whether the new areas are to be coterminous with the new local authority areas?
    Mr. Maudling: I will bring that to the notice of my hon. Friend who is in charge of the Committee proceedings.

    Firearms (Trespass in Buildings)
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will express as a percentage of the maximum penalty the average fine imposed by the courts in implementing Section 20(1) of the Firearms Act, 1968, relating to trespassing with a firearm in a building.
    Mr. Sharples: Between 1st August, 1968, and the end of 1970 the average fine imposed on summary conviction in England and Wales for this offence was just over 4 per cent. of the maximum. There were two convictions on indictment, the penalty imposed in each case being imprisonment.
    Mr. Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply but can he say what is the point of Parliament laying down maxima for these very serious offences when they are so consistently ignored by the courts?
    Mr. Sharples: These are matters for the courts. It would be a serious matter to impinge on their authority by imposing minimum sentences. As my hon. Friend knows, this matter has been discussed in Standing Committee.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Would it be possible to have a sentencing conference because, given the nature of the cases involved, the figure of 4 per cent. is extraordinarily low?
    Mr. Sharples: Of course we do not know the circumstances of the various cases, but under the Criminal Justice Bill the maximum penalties for this type of offence are being increased and I have no doubt that the courts will take that into account.

    Prison Visits (Care of Children)
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of prisons at which provision exists for the care of young children while prison visits are taking place.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): Most prisons in England and Wales are able to provide some facilities for mothers visiting with young children. Twenty-four have special accommodation available in which children can be left in care during the visit.
    Mr. Cox: I very much welcome that reply but I am sure the Under-Secretary is aware of the difficulties experienced by many women, especially those with young children, in making prison visits, particularly if they have to travel a long way. Can the Under-Secretary therefore try to encourage discussion with prison governors and local voluntary organisations to extend this provision to as many prisons as possible?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am aware of the difficulties and the need to improve visiting facilities generally, and that we are attempting to do within the resources available.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Would the Under-Secretary also look at the rules that apply to the relations between prisoners and their young children? I appreciate the difficulties concerning category A prisoners but as regards some category B and category C prisoners the rules seem to be very strictly interpreted.
    Mr. Carlisle: I have always understood that the problem was with category A prisoners but I will look at the point that the hon. Lady has made.

    Probation Service
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications there were to join the probation service in 1966 and how many of these applicants were accepted for training; and what were the equivalent figures for 1970 and 1971.
    Mr. Carlisle: In 1966, 4,031 persons applied for, and 256 were offered, probation training sponsored by the Home Office. The corresponding figures in 1970 were 2,861 and 429, and in 1971, 4,595 and 503. An offer of training would not in all cases have been made in the same year as the application for training.
    Mr. Mitchell: In view of the increasingly difficult problems with which probation officers have to deal, is the hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that the quality of the intake is being maintained?
    Mr. Carlisle: Yes, indeed, Sir. The number of those accepted is still a fairly small proportion of those who apply.

    B.B.C. (Northern Ireland Programme)
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations were made by him to the British Broadcasting Corporation prior to the broadcasting of the Ulster programme presided over by Lord Devlin; with what result; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maudling: I explained to the Chairman of the Governors and the Director-General of the B.B.C. that in my view the programme, in the way in which it had been devised, could do no good and might do serious harm.

    1469
    Responsibility for the content of programmes must remain with the broad casting authorities.
    Mr. King: Is not the position that there is no censorship of the B.B.C.—and no Member wants it—but equally there is no censorship over what Members of Parliament say? Is it not a fact that over the past 20 months the number of political blunders by the B.B.C., ranging from "Yesterday's Men" through "The World at One" to the present blunder, is so great that we begin to lose confidence in the organisation, its constitution and perhaps even those who run it?
    Mr. Maudling: It is true that there is no censorship of the media. It is open to hon. Members to express their views, including, I hope, the Home Secretary from time to time.
    Mr. William Price: Is it not clear that whatever hon. Members may say in the House a number of them were engaged on this issue in a form of censorship of the B.B.C.? If I am right, are they not straying upon extremely dangerous ground? Will the right hon. Gentleman say that over the years, allowing for the occasional lapse, the B.B.C. has a remarkable record of objectivity and responsibility and that it can manage quite well without continual interference from either side of the House?
    Mr. Maudling: That is not stating the matter quite accurately. Hon. Members must be entitled to express their views without being accused of trying to impose a censorship.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while nobody on this side, as far as I know, is asking for censorship of any kind, many believe that his reply to the B.B.C. in regard to the programme in question was eminently sensible, that he wished to avoid the dangers of instant political attitudes being debated which could harm the future, and that there was on the programme an instance of exactly that happening, which will make talks without prior conditions much more difficult for everyone concerned, much to the detriment of both communities of Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Maudling: I think my views were justified, but all Members think the same thing about their views.

    Northern Ireland
    Mr. Duffyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on his latest discussions with the Northern Ireland Government on internment policy.
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make a statement on the discussions he has undertaken to hold with the Northern Ireland Government concerning internment.
    Mr. Maudling: My discussions with the Northern Ireland Government are not yet completed.
    Mr. Duffy: Is the Home Secretary aware that it is being reported that internees are conducting classes in guerrilla tactics, revolutionary warfare, weaponry, Marxist idealogy and other germane topics and that although not all may have been hard-core I.R.A. men on entry the probability is that most of them will be after a few months' internment? In view of the many unkind remarks being directed towards him, does the right hon. Gentleman also wish it to be said with a good deal more truth that he is now providing the I.R.A., however unwittingly, with the best officer training camps it could wish to have?
    Mr. Maudling: The administration of internment camps is entirely a matter for the Government of Northern Ireland, not me. I am getting used to unkind remarks about myself.
    Mr. Davis: Has the Home Secretary's attention been drawn to the article by Mr. Marcel Berlins in The Times of 9th February in which he expressed the views about internment of Protestant and Roman Catholic lawyers, many of whom had serious doubts about the powers being taken under the Special Powers Act? A number of people acquitted by courts have been arrested immediately afterwards under the Act. Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention also been drawn to the remarks and reflections made by a judge in Northern Ireland in the case of Moore v. the Chief Constable of Ulster concerning the tactics adopted

    1471
    in that case by the Crown? Are not these matters which induce contempt for the legal process of that country?
    Mr. Maudling: There is no question of contempt for the legal process. I try to study all the many things said about the position in Northern Ireland. I do not agree with a large number of them. I must stress that the Northern Ireland Government are constitutionally responsible for law and order and the conduct of the internment camps.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Has my right hon. Friend noted the recent tragic assassination of a Crown witness? Will he bear in mind the very real problem of protecting witnesses?
    Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir. This is a very important factor of which the House is well aware.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Bearing in mind a problem which hon. Members from Northern Ireland see at first hand, will the Home Secretary look again at the possibility of having a judicial review, because internment outside the law is offensive and damaging to the good name of this country in many parts of the world?
    Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir, but the advisory committee that examines every case is already presided over by a judge.
    Mr. McMaster: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the amount of explosives used and the number of incidents and attempted assassinations in Northern Ireland has fallen since internment was introduced?
    Mr. Maudling: I heard something about this in yesterday's debate. I could not give the figures without notice, and they would need a certain amount of interpretation, because it is not easy to draw deductions from simple statistics on these matters.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the nature of the new political initiatives he intends to take on the Northern Ireland problem.
    Mr. Croninasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on what further pro
    1472
    gress he has made with the Northern Ireland Government towards achieving a permanent and guaranteed share of political authority for the Catholic minority in Ulster.
    Mr. Maudling: I am not in a position to add to what I said in the debate on 1st February.
    Mr. Hamilton: Although the House would not expect the right hon. Gentleman either to confirm or deny rumours in the Press on these matters, will he give a straight "Yes" or "No" to the question whether a new political initiative is imminent?
    Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that I cannot confirm or deny rumours in the Press. I should have a very busy life if I tried to do so. The Government are clearly considering all possible courses of action. Beyond that it would be unwise for me to go.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Do I take it from that reply that my right hon. Friend and the Home Office are considering my Private Member's Bill?
    Mr. Maudling: I assure my hon. Friend that we are considering all courses of action, but I cannot comment on the detail.
    Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the dreadful events which took place at Aldershot this week and in Derry recently will not lead to initiatives not being taken because of a feeling of revulsion to such events? Is it not clear that these events emphasise that the time has arrived for the Government to take a definite political initiative?
    Mr. Maudling: The timing and content, which are equally important in many ways, of any political initiative, should it be made, should not depend on particular incidents.
    Mr. Buck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of us hope that the recent and awful atrocities will not put back the possibility of a political initiative which will be acceptable to the majority as well as to the minority in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Maudling: Every atrocity that is perpetrated stresses the need for a settlement. I say again, as I have said so often,

    1473
    that the best and only lasting settlement must come by agreement.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Although timing is of the essence, will the Home Secretary bear in mind the helpful initiative taken by the Eirean Prime Minister at his party conference last weekend?
    Mr. Maudling: I think we all read with great interest what was said by Mr. Lynch on that occasion, and appreciate the difficulties which he is facing.
    Mr. Cronin rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Butler, next Question.
    Mr. Cronin: On a point of order—
    Mr. Speaker: I cannot allow an hon. Member to ask a supplementary question on an answer which he has not heard.

    Football Grounds (Safety)
    Mr. William Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the Wheatley report on safety at football grounds.
    Mr. Sharples: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) on 17th January.—[Vol. 829, c. 69.]
    Mr. Price: Will the Minister give the matter urgent attention? Since the Ibrox disaster there has been a number of reports of incidents involving crowd safety at football matches. Does not the hon. Gentleman regard it as somewhat strange that clubs which are happy to spend £150,000 on a player are often very reluctant to spend a few thousand pounds on improving their grounds? Will he call them together and spell out their responsibilities?
    Mr. Sharples: Clubs have had the advantage of the expert committee which was presided over by Mr. Walter Winter-bottom. A large number of clubs have taken advantage of his advice. I hope the Wheatley Report will be available towards the end of March or early in April.

    Pornography
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department having regard to the contents of the
    1474
    special report submitted to him on pornography and associated topics by Conservative Queen's Counsel and others some weeks ago, whether he will now introduce selective legislation to strengthen the law in this field.
    Mr. Maudling: I am examining these proposals, in conjunction with others that have been put to me and pronouncements made by the courts in certain recently decided cases; but I am not yet in a position to state the Government's attitude.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that what I have to say is said in the friendliest spirit, that we have now been examining the matter continuously since a Conservative Government came to office, and that the Motions on the Order Paper this Session by Conservative Members, backed by up to 80 Members, have evidently brought no response whatever from the Home Office while the cascade of filth and pornographic and obscene material continues unabated? Will my right hon. Friend please try to hurry up and not sit still and do nothing?
    Mr. Maudling: The police are responsible for enforcing the existing law, and they do it with considerable efficiency.
    Sir G. Nabarro: I quite agree—the existing law.
    Mr. Maudling: So far I have not seen any suggestion for legislation that convinces me that it will be an improvement on what already exists in an exceedingly difficult field of the law.
    Mr. MacLennan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Moral Welfare Committee of the Church of Scotland recently expressed concern about the problem? Will he invite it to submit to him evidence and suggestions for improvements in the law which might help him in his current studies?
    Mr. Maudling: I should certainly be most grateful for any help in this matter. The basic problem is how to define, in practical terms that a court can implement, what is indecent and what should be legally described as criminally indecent.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I recognise the difficulty of legislation and I realise my right hon. Friend's many preoccupations. Nevertheless, does he realise

    1475
    that many of my constituents feel that the Government are sleepwalking into a cesspit in this matter, and will he at least rope off some of the worst areas?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not think that roping off the worst areas of a cesspit is an appropriate activity for a Home Secretary. I must reject suggestions that we are not concerned with the problem. Equally, I must say that the problem is exceedingly difficult. Over many years succeeding Governments have been baffled by the difficulty not of establishing what in common sense people think is indecent but what in law can be made a criminal offence.
    Mr. John Fraser: Has the Home Secretary noticed the extremely welcome decrease of 12½ per cent. in crimes against women in London? There is a great deal of speculation about the reasons. I make no prejudgment, but would the right hon. Gentleman like to investigate the relationship between the drop in such offences and the permissiveness of the literature available—a sort of vicarious pleasure?
    Mr. Maudling: I have heard this argument used in support of the Danish attitude to these matters but I have never been convinced by the figures I have heard advanced.

    Jury Service (Women)
    Mr. Simeonsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to amend the rules relating to selection of jurors so as to increase the number of women listed as qualified for jury service.
    Mr. Carlisle: There are no such rules. Liability for jury service is in general governed by Section 1 of the Juries Act, 1825, which was studied by the Departmental Committee on Jury Service. My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make an announcement on the committee's recommendations.
    Mr. Simeons: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that many houses are in the names of wives, or husbands and wives jointly, yet the husbands fill in the returns and put their names first? Will he bring this to householders' notice?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am aware of that, but the legal qualification is for the person who is the rated occupier of property of a rateable value of not less than £20. Usually, the husband is looked upon as the person who is liable for paying the rates.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say when the next review of allowances for jurors is likely to take place? Is he aware of the great hardship suffered by some jurors?
    Mr. Carlisle: With respect, that does not arise out of this Question. There has been a review within the last 12 months, and I will look into the matter.

    Pakistan Citizens
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a further statement on the position of Pakistanis resident in Great Britain.
    Mr. Wilkinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to introduce legislation to amend the British Nationality Act, 1948 with a view to safeguarding the rights and status of Pakistan nationals now resident in the United Kingdom and to removing anomalies in the existing law.
    Mr. Maudling: I cannot at present add to my reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) on 3rd February.—[Vol. 830, c. 186.]
    Mr. Lane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in view of our previous undertakings to the people concerned, the Government's prompt repudiation of the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was very welcome?
    Mr. Maudling: It is important to be clear what the law is on these matters.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is concern in the Pakistani community about its exact position? A number of members of this community have been resident in this country for many years, and anything further that my right hon. Friend is able to say on the position of these people, especially the dependants, would be very

    1477
    welcome. I thank him for all he has already said in this respect.
    Mr. Maudling: I cannot add to the statement that they remain Commonwealth citizens unless and until the British Nationality Act, 1948, has been amended.

    Self-Service Laundries
    Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the dry cleaning code of practice for self-service laundries to become operative; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sharples: Copies of this code, which was published on 2nd February last, have been sent to the associations representing owners and operators of dry-cleaning establishments for distribution to their members. The trade is being encouraged to adopt the recommendations in the code as soon as practicable.
    Mrs. Butler: I welcome the code but, bearing in mind the deaths which have already occurred, will the Minister say whether provision is made in the code for large notices, giving the name and address of the supervisor who can be approached if the machine breaks down, to be prominently displayed and maintained near the machines? Does the code cover ventilation, and does it cover employees who may not be covered by the Factories Acts?
    Mr. Sharples: The best thing would be for me to send a copy of the code to the hon. Lady, as it is long and fairly complex.

    Discharge Hostels
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for the establishment of additional discharge hostels; how many new places will be provided; and what will be the capital cost over the next five years.
    Mr. Carlisle: After-care hostels are at present provided on the initiative of voluntary organisations. The Home Office makes grants towards running costs. It is hoped that about 200 more places will be made available each year. Capital costs incurred by the voluntary movement are of the order of £1,000 for each new place provided.
    Mrs. Short: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply, but does he recall that a Select Committee of this House four years ago recommended an increase in the number of discharge hostels and will his Department consider the cost benefit of providing more hostels for the resettlement of offenders after they have been discharged from prison?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am, of course, aware of the importance of hostels for discharged prisoners, particularly homeless prisoners. Grants from the Home Office are at present received by 119 hostels which provide 1,269 places. The number of places has been increasing at the rate of about 200 a year and we believe that the number will continue to increase at about that rate. Since we believe it to be important for voluntary organisations to be involved, that may be about the right speed.

    Parliamentary Constituencies
    Sir H. Harrisonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will give the average electorate of parliamentary constituencies in England, Wales and Scotland in which the next General Election will be fought according to the register of February, 1972;
    (2) if he will give the electorate of all the parliamentary constituencies in which the next General Election will be fought which on the register 1972–73 total over 80,000 and under 40,000.
    Mr. Sharples: I regret that the information is not yet available.
    Sir H. Harrison: Considering the length of time this Question has been down, it would surely have been quite easy to get the information. Would not my hon. Friend probably find that democracy is not working in that it takes many more voters to return a Member of Parliament in England than it does in Scotland? Will he bring in legislation to ensure that democracy works properly?
    Mr. Sharples: Leaving aside the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, the electoral register was published on 16th February this year, and this has to be processed and analysed. It is hoped

    1479
    that provisional figures will be available in about six weeks' time.
    Mr. Lipton: Does that answer mean that the Minister accepts the assumption that the next General Election will be fought on the 1972 register?
    Mr. Sharples: Not necessarily, by any means.

    Taxicabs (Stamp Report)
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsbergasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now proposes to implement the recommendations of the Stamp Report on taxicabs.
    Mr. Sharples: Consultations with interested bodies are continuing. It is too early to say when it will be possible for legislation to be introduced.
    Mr. Finsberg: Will my hon. Friend accept that the report was published in October, 1970, and London taxi drivers are disturbed at the lack of action on it because of the risk which the public are running in having to use possibly unlicensed and uninsured minicabs?
    Mr. Sharples: I appreciate the feeling of the trade about this, but a large number of consultations have to take place, and these are proceeding.

    Welsh Language
    Mr. Ellisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will send to all chief constables in Wales a copy of the preamble to the Welsh Language Act, 1967; and a copy of Section 5, subsection (3), of that Act.
    Mr. Sharples: They received copies of the Act when it was published.
    Mr. Ellis: Is the Home Secretary aware that it seems to be the practice of the Dyfed Powys police authority to insist on all its prosecutions being carried out in English, even when defendants and local courts want proceedings to be entirely in Welsh without use of interpreters? Is he further aware that statements such as that made by the Chief Constable of Dyfed Powys about English being the language of the courts, and what seems to be the pathological condition of Mr. Alun Roberts Thomas, senior prosecuting solicitor of the Dyfed Powys police autho-
    1480
    rity about the language, are certainly contrary to the spirit, and possibly the letter, of the Welsh Language Act? Will the Minister take steps to ensure that the law in respect of the use of the Welsh language in the courts of Wales is complied with?
    Mr. Sharples: I will look carefully into the particular case which the hon. Gentleman has raised.

    Criminals (Alcoholism)
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of crimes where alcohol is used as an excuse by the criminal; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Carlisle: This information is not collected by the Home Office.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that I intend to give information to the Home Office as a result of research carried out by Edinburgh University showing that in half the cases concerned the defence advanced as a reason for crimes, such as murder, has instanced alcohol as playing a significant part? In view of this research, is not the Minister prepared to put forward a proposal that centres should be set up in the community so that such people would be able to receive expert advice, and would not this go a long way to solve some of the problems?
    Mr. Carlisle: I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's view. I believe there is little doubt that drink clearly is a substantial factor in many offences, particularly those involving violent crime. We do not collect statistics of the number of cases in which this is put forward as an excuse. On the second part of the question, we are hoping to open further hostels for alcoholics.
    Mr. William Hannan: In view of the admitted relationship between high consumption of alcohol and crimes of violence, does not the Minister think it is high time that research into this matter should be undertaken and that a committee of inquiry should be set up to make recommendations on this subject?
    Mr. Carlisle: I do not know whether we would gain anything by having an inquiry into this matter. It is generally

    1481
    accepted that alcohol undoubtedly has an effect on the crime rate.

    Commonwealth Immigration
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a further statement about the rate of Commonwealth immigration.
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the current rate of Commonwealth immigration.
    Mr. Maudling: A total of 38,219 Commonwealth citizens were admitted for settlement in 1971. The number admitted in 1970 was 36,725. The increase is attributable to the decision to increase from 1st June, 1971, the number of vouchers for United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa. Excluding them, the numbers admitted were 29,886 in 1970 and 26,655 in 1971.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: As there was an increase in the number of United Kingdom passport holders coming into this country, why was there not a decrease elsewhere, as we were given to understand? Is not this increase entirely unacceptable at a time of high unemployment, industrial unrest, and subversive manipulation of coloured groups? Will my right hon. Friend declare a moratorium?
    Mr. Maudling: With respect to my hon. Friend, I feel that he must have misheard my answer. I said that, leaving aside the special case of the United Kingdom passport holders, there was a reduction of something over 3,000 in the numbers between 1970 and 1971.
    Mr. Boardman: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that the main problem of absorbing these additional numbers of immigrants continues to fall on certain cities which already have a high concentration of severe social problems?
    Mr. Maudling: The House has recognised that United Kingdom passport holders are a special case. There was an increase because we agreed not only to an increase in quota but to a special allocation last year which provides a hump in the statistics. Apart from the United Kindom passport holders, the
    1482
    numbers of people coming in are falling substantially because work vouchers were cut as from 1st June, 1971. As the work vouchers fall, so the number of dependants coming in will also fall.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Home Secretary aware that we support his interpretation of his statistics. However, we believe that the sad thing is that there was not the same bipartisan attitude to the statistics before June, 1970.
    Mr. Maudling: I do not want to go into the intricacies of statistics, but the House is clear on the fact that the general trend of immigration is downwards as a result of the restriction of the number of work vouchers. At the same time we are taking the opportunity to deal with the special problem of United Kingdom passport holders, which the House has recognised requires special treatment.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    Licensed Premises (Young Persons)
    Mr. David Jamesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to enable minors to consume wines, beers and ciders on licensed premises when accompanied by an adult.
    Mr. Carlisle: My right hon. Friend does not propose to introduce legislation on any aspect of liquor licensing in advance of the report of the Erroll Committee. Under the present law, however, an adult may buy drink for a minor on licensed premises as long as it is not in a bar—for example, in a restaurant.
    Mr. James: I see the force of my hon. and learned Friend's reply, but at a time when many people are worried about the generation gap is it not a pity that a father cannot take his 16-year-old son into a pub for a pint of beer? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Does it not place an impossible burden on landlords to require them to know the age of young people who are maturing at a much younger age?
    Mr. Carlisle: The general point made by my hon. Friend is clearly within the

    1483
    terms of the Erroll Committee which is looking at the licensing laws.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the Minister aware of the amount of drinking which takes place in licensed premises among juniors and even schoolchildren? Instead of making it easier for them to continue in this way, should not the Minister look at the situation in terms of tightening up the law to keep children out of public houses?
    Mr. Carlisle: We must await the recommendations of the Erroll Committee. One must have a certain amount of sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. David James) when he says that it is not always easy for licensees, without knowing the exact age of the people who come into a public house, to administer to law.

    Mr. Barto George Gilbert
    Mr. Peter Archerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will reconsider his decision to deport Mr. Barto George Gilbert.
    Mr. Sharples: Mr. Gilbert entered the country with false papers. The deception was subsequently discovered, but he escaped from custody. My right hon. Friend will consider his position when he is apprehended.
    Mr. Archer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Gilbert is not being apprehended, because having deserted from the American forces on grounds of conscience, he knows that if he gives himself up he will be sent back to the American authorities? In view of the special circumstances in this case in which the man came to this country to stand by his wife at a time when her parents died here, could not the Minister introduce an element of compassion into the situation?
    Mr. Sharples: This is a person who came here illegally on a false Canadian passport, representing himself to have been born in the United Kingdom. He is liable to be sent back on those grounds irrespective of any other consideration which may arise.

    Crime Rate
    Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has taken to reduce the crime rate.
    Mr. Maudling: Amongst other measures, those taken by the Government to strengthen the police have produced a net gain in numbers of nearly 3,100 in 1971 and the Criminal Justice Bill which enlarges in various ways the powers of the courts to deal with those convicted of crime.
    Mr. Meacher: Since unequal opportunity to achieve socially-approved goals is widely recognised as a major source of crime, will not the Home Secretary acknowledge that the Conservative Government's policies of making society considerably more unequal are bound to increase the crime rate? What representation is he making to stop this trend?
    Mr. Maudling: I found the preamble to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question rather abstruse. The causes of crime obviously are deep and difficult to analyse. It is my responsibility to ensure that the police force increases and is made more efficient. I am doing this.
    Mr. Farr: What is the point of increasing the maximum penalty under the Criminal Justice Bill when the courts, as we heard earlier, are imposing only 4 per cent. of maximum penalties in the case of successful convictions.
    Mr. Maudling: That figure of 4 per cent. referred only to a limited range of criminal offences. We must be clear that it must be for the courts in any individual case to decide the penalty. But I believe that an increase in the maximum laid down by this House will be taken note of by the courts as indicating the view of Parliament as to the gravity of offences.

    Breathalyser Tests
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the proportion of nullified breathalyser tests throughout England and Wales, and separately within the greater London area, which were recorded in police statistics in each of the years 1969, 1970 and 1971, respectively, in those cases where an original positive on-site result was shown.
    Mr. Maudling: In England and Wales in 1969, 31,770 initial breath tests gave positive results, and 4,938 breath tests at police stations gave negative results among drivers who had hen required

    1485
    to take initial breath tests. The corresponding figures for 1970 are 39,393 and 5,635. Those for 1971 are not yet available. I am obtaining figures for the Metropolitan Police District and for the City of London and shall write to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Dykes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is not the figure for mistakes or margin of error disturbingly high? Does it not justify another look at the existing procedures, bearing in mind that sufficient numbers of members of police forces in many areas are disturbed about the way in which the Act is enforced?
    Mr. Maudling: At first sight, I should not say that that was necessarily so, but I shall be happy to look into it.

    Picketing
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for reports from chief constables on the enforcement of the law regarding peaceful picketing during the present coal strike.
    Mr. Fowlerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now make a further statement on the operation of the law concerning peaceful picketing.
    Mr. Waddingtonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will call a conference of chief constables to consider what steps should be taken if, in any future industrial dispute, persons physically obstruct and prevent others from entering premises to which they have a legal right of access.
    Mr. Reginald Maudling: I have been kept fully informed by chief officers of police about incidents involving picketing during the miners' strike. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment, told the House on 22nd February, the law on picketing and related matters is being reviewed in the light of recent events.
    Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that intimidation and even violence by pickets in certain areas, shown clearly on television screens, gives cause for widespead anxiety? What action do the Government propose to take before
    1486
    the next special case industry goes on strike?
    Mr. Maudling: Certainly incidents of violence, particularly picketing outside offices, were to be seen on television screens. The police are responsible for carrying out the law, and I think that they did it extremely well. A large number of people were charged with offences, mainly of the more normal character of obstruction and that kind of thing. In general, as I have said, the vast mass of the picketing was entirely legal, but there were examples of people latching on and behaving very badly, about which I think everyone feels disquiet.
    Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Does the Home Secretary accept that a great deal of the intimidation was on the part of lorry drivers who had been bribed by employers? Does he also accept that there were many examples up and down the country of the inexperience of the police in dealing with picketing? Will he ensure, in any reform of the picketing regulations, first, that all pickets have a fair chance to nut their case to those who are picketed, and, secondly, that anyone who is arrested is given full and proper access to legal advice?
    Mr. Maudling: On the last point, that is obviously the position. In this instance I have heard criticisms of the police from both sides: sometimes that they were too tough and sometimes that they were not tough enough. In my judgment, on the whole, in exceedingly difficult circumstances, chief officers of police did a very good job indeed.
    As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment said, a review of the law on picketing is to be undertaken.
    Mr. Fowler: Will my right hon. Friend emphasise as widely as possible that these rules and regulations are not laid down by some remote Government Department but are the law of this country? Will he further emphasise that the rule of law is the hallmark of a democracy and that when it is ignored and challenged in this way, for whatever reason, it represents a basic combat against freedom in this country?
    Mr. Maudling: The criminal law on these matters, for which I am responsible, is as clear as it can be made in practical

    1487
    circumstances. However, responsibility for actual operation rests with the chief officers of police, and they must not be subject to political direction either way in how they carry out their duties. As I have said, I think they carry out their duties very well.
    Mr. Waddington: Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State take this opportunity to make it abundantly plain that mass picketing, such as occurred outside the Saltley Coke Works, designed to prevent people from entering premises which they had a perfect right to enter, cannot, by the greatest stretch of the imagination, be lawful? Will he do his best to ensure that in future such blatant and obvious breaches of the law do not occur?
    Mr. Maudling: I understand that there is a decision by the courts which holds that the mere numbers involved can turn lawful picketing into intimidation. This is a fact of the law, and in practice the law has to be administered by chief officers of police.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: The Home Secretary, in the course of the miners' dispute, recognised that, by and large, the police had behaved with great sense and also that the National Union of Mineworkers had endeavoured to maintain a state of peaceful picketing.
    I should like to ask two questions. First, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise—I am sure he does—how very much the institution of peaceful picketing is valued by trade unions? Secondly, in view of the fact that peaceful picketing in the miners' dispute entered rather different phases than in earlier strikes, may I ask whether, apart from any changes in the law, he will consider the possibility of a conference involving chief constables to discuss what rules, in practice, should be laid down at ground level for use in any future strike?
    Mr. Maudling: I think that consultations between chief constables on these matters is very valuable, and I am glad to have them.
    On the first point, I repeat that the union involved certainly did nothing to countenance violence or illegal activity. However, as the House knows, on occasions of demonstrations often other elements of a quite different kind exploit them in an illegal way.

  PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN
  Mr. Wilkinsonasked the Prime Minister whether he will seek an early meeting with the President of Pakistan.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have been keeping in close touch with President Bhutto, but there are at present no plans for us to meet.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend, or at least his right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, see the President of Pakistan at the earliest opportunity, because it will be in his recollection that in November, 1971, Mrs. Ghandi paid a visit to this country and in January, 1972, Sheikh Mujib paid a visit to this country? It is about time that we showed a bipartisan attitude to our policy in the subcontinent with personal visits of this nature.
  The Prime Minister: That has always been our position as a Government. My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is hoping to visit Pakistan at an early date. Meanwhile, President Bhutto knows that he would be very welcome in this country if he wished to come. We have also indicated that we shall be very happy for a meeting between President Bhutto and Sheikh Mujib to take place in London if they both so wish.
  Mr. Kaufman: Is the Prime Minister aware that many Pakistanis resident in this country would be happy if Pakistan reconsidered her decision and decided to retract her withdrawal from the Commonwealth? In any contacts which he and the Foreign Secretary make with President Bhutto, will they make representations to him to reconsider Pakistan's withdrawal from the Commonwealth?
  The Prime Minister: I think that the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is perfectly true. It is a matter for President Bhutto and the Government of Pakistan. Concerning the Commonwealth, it is not just a question of the relationship between Pakistan and ourselves but of the relationship between Pakistan and all the other members of the Commonwealth.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an early official visit to Northern Ireland.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 15th February.—[Vol. 831, c. 84.]
  Mr. Hamilton: Does the Prime Minister recognise that everybody in this House and, I hope, outside it will view with horror the increasing escalation of the terror and murder of innocents which is now flowing across to this side of the Irish Sea? Will he assure the House that he will not hesitate to go to Northern Ireland if he thinks that this would make some contribution to the solution of the problem?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, I certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Yesterday, right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House made clear their absolute abhorrence of the ghastly incident which occurred at Aldershot.
  Mr. Thorpe: Does the Prime Minister accept that no one in this House would wish it to be thought that this or any other Government were reacting to violence and that we were making concessions to violence and that the abhorrence—
  Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman did some shouting last week.
  Mr. Thorpe: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will keep quiet for a moment—which has been expressed at the event which took place at Aldershot is shared in all quarters of the House?
  Does the Prime Minister accept that the speech by Mr. Lynch in Dublin recently represented a considerable advance on that side of the Border? Does he realise the urgency of this Government taking political initiatives to bring about a settlement of a problem which cannot be solved by military means alone?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. We have never supposed for a moment that this problem could be solved by military
  1490
  means alone. We well recognise the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made: that in the important speech made at his party conference last week, the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic gave indications of the way his own policy is moving, which is very helpful.
  Mr. Chichester-Clark: As one who can and does claim to have stood up for the reforms towards the rights of the minorities in Northern Ireland—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, indeed—may I ask my right hon. Friend not to be panicked into any kind of decision or solution which does not also take account of the legitimate and democratic rights of the majority there?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; of course that will be the case. But the whole House recognises the difficulty of reconciling the different aspirations of the majority and the minority in Northern Ireland today.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does the Prime Minister realise that practically every group that comes over to the House from Northern Ireland talks about "the" initiative, and that unless one is forthcoming soon it would be much better for the Government to say that nothing will change?
  The Prime Minister: I have told the House that we shall make a statement to the House at the earliest possible moment on these matters.

  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  Mr. Meacherasked the Prime Minister why he has no immediate plans to take the chair at a meeting of the National Economic Development Council.
  The Prime Minister: I shall continue to take the chair myself from time to time: but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is Chairman of the Council, will preside over the next meeting on 1st March, when there will be a further discussion of regional policy.
  Mr. Meacher: When he does next take the chair will the Prime Minister explain

  1491
  why, despite his electoral commitment to reduce poverty, the number of people living in poverty in Britain today is 10 cent. more than it was at the time of the General Election? As the supplementary benefit line has fallen further below national average earnings, would he also explain why the poor have now become poorer under the Tories?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman wants to deal with a specific question he should put it down to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I have had considerable correspondence with the hon. Gentleman about these matters, and we differ. I have given him the official statistics of the position, and I must leave it there.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that whatever answer he gave to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), that supplementary question, already prepared, had nothing to do with the Question?
  Mr. Atkinson: When the Prime Minister eventually takes the chair, will he discuss with the Chancellor the change of policy which he announced last night, when he said it is no longer sufficient to stimulate the economy by raising the level of demand but that there is now a new necessity for investment in the economy on a very large scale?
  Will he tell the Chancellor that investment in itself is not sufficient and that that investment must be labour-intensive and not the investment now taking place, which is going into capital-intensive industry and, therefore, will not solve the problem? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain these simple facts to the Chancellor?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman, although we have discussed this before, that one must set out to make investment employment-intensive. What is required of investment is that it should be competitive, and that is what the nation requires. This means, therefore, as I pointed out in the debate on unemployment, that we require this additional investment and the markets which it can serve—and the market is Europe—and that we must also think in terms of an expansion of the service industries.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mr. Duffyasked the Prime Minister what steps he intends to take to ensure that all Ministers are prepared for Great Britain's proposed rôle in Europe.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. and hon. Friends are fully aware of the implications of entry into Europe for the policies of their Departments, and are developing contacts with their opposite numbers in the Governments of the Six and of the acceding countries, as well as in the institutions of the Community.
  Mr. Duffy: Would the Prime Minister accept that the most crucial factor may yet turn on the readiness and adaptability that we all display in exploiting the opportunities that entry brings about? Will he assure the House that all Ministers will be alive both to the opportunities as well as the responsibilities within the addiitional dimension of departmental conspectus that entry will provide, and that he will continue to discourage them from either relying on his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster or on any other link services that may have to be devised as an interim measure?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon Gentleman has said. It is absolutely right that Government should give a lead in this way and not just accept entry and expect that industry and the services should adapt themselves rapidly while the Government do not do so. On the last part of the question, this is one of the reasons why I have explained in the past to the German Chancellor as well as to the President of France that I did not favour a European Minister as such who would have wide-ranging responsibilities. I prefer a system under which departmental Ministers themselves are in touch with their colleagues in the Community and with the Community institutions at Brussels about their own affairs.
  Sir F. Bennett: In view of the Leader of the Opposition's ardent advocacy of our entry in the past, would my right hon. Friend consider, when it comes to employment, whether we could not find some useful rôle for him in that context?
  The Prime Minister: I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will keep in touch with the Community.

  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  Mr. Joel Barnettasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech at the Guildhall on 7th February on economic matters.
  Mr. Redmondasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on Government policies delivered to the Overseas Bankers Club on 7th February.
  The Prime Minister: I did so on 8th February, Sir.
  Mr. Barnett: In the light of the appalling unemployment figures, should not the right hon. Gentleman perhaps put in an amendment? In view of the miners' settlement, which has destroyed the policies about which he was speaking and which is now claimed to be a special case, can he say why, if it is a special case, he allowed the country to suffer in order to prove that it was a special case?
  The Prime Minister: Everything I said in that speech is still true. The policy has not been changed. If the hon. Gentleman is now adopting the general approach that the miners' settlement is a justification for everyone having the same scale of award, he is talking of permanent inflation on the largest possible scale. But the miners could have had a court of inquiry or arbitration at any time they wished, from the beginning of their dispute.
  Mr. Redmond: Would my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of letting every hon. Member on the Opposition side have a copy of his speech? If they read it, they would see that Britain under the Conservatives pays its way, gets itself out of debt and reduces taxation.
  The Prime Minister: That is quite true, and I was able to say that we could have paid off the whole of the outstanding I.M.F. debt.
  Mr. Grimond: Is it the present policy of the Government that wage increases should be limited to 8 per cent. as a maximum? If not, what is the figure?
  The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have not fixed a norm which is to apply to every settlement. As I said last night, what we have been trying to do is to maintain what has admittedly had to be a gradual but steady de-escalation of wage awards. The right hon. Gentleman only has to study the pattern of wage awards over the past year to see the differences which exist between them because of special circumstances. What we have been aiming at is a general overall de-escalation.
  Mr. Adley: Following the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond), would my right hon. Friend give the present position of the country's overseas debts compared with when the Government took office?
  The Prime Minister: In my speech I said that if it were possible in the I.M.F. to pay the last section of the debt which was owing, we could have wiped out the whole of the debt incurred between 1964 and 1970.
  Mr. Orme: If there was no norm, why did we have the five-week miners' strike, in effect, to prove that there was a norm and that the pig-headedness of the Prime Minister is responsible for the suffering of the British people? The right hon. Gentleman reiterated this nonsense last night to the Engineering Employers' Federation. When will he see sense about wages in Britain? When will people be paid wages commensurate with their skill and ability and the needs of the economy?
  The Prime Minister: The reason was that throughout that time neither the National Coal Board nor the miners came anywhere near to reaching agreement and because the miners were not prepared to accept arbitration or a court of inquiry, which in the end had to be imposed on them by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] I should not have thought it was at all funny that a court of inquiry had to be imposed against the wishes of a particular party to a dispute.

  MANPOWER AND TRAINING (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
  Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with

  1495
  with the co-ordination between the Departments of Education and Science, Employment and Trade and Industry in the management of manpower and training facilities; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, although the main responsibility for manpower policy and the massive expansion of training facilities announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on 1st February rests with his Department.
  Mr. Huckfield: Would the Prime Minister accept that we now have a very serious situation because many school-leavers and many of those who have been retrained simply cannot find jobs afterwards? Has not the time come to set up a comprehensive labour market board on the Swedish pattern, which would not only co-ordinate all these activities but would automatically intervene when unemployment rose above a certain percentage?
  The Prime Minister: I think it is right to press ahead with training, and with retraining in particular, as fast as possible. With the measures taken to reflate the economy, to encourage investment and to extend the investments of the nationalised industries, and with additional infrastructure investment, opportunities will occur for those trained to get jobs.
  Mr. Atkinson: May I link the Prime Minister's answer to his earlier reply to me when he spoke about future manpower requirements? The right hon. Gentleman announced that further emphasis must now be given to employment needs in the services. Does that mean that the Government intend to pump further investment into the service industries in order that they may take up the tremendous number of unemployed people who cannot find jobs in manufacturing industry?
  The Prime Minister: Since we came to office, we have consistently removed discrimination against the services, much of which was imposed by the hon. Gentleman's own Government. S.E.T. was deliberate discrimination to reduce employment in the services. We have halved S.E.T. and removed that discrimination,
  1496
  and in the development areas we have given benefits to service industries.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the Leader of the House kindly state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 28TH FEBRUARY.—Supply (13th Allotted Day): there will be a debate on an Opposition Motion on unemployment.
The Defence Vote on Account, 1972–73 and the Votes A will also be before the House.
Motion on the Redundant Mineworkers (Payments Scheme) Order.
Lords Amendments to the Superannuation Bill.
At Seven o'clock the Chairman of Ways and Means has named Opposed Private Business for consideration.
TUESDAY, 29TH FEBRUARY and WEDNESDAY, 1ST MARCH.—Progress on the Committee stage of the European Communities Bill.
THURSDAY, 2ND MARCH.—Supply (14th Allotted Day): Air Estimates, 1972–73, Vote A.
Remaining stages of the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill (Lords).
FRIDAY, 3RD MARCH.—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 6TH MARCH.—Supply (15th Allotted Day): Debate on a topic to be announced.
Mr. Wilson: In view of the continuing appalling unemployment figures which the Government have announced today, will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that yet again it is the Opposition who are supplying time to debate unemployment? Unfortunately, through no fault of ours or the right hon. Gentleman's, it can be only a half-day debate. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider providing adequate time in Government time for a debate on this continuingly regrettable situation?

1497
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman has not announced any subjects or dates, but will he recall his willingness yesterday to consider the possibility of a debate on Northern Ireland, in order that we may deal with some of the many wide issues which, by the very nature of the position yesterday, we were not able to discuss and which might have been relevant to the Bill passed by this House? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear those matters in mind and consider providing a very early date for a debate on Northern Ireland?
Thirdly, while I do not ask for an answer today, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider one important matter which was raised yesterday when the House passed through all its stages the Northern Ireland Bill. That was not unprecedented, but it was a very rare occasion, because of the circumstances. However, it meant that the House could not give full consideration either to the broad issues or to the points of law which arose. I understand that some very serious issues were raised about points of law by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones). Will the right hon. Gentleman consider referring to the Select Committee on Procedure or some other appropriate Committee the proposal that whenever a Government, for whatever reason, have to introduce a Bill for passage in an unusually short time, a time limit shall be built into the legislation at the end of which it lapses unless it is renewed by fresh legislation of this House? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that proposal? I am sure he will agree that in the light of what occurred yesterday it is not an unfair question.
Mr. Whitelaw: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I note what he has said, and I shall bear in mind all his various points about Northern Ireland and the events of yesterday. Perhaps I might say that I think it right to make clear how much I appreciate the way in which the House dealt with the extremely difficult position in which it was placed. It is a situation in which this House should not normally find itself, and certainly it was not the desire of the Government or anyone else that it should have been in that position.
Mr. Russell Kerr: The right hon. Gentleman should respond to it.
Mr. Whitelaw: I think that I am being reasonable to the House in a difficult situation. It is in that spirit that I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for what he has said.
I will respond to the right hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on Northern Ireland. I undertook to do so yesterday, and I repeat it today. I suggest that its timing might be discussed through the usual channels.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's third point, I accept what he says. Naturally, this would be a matter within the terms of reference of the Select Committee on Procedure. I am sure that the Chairman will note our exchange; it is really a matter for him. But, naturally, it is a matter that he may wish to discuss with me or with the Leader of the Opposition. Certainly I shall be pleased to do so.
Mr. Biffen: In respect of next week's business and the fact that the Committee stage of the European Communities Bill is being taken on a Tuesday, will my right hon. Friend indicate the Government's view on the desirability of this piece of legislation being considered while there are Committees proceeding upstairs dealing with other legislation?
Mr. Whitelaw: Certainly I have borne in mind what has been said on this matter. The House will notice that one of the two days is a Wednesday, when, I understand, these Committees will not be sitting, I realise that some Committees will be sitting on Tuesday. That has happened before. I shall seek to avoid it whenever possible.
Sir Elwyn Jones rose—
Mr. Michael Foot rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot allow questions on business to be monopolised by the Opposition Front Bench. Mr. Pannell.
Mr. C. Pannell: Is the Leader of the House aware that he has entered into a commitment on the last two Thursdays, as I have understood it, with regard to a Motion which reflects on the Chair and which, out of respect to Mr. Speaker, should not remain on the Order Paper a day longer than necessary—
Mr. James Hill: Take it off, then.
Mr. Pannell: Judging by the amount of support that I have been offered privately from hon. Members opposite, that is not the general view of that side of the House. It is an important Motion which has been signed by hon. Members in all parts of the House. The right hon. Gentleman will understand the obligation, and perhaps he will sympathise with my impatience in the matter. Will he make a further statement, adding the continued commitment that this Motion will be debated?
[That this House dissents from the intention of Mr. Speaker to address the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed by a style and title which he has disclaimed and therefore has no right to use; notes the assurances in the House by the Leader of the House and Mr. Attorney-General, respectively, during the second reading of the Peerage Bill in June 1963 that the effect of the Bill on the rules of the House would be that a Member disclaiming a peerage would be a commoner and would be described in the records of the House as Mr.; notes also that these were accepted as correct statements of the effect of the Bill by the House at that time; and regrets that, by reversing the decision of his predecessor which was made in the light of these statements and the advice then given to him by those officially concerned, Mr. Speaker should have impinged upon the privileges of both Houses.]
Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. Last week I said would provide time unless the matter could be resolved otherwise, before the Budget. I stand by that commitment. However, I hope still that the matter may be resolved otherwise.
Mr. Cormack: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Early-Day Motion No. 193 in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), myself and some 35 right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House, and express the hope that it will be debated at a fairly early date, since there is a great deal of feeling in the House about the matter?
[That this House deplores the un-parliamentary behaviour of a small minority of hon. Members, who on
1500
Thursday, 17th February engaged in physical threats to and intimidation of Members of the Parliamentary Liberal Party; and, mindful of Mr. Speaker's solemn warning on the 1st February, calls upon Mr. Speaker to investigate the incident and to order those responsible to apologise to the House.]
Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate the seriousness of the matter raised by my hon. Friend and the strength of feeling expressed by him and by many other hon. Members in all parts of the House. I regret that I cannot give time for a debate next week. I believe that the responsibility for the reputation of this House is one which all of us share and one which I hope we shall all remember. If we transgress it, I think that apologies such as the one that we heard earlier this week from the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) are always accepted by the House. But this is a responsibility that we all share.
Mr. Dalyell: When are we to have an opportunity, before decisions are made, to debate the Rothschild Report on the Research Council?
Mr. Whitelaw: I realise how important the subject is, but I cannot say when time for a debate will be found.
Mr. Lane: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he hopes to provide time before Easter for a debate on the subject of televising our proceedings, because recent incidents in the House have plainly strengthened the case in favour of this?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am certainly hoping to live up to the promise I made, that we should have time for a debate on that subject based on a Private Member's Motion. I hope it will be before Easter; it will be my endeavour to make it so.
Mr. David Steel: Is the Leader of the House aware that the House is still awaiting with great patience a statement about the proposed all-party mission to Rhodesia? Is he further aware that it is now 10 days since the Minister of State at the Foreign Office told us that he had sent a further telegram to Mr. Smith? What has happened to it?
Mr. Whitelaw: The best answer I can give is that I will keep in touch with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the usual channels on this matter. On

1501
the basic principle, I have nothing to add to what I said last week; namely, that delegations from this House chosen in the normal way must be accepted on that basis.
Mr. Evelyn King: May I refer my right hon. Friend to the real difficulty which arises when Committees are sitting upstairs and a Bill as important as the European Communities Bill is being dealt with on the Floor of the House? It has been suggested that there might be some mechanical device, such as a tell-tale, which would ease the position and enable hon. Members in the House to know when there was a Division in Committee. Can urgent consideration be given to this, if it has not already been considered?
Mr. Whitelaw: I will certainly look into that. I am hoping to avoid such clashes to the best of my ability.
Mr. William Hannan: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has been consulted by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who promised to speak to him about the need for time to debate in the House the proposals in the White Paper dealing with local government re-organisation in Scotland? As the time factor is becoming more important, may I ask him to find time soon for a debate on the subject?
Mr. Whitelaw: I have always recognised the importance which Scottish Members attach to the subject. I have in the past suggested, not with any degree of acceptance from them that this is something that might be discussed in the Scottish Grand Committee. I note the wish for a debate on the Floor of the House, and I will certainly bear it in mind.
Sir Bernard Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that having regard to the many troubles facing the country—matters of great concern to both sides of the House—it would be wrong for him to get the impression from what the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) says that there is any body of opinion in the House which feels that time should be allocated for discussion of a matter which most of us, quite frankly, think is utterly trivial and is bringing this House into contempt?
Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Member and I agreed last week that the circumstances at the time were not propitious for such a debate; neither are they this week, and that is why it has not been arranged. I note my hon. Friend's point of view. I have said that I would like this matter to be resolved, if possible, without a debate. No one would be more pleased than I if that could be done. On the other hand, I entered into a specific commitment and promise, and I will not go back on specific commitments and promises that I make to the House. Nevertheless, I still hope that the matter can be resolved without a debate.
Mr. Skinner: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possibility of a further debate on the mining industry to take into account the findings of the Wilberforce Inquiry and, more important, to allow hon. Members to debate the fact that during the strike four power stations were in the process of being changed from coal to oil, so that we may establish whether that was a permanent or temporary move?
Mr. Whitelaw: It would not be for me to follow the hon. Gentleman into the policy matter which he has raised. It will be appreciated that I have given an undertaking to the Leader of the Opposition that there will be a debate on the industrial situation at a suitable time, and I stand by that answer.
Mr. Raison: Will my right hon. Friend endeavour to find time in the reasonably near future for a debate on the Government's proposals to introduce a hospital ombudsman?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am afraid that I could not promise time soon, but I note the importance of the subject and the acceptance which it has received in all parts of the House.
Sir Elwyn Jones: Would the right hon. Gentleman say when the Report of Lord Parker's Committee on interrogation practices in Northern Ireland will be published? Is it not essential that it should be published at least before we debate Northern Ireland on the occasion the Leader of the House has indicated?
Mr. Whitelaw: I note the importance of the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes. I accept what

1503
he says. The report will be published shortly.
Mr. Walters: As it is now a considerable time since we have had a foreign affairs debate, would my right hon. Friend look into the chances of having such a debate so that we can discuss some of the important issues affecting this country throughout the world?
Mr. Whitelaw: I answered a similar question last week. Of course I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend makes, but I cannot say when such time will be available and when it might be most suitable for the House.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider providing time to debate Motion No. 27 signed by a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House?
[That this House, recognising the importance of maintaining the living theatre in all its forms, subsidised and unsubsidised, in a flourishing condition, and recalling that for these reasons Parliament has already approved the complete abolition of the entertainment tax, urges Her Majesty's Government to ensure that in any legislation providing for the introduction of value-added tax, the living theatre will be accorded zero rating.]
Is he aware that the Motion calls upon the Government, in the event of their introducing a value-added tax, to accord zero rating to the living theatre?
Mr. Whitelaw: All these matters can be discussed following the announcement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised on this subject at the time of his Budget Statement.
Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I confirm through you, with the Leader of the House, that I have put before him proposals by which a debate on the Motion that I mentioned can be avoided but that the initiative has not been taken up?
Mr. Whitelaw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. He has put forward proposals, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine). As so often in life, the two sets of proposals have
1504
not yet actually met. My desire is to play the part of conciliator and see whether these two sets of proposals can have a meeting.
Mrs. Castle: Following the question raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) about the Health Service Commissioner, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether, in view of the importance and the obscurity of the statement made by the Secretary of State for Social Services and in view of the urgent need to proceed with this matter, we could have time for a debate to clarify and examine the proposals?
Mr. Whitelaw: I did not appreciate that the statement by my right hon. Friend was obscure. I will certainly discuss the matter with him. I could not promise a debate, but I know that my right hon. Friend will be anxious to ensure that the matter is properly cleared up if it is obscure in the mind of the right hon. Lady or any other hon. Member.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the official announcement that the Government have agreed to the instructions offered to them by the Daily Express that they should appoint a "Supremo" to deal with trade and industry? Can he make a statement next week to explain why the Government have carried out this Daily Express instruction and appointed the Lord Privy Seal? Is it because there is no one suitable in this House? May we take it that in future when such announcements are to be made the right hon. Gentleman will arrange for them to be made in the House so that we can question him about it, because we cannot question the Lord Privy Seal? Is he aware that we want to be able to raise questions with the various responsible Ministers in this House? Will he follow the good example set by Governments of all parties in the past and ensure that such announcements are made in this House and not in the Press?
Mr. Whitelaw: If questions are put down—
Mr. Lewis: There is a Question on the Order Paper.
Mr. Whitelaw:—the responsible Ministers in this House will answer them in the normal way.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES
The Minister for Industry (Sir John Eden): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on electricity restrictions.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told the House on Monday last that the situation on electricity supplies had improved as a result of a number of factors, particularly the withdrawal of pickets from the power stations. He added that the immediate priority would be to get industry back into full production as soon as possible. Since then the recovery programme for getting fuel supplies to power stations has made very good progress, and substantial quantities of coal and essential supplies have been delivered and much more is on the way.
On the assumption that there is a favourable outcome to the miners' ballot, it is my intention to revoke, with effect from midnight Sunday, the directions prohibiting the use of electricity by industry on certain specified days. I must, however, point out that on their two high-risk days they will still be subject to rota disconnections. Those large consumers which have received directions to restrict their demand and consumption to 60 per cent. of normal will be permitted to increase their consumption to 85 per cent. of normal.
There are some points which I must emphasise. The most important is that this relaxation, which will be made only if there is a favourable outcome of the miners' ballot, assumes there will be a full and rapid return to work in the pits. It assumes, too, that all classes of consumers will co-operate to exercise maximum economy in the use of electricity. If consumers do not exercise economy, and, of course, if weather conditions are abnormally bad, the resulting overload on the generating system could lead to disconnections on what are at present medium-risk days. There is, therefore, an element of risk in the proposed relaxation, but, against the background of heavy unemployment and the
1506
full co-operation from the public so far, the Government think that this risk should be accepted. Following discussions with the C.B.I., this particular measure of relaxation has been chosen in order to enable industry to begin getting back towards full-time working as soon as possible.
For the time being, the other restrictions must remain; but I have the position under constant review and shall introduce further relaxations as soon as circumstances permit.
Mr. Varley: We on this side are grateful for the Minister's statement. However, while we welcome the relaxation towards the normal supply position, we note that he has had discussions with the Confederation of British Industry. Does he not think that it is now advisable to have discussions with the National Union of Mineworkers? We understand from a broadcast today on "The World at One" that Mr. Laurence Daly has said that, assuming that the ballot goes in favour of an early return to work, they are prepared to co-operate.
Assuming a normal return to work on Monday, when does the hon. Gentleman now expect industry to get back to full-time working, especially in view of today's terrible unemployment figures? When does he expect the normal supply position to be restored to the domestic consumer?
Sir J. Eden: I absolutely agree on the first point, and I shall be making arrangements for discussion with the National Union of Mineworkers on the aspect to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. With regard to the prospects for industry getting back to full-time working, this will obviously build up progressively and fairly rapidly during the coming week. I cannot be more specific, because it depends on individual company plans and how they organise their working programme. As for domestic restrictions, clearly the rota disconnections will continue. As I said, this is under continuing review the whole time, and as soon as it is possible progressively to relax on these rota disconnections this will be done.
Mr. Rost: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should now give urgent priority to a fundamental and

1507
forward-looking review of national fuel policy, particularly with regard to reducing the over-dependence upon one source of fuel for the generation of our electric power?
Sir J. Eden: Of course the fuel policy aspects will be studied very closely indeed.
Mr. Milne: Is the Minister aware that, welcome though his proposals are, they reflect little or no credit on his Department, and that his efforts to introduce oil into coal-fired stations during the course of recovery from the dispute could have done much to jeopardise the speedy return to normal which we all want? Will he make a statement on this matter as early as possible?
Sir J. Eden: The quite extraordinary success of this recovery programme owes a very great deal to the ability of those who have been conducting it in the Central Electricity Generating Board, the National Coal Board and British Railways, as well as among members of the Road Haulage Association.
Sir G. Nabarro: While one congratulates the electricity generating authorities on their resilience and the speed with which they are resuming normal services, would my hon. Friend bear in mind that back benchers have the most extraordinary difficulty in extracting reliable information about fuel and power from his Department? Would he not consider publishing a White Paper setting down carefully all the economic and financial consequences of this calamitous strike?
Sir J. Eden: This point was answered by my right hon. Friend on Monday of this week. My hon. Friend will no doubt refresh his memory on that. I have never found him at all unable to get the answers to the questions he puts. The question of the full cost of the strike is, of course, under study at the moment; it is too early to give precise figures.
Mr. Pardoe: Could the Minister clear up one point? In his statement today he said that the withdrawal of pickets has improved the electricity supply situation. Is he aware that last week his right hon. Friend was busy defending to this House, his, the Minister of Industry's, forecast at the outset of this dispute that
1508
there were eight weeks' supply for the electricity power stations? Is he aware that there is a contradiction here? Will he tell us exactly how many days' supply were lost as a result of picketing?
Sir J. Eden: No, Sir, there is no contradiction. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman studied the words of my 9th January statement closely enough. It referred to eight weeks' normal winter consumption.
Mr. Michael Stewart: If the Minister hopes that the result of the miners' ballot will be favourable, will he implore the Prime Minister not to make any more pronouncements on social and economic matters, because nothing could be more unhelpful?
Sir J. Eden: I will implore my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to maintain the Government's attack against inflation.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker: Yesterday the hon. Baronet the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) drew attention to a report in The Guardian newspaper which he claimed might constitute a contempt of the House, and, in his view, ought to be brought before the Committee of Privileges. I have now studied the newspaper and taken into account all the surrounding circumstances. It is not for me to say whether or not any contempt of the House was committed. I have to say whether, in my view, the hon. Member's complaint should be given precedence over today's business. It is my opinion that it should not be given such precedence.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: The Leader of the Opposition has explained the strong personal reasons why he could not be in his place at the moment, and this is well understood. I have also made it clear to him that in the event of your Ruling being what it is, Mr. Speaker, there is new evidence which I would want to submit to you for this matter to be looked at further—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I can curtail this. Before I made my Ruling I took into account the evidence which I think the hon. Member has privately communicated to me.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: You may not have taken into account, Mr. Speaker, the circumstances in connection with that new evidence. The new evidence is that a statement was issued from the Socialist Party headquarters hours before this statement was made, thus proving that it was premeditated. I would submit that this premeditation raises a new issue. The precedent upon which—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have ruled on this matter. I have said that I have taken into account all the circumstances. In fact, some time ago—long before the hon. Baronet sent it to my office—I had seen the release and was aware of the circumstances. I have taken account of all these matters, and the hon. Member is not entitled to argue with me about it.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There can be no point of order on a decision of mine. I have made my decision. The hon. Member is not entitled to argue with me about it.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: On another point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the duty of hon. Members who have experience of the House to produce pieces of script which might help the Chair, without in any way differing from the Ruling given by the Chair? The precedent that I want to give in support of the new evidence—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will be tolerant of me, as I am trying to be tolerant of him. I was fully aware of all the circumstances which he is now trying to bring to the attention of the House. I have considered the precedents. In any case, I doubt whether he is entitled, after I have ruled, to refound his argument. It might be said that he is too late in point of time. I have made my Ruling, and I must now ask the Clerk to read the Orders of the Day.
Sir Frederic Bennett: On another point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have given a Ruling which we all fully accept, but there are at the moment on the Order Paper two or three Motions regarding recent deterioration in parliamentary standards of conduct in this House. Could you indicate to us now whether anything which you have said in your Ruling pre
1510
eludes those Motions from being debated in the ordinary way?
Mr. Speaker: The question of business is for the Leader of the House, the Government and the Opposition. When Motions are put on the Order Paper and arguments are advanced for or against them, I will rule on them when I think that anything is out of order.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I wish to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on the matter of a Question. It is an individual matter, but I think it has general applicability.
I refer to the fact that on 10th December, 1971, I raised a series of Questions about what I claim to be neglect on the part of the Department of Trade and Industry in failing to carry out the law in regard to irregularities by certain company directors in fleecing the investing public with reference to their company business. I received an Answer.
I have just received a letter from the Department of Trade and Industry from whch, if I may, I shall read, inter alia, relevant points. It is signed by the Private Secretary to the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It says:
"You will remember that in his Answer to your Written Question on 10th December, 1971, Mr. Ridley informed you that during 1967–68 the Metropolitan Police had made inquiries as to possible exchange control offences. He now finds that this information was erroneous. The Metropolitan Police do not normally make inquiries as to exchange control offences. Such inquiries are made by the Treausry. Indeed, Mr. Ridley has been told by the Treasury that this aspect of the matter was inquired into during 1971. Mr. Ridley has asked me to apologise on his behalf for this error."
Of course I accept the apology unreservedly, but is it not the normal custom and practice that if a Minister inadvertently gives a false reply to an hon. Member—and I accept that this can and does happen—it is incumbent upon the Minister to make a statement in the House and apologise to the House—because once a Question is accepted for Answer it becomes the property of the House and the Minister, for the purpose of the record, should make it clear to the House that he has given wrong information? Otherwise, other hon. Members would not know that they have received

1511
false information from the Government, however erroneously it may have been given.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I deprecate what the hon. Member is doing. Under the guise of a point of order he is raising what he has described as the custom and practice of the House. It is not a matter of order. It may be a matter of custom or convention, and with such a matter I would rather it were brought to me privately first so that I might examine what possible action should be taken. No question of order can possibly arise in this matter.
Mr. Lewis rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day—
Mr. Lewis: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that you deprecate this, but this has happened before—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
Mr. Lewis: On a point or order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that you have deprecated something which is not a fact—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not challenge my Ruling in that way. The Clerk has proceeded to read the Orders of the Day.
Mr. Lewis: On another point or order, then, Mr. Speaker. I must insist that this has happened before. Under previous Speakers I have done exactly the same, and I have been told that the necessary alteration will be made in HANSARD. I have been told that that was the correct course. Therefore, I hope that I shall be able to put HANSARD right.
Mr. Speaker: Order. What I said was that the hon. Member was raising a matter which he regards as one of custom or convention which I would much prefer to be raised privately first and not under the guise of a point of order. If the hon. Member has another matter which is not a point of order, I can arrange for it to be raised at a suitable time, but I have given my Ruling on this point of order.
Mr. Lewis: Then may I raise a further point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There can be no question of a further point of order on my Ruling.
Mr. Lewis: I want to raise a point with you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not argue with the hon. Member. I must ask him to resume his seat.
Mr. Lewis: May I Mr. Speaker, raise a point of procedure with you?
Mr. Speaker: Not at this stage.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  DEFENCE
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23rd February]:
  That this House approves the Statement on Defence, 1972, contained in Command Paper No. 4891.—[Lord Balniel.]
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and some of his hon. Friends, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add
  'condemns Her Majesty's Government's failure to restrain arms spending; and urges it to reduce Great Britain's share of the gross national product devoted to military expenditure from the current 5·7 per cent. towards the 4 2 per cent. average for European North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Government'.
  4.6 p.m.
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Ian Gilmour): The right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) yesterday said that there had been a great conversion on this side of the House to the Labour Government's defence policy. I thought at the time that in view of the behaviour of the right hon. Gentleman's party during the last few months, indeed over the last few days, it was a little insensitive of him to talk about conversions either forcibly or voluntarily made, but since he spent most of his speech trying to convert members of his party who sit below the Gangway who had signed the Amendment, I very quickly forgave him. I shall come to that Amendment later, and to some of the hon. Members who have signed it.
  A glance at Annex B of the Statement on the Defence Estimates will show how important are the responsibilities of the Procurement Executive. About one-third of the total defence expenditure in the financial year 1972–73 will be spent in the equipment area. It is clearly vital, therefore, to have the best possible organisation for administering this. And I think that we now have this in the form of the procurement executive which, under Mr. Rayner, came into being last August.
  1514
  My right hon. Friend and I are confident that the major reorganisation which has taken place will create lasting and major improvements in the whole machinery for procuring defence equipment. The aim is to ensure not only that each product provides the best all round solution to the military requirement, but also that it comes into service when it is needed.
  The benefits of the new organisation will not become fully apparent at once; defence procurement, however efficiently organised, operates over a period of years rather than months. But the new organisation has got off to an excellent start. Every aspect from personnel management to methods and procedures, from relations with industry at home to international collaboration—to which I shall return—from basic research to the rôle of the project managers—these and many other problems are being vigorously tackled by the chief executive and his controllers. Already it is clear that the organisation we have chosen was the right one.
  I should, perhaps, remind the House that the procurement executive is an integral part of the Ministry of Defence, and under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State my responsibilities stretch rather wider than the procurement executive. They include responsibilities for scientific research and operational requirements. It is my job, therefore, to try to keep these three facets in phase with each other.
  Of course, a totally tidy and all-complete equipment programme is not possible. There never comes a moment when we can plan from scratch and, having taken every relevant factor into account, make ideal and unchangeable decisions on our precise arrangements for the next 10 years. At all times we are to some extent prisoners of the past, the present and the future. The slate is never rubbed clean.
  If we delay a decision on one equipment to see how it may be affected by a future decision on another equipment, we may in reality be deciding that the first equipment is never produced, since the delay may well mean that it would come into service too late for the Services.
  Moreover, the industrial situation is never static, and, once again, it may be impossible to delay a decision as long

  1515
  as other considerations might ideally require, as to do so would mean a company laying off its design team or making many other people unemployed.
  Further, nobody can ever be sure of the exact operational requirements over the next few years. Nobody can be sure of the exact pace or direction of scientific and technological advance in the future. Nobody can be sure, either, of industrial developments here in the next 10 years or what the export prospects may be.
  I do not, therefore, want to exaggerate the scientific and rational element in our planning and in our decisions. We could be entirely scientific and tidy only if we lived in a world of our own, paying only the minimum attention to both industrial and military imperatives, and virtually ignoring what the Russians and other countries were doing. But that having been said, we do, within the inevitable constraints that are upon us, try to make as rational an assessment as we can of the best way of meeting our operational requirements out of our industrial and financial resources, acting either on our own or in collaboration with our allies.
  Only when there are compelling reasons of timing or of costs or when there is no British equipment available or in prospect do we decide to buy abroad. Otherwise, we buy British or engage in collaborative projects.
  This country has a good record of collaboration. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Maj.-Gen. Jack d'AvigdorGoldsmid) has made some kind references to existing projects. He will be pleased to know that we are not resting on past efforts. As we formulate our equipment plans, we examine carefully the scope for further collaboration, either through sharing projects with our Allies or in identifying areas where we can avoid duplicating each other's efforts.
  Progress is not easy. Operational requirements must be reconciled, the times at which countries plan to introduce new equipment often vary widely, and each country is understandably anxious to preserve its own industrial base. Collaboration cannot be a wholly one-way process and there must be some sensible give and take. But in spite of the diffi
  1516
  culties there is a growing awareness that further progress must be made.
  There are two developments which I am sure will give added impetus. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) asked about the work of Eurogroup in this context. The European members of N.A.T.O. are becoming more conscious of the need to secure the maximum effectiveness from their defence effort. Moreover, the enlargement of the E.E.C. will facilitate a more rational organisation and a more effective use of Europe's industrial resources; for example, by removing some of the present barriers to trans-national industrial partnerships.
  Over a whole range of future requirements we are presently engaged in bilateral or multilateral discussions with our Allies over the possibilities of multilateral solutions. These cover, for example, battlefield communications, surveillance systems and future air defence systems. I fear that progress will not be spectacular but I am confident that we shall be able to extend collaboration sensibly to fields where at present there is wasteful duplication.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: What are the precise functions of the Ministerial Aerospace Board, which is mentioned in paragraph 21 of the White Paper? Will the Department make the key decision about whether we should participate in the American shuttle, a decision which must be made by the summer of this year?
  Mr. Gilmour: The aerospace board has been set up, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry are prominent members of it. It has met. It has responsibility for looking at the future of the civil aviation programme.
  Mr. Dalyell: In the hon. Gentleman's Department?
  Mr. Gilmour: No. Civil aviation policy is decided not in my Department, although the procurement executive can, except in relation to Concorde, monitor and, if necessary, control a project. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace is the Minister primarily responsible for civil aviation policy.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman has described, and the White Paper draws attention to:
  "the need to maintain an adequate industrial base for the future programme, and to strengthen relationships with Defence suppliers."
  If this close domestic relationship is being developed for procurement purposes, may I ask the Minister to say what parallel developments are taking place in Europe? It seems on the face of it that the new development, which he says is so important, is likely to prejudice the rationalisation of co-operative effort in Europe.
  Mr. Gilmour: I do not think so. if we rationalise and make closer the relationship with our manufacturers, this will help future European rationalisation rather than hinder it. There has not been established much new European machinery of the sort the hon. Gentleman has in mind, though I do not rule it out in future. At the moment we are acting rather pragmatically.
  The House will recall that on 11th November last I announced that orders were being placed for 14 new ships for the Royal Navy, including four type-21 frigates and two type-42 destroyers: in addition, a number of small auxiliary ships were to be ordered. I can tell the House that this ordering programme, valued at over £70 million, has now been completed. The ships involved are being ordered earlier, but not at the expense of the rest of the programme because the defence budget targets have been increased accordingly.
  Besides greatly helping to improve the capability of the Royal Navy. these orders, which were exceptionally limited to development and intermediate areas to maximise their effect on the employment situation, will over the next year create or preserve over 4,000 shipworkers' jobs alone; about two-thirds of them in Scotland. Additionally, there will be an increase in indirect employment in the shipyards and about another 4,000 jobs will be provided in sub-contracting firms throughout the country.
  The Army Department will spend an extra £1 million in the coming year in purchasing tractors and dump trucks to meet a N.A.T.O. requirement for rapid repair of aircraft runways. These orders
  1518
  will create additional work for about 100 men.
  New orders of aircraft for the Royal Air Force which have been announced over the last four months will also make a substantial contribution to employment in the aircraft industry.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend consider putting out to contract and tender with the aerospace industry on a much larger scale than is at present the case the third-line servicing of the Royal Air Force? The latest studies show not only the great economy to be achieved from this but better opportunities from the employment point of view.
  Mr. Gilmour: My right hon. Friend has dealt with this matter by way of answers and questions in the House and has given my hon. Friend details about the position.
  Mr. Dalyell: I am rather confused. The Minister said that employment would be given for 100 men on this £1 million order. I represent the Leyland truck factories in my constituency. It may be my stupidity, but I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is getting at.
  Mr. Gilmour: I think it must be. Our estimate is that 100 people will be employed, who would not otherwise have been employed, on making these vehicles. I honestly think it is a fairly simple conception.
  The order for additional Buccaneers which is being brought forward will mean continuing employment for about 800 men in Hawker Siddeley Aviation at Brough and Rolls-Royce Scottish factories. The order for Nimrod, which I announced on 19th January, will give employment to some 2,000 men in Hawker Siddeley Aviation factories in the North-West and in other factories elsewhere. Moreover, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House on 23rd November, 1971, we are ordering from Scottish Aviation at Prestwick more than 100 Bulldog aircraft to replace the Royal Air Force's Chipmunk aircraft. This will mean continuing employment for about 200 men in Scotland.
  Finally, I am glad to be able to announce today another new aircraft order. During the past few months hon. Members on both sides have shown a

  1519
  great deal of interest in the choice of aircraft to replace the Varsity in the multi-engine pilot trainer rôle. A very thorough assessment of the available aircraft has now been completed, and the Jetstream has been judged to be the aircraft best suited to the R.A.F.'s requirement. We intend, therefore, subject to the conclusion of satisfactory contract arrangements, to place an order for about 25 Jetstream aircraft with Scottish Aviation Ltd. I believe that such an order will give considerable encouragement to the export prospects of this excellent aircraft and be appreciated not only in Prestwick but in Scotland generally. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Some 400 new jobs will be created, and altogether, at its peak, the contract will provide employment for about 600 people.
  Mr. Dalyell: Over what period?
  Mr. Gilmour: I intend to tell the House about other contracts later in my speech.
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Gilmour: When manufacturers build things they employ people, and they make some estimates of how many people they are going to employ. It really is not difficult.
  Mr. Dalyell: Over what period of time? If the hon. Gentleman does not know he can say so.
  Mr. Speaker: There are about 30 hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who wish to speak in this debate.
  Mr. Gilmour: Manufacturers estimate that they will employ another 400 people most of the time and 600 in total at peak. That really is a perfectly straightforward matter. If the hon. Gentleman had had some experience of business he would understand it very easily.
  The need to have and sustain an adequate and healthy industrial base capable, within available resources, of meeting our expected future procurement programme is fundamental to defence planning. We attach great importance, therefore, to strengthening relationships with defence suppliers. The National Defence Industries Council already provides for consultation at a high level between Government and industry on defence procurement matters of mutual concern. Membership of the council has been
  1520
  reorganised to include top management in the procurement executive. This consultative machinery is being expanded at various levels to embrace presentations to industry by the Services on future equipment plans, joint symposia on specialised technological areas, and the setting up of ad hoc groups to examine particular aspects of procurement policy.
  Discussions are also taking place with industry about the quality standards we expect of contractors and on how we shall assess that they are fully met. It used to be the practice of the Services to devote very considerable effort to direct inspection at the place of manufacture. The emphasis now, however, is on placing the maximum responsibility with the manufacturer for the quality of what he produces. The trend is now firmly towards entrusting defence orders only to firms whose arrangements for quality and product reliability give the Department the confidence to reduce its own direct inspection to a minimum level or even dispense with it entirely.
  Keeping in close touch with those industries associated with our defence needs, important though it is, is not by itself enough. We have not only to discuss but to act when a problem has been brought to light. Often action in this field means the Ministry having to be flexible and understanding. Often it will mean persuading firms to become more efficient. But at the present time action means very often that the Government having to sustain a vital defence industry by giving it the work it needs, when it most needs it. Preserving a healthy defence industrial base means just that; we cannot allow essential bits of it to wither away through lack of forward planning on both sides, or because of badly-phased ordering.
  One of the vital areas for defence is the guided weapons industry. I am glad, therefore, today to be able to tell the House of new decisions in that field. As the House is aware, we have been studying ways of satisfying the R.A.F.'s requirements for both medium and short-range air-to-air missiles to supplement those at present in service.
  We are asking Hawker Siddeley Dynamics to look into the possibility of modifying the American medium range Sparrow weapon to incorporate advanced new British components which are to be

  1521
  developed by Marconi Space and Defence Systems Limited and E.M.I. Limited. Meanwhile, since no suitable British weapon is available a small number of medium range Sparrow missiles is being acquired from the United States to top up our holdings for the Phantom aircraft. We have had to buy American because the previous Administration as a matter of policy abandoned the U.K. capability in the air-to-air weapons field and instead purchased American missiles for the Phantom.
  As to the short-range requirement, I can now tell the House that the Government have decided, subject to a satisfactory outcome of negotiations, to place a contract with Hawker Siddeley Dynamics for project definition of a new missile known as S.R.A.A.M. 75. It is the Government's intention also to equip the Royal Navy with a new anti-ship guided weapon system for use with naval Lynx helicopters. Subject to satisfactory negotiations a contract for project definition will shortly be placed with the guided weapons division of British Aircraft Corporation. This missile is known as CL 834.
  After the project definition phase, these two projects will be reviewed in the light of all the circumstances of the time, including the progress and latest estimated cost of the project, and the overall loading of the industry. A decision will then be taken whether or not to proceed to full development. Work in these initial stages of CL 834 and S.R.A.A.M. 75 will occupy important advanced technology resources in the British Aircraft Corporation and Hawker Siddeley Dynamics as well as in other British firms.
  Mr. John Morris: Could the Minister assist the House? He has given the employment figures for some other projects, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) is concerned about S.R.A.A.M. 75. What are the employment results of his present decision as regards project definition study and also the purchase of Sparrow?
  Mr. Gilmour: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the answer to that because we have only just made and announced the decision and, therefore, we have not had the necessary full discussion.
  1522
  Finally, I would like to deal with the Amendment which has been tabled. I am rather disappointed to see that only one hon. Gentleman who signed it is here, the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). He will, therefore, forgive me if I address my remarks almost exclusively at him. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, East yesterday produced a cogent argument against the Amendment in general, and I would like to adopt but not repeat that argument. My right hon. Friend yesterday reiterated the purely defence aspect of the situation and emphasised the threat to which we are subject. I would like therefore, to concentrate on perhaps the less obvious implications of the policy advocated in the Amendment.
  I have already mentioned that a third of defence expenditure is taken up with equipment. There is little room for manoeuvre in manpower costs. So any cutback in the budget would therefore inevitably have to be borne substantially in the equipment area. Not only would we not have been able to add to the defence orders in order to help unemployment; we should have to cancel and forgo many other projects as well. That means that those areas and people who have benefited from our orders for naval ships on the Clyde, on the Tyne and at Leith and those who have benefited from the Nimrod, Buccaneer, Bulldog and Jetstream orders would not have benefited. It is remarkable that many of those who have signed the Amendment have a lot of constituents who are benefiting and who will benefit from these recent defence orders. Other hon. Members have constituents whose jobs are heavily dependent upon the maintenance of the defence budget even at its normal level.
  No one doubts the sincerity of the hon. Member for Salford, East or of his hon. Friends who have signed the Amendment. But, equally, no one can doubt that their convictions can only be acted upon at the cost of making many of their constituents unemployed. So to support the Amendment is to opt for increased unemployment. Hon. Members opposite must know this perfectly well. Many of them whose constituencies, like that of the hon. Member for Salford, East, are in the North-West have written to me or been to see me to ask for

  1523
  increased orders for the North-West, for Hawker Siddeley. Many of my hon. Friends have done the same. They wanted us to place more aircraft orders because they were worried by the prospect of many more people being unemployed at Hawker Siddeley. We are now buying more Nimrods, yet many hon. Members from the North-West have signed the Amendment, which, if carried out, would mean there would be no Nimrod order and no Jetstream order either. The inference is perfectly clear. Hon. Members opposite consider their ideological prejudices more important than the employment of their constituents.
  I recognise the pro-European direction of the Amendment, and I welcome the desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite for greater harmonisation of our defence policy with Europe. But, while I appreciate the zeal of the hon. Member for Salford, East for European integration, I think he is pushing far too fast and in the wrong direction. In any case the Amendment is sheer economic as well as defence madness.
  So much for the inconsistencies of Labour Members. We are only pleased that their views are very far from being shared by the Opposition Front Bench.
  Mr. John Cronin: Can the Minister of State indicate why the Government do not employ a middle course in this respect and negotiate with the other countries in Western Europe to increase their supply of armaments and therefore take some of the burden off this country?
  Mr. Gilmour: Whether or not the other countries in Europe increase their defence budgets, if we reduce ours, as I have explained at some length, that will still mean increased unemployment in this country. The employment situation as a result of our defence budget is the same irrespective of what people in Europe do, although on defence grounds we would welcome any increased effort made by our friends in Europe.
  Dame Joan Vickers: My hon. Friend the Minister of State is giving employment to a great number of people, which we welcome. But why is he cutting down employment among his own employees in the dockyards?
  Mr. Gilmour: The point of our increased shipbuilding orders was to keep a viable defence shipbuilding industry, and, therefore, it would not have been appropriate to place them in my hon. Friend's constituency.
  We hope that in due course the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, East, who made such a sensible speech yesterday, will be able to convert his hon. Friends to a more enlightened attitude on defence.
  4.34 p.m.
  Dr. David Owen: The House has conducted a debate on defence estimates and defence expenditure in a situation which, I think, is almost unique in that yesterday the House was presented with a report from its own Select Committee on Expenditure undertaken by the defence section of that committee. It is a great shame that it has not been possible for the House to have had a greater opportunity to read this report before the debate. Indeed, we have had very little time to look at the White Paper before the defence debates.
  There is no area of governmental activity where parliamentary control is in reality less effective than in the area of defence. For far too long successive Governments and successive Ministers have been allowed to hide behind a shroud of secrecy and not subject their policies and their expenditure priorities to the same degree of scrutiny as that which we traditionally exercise in other areas of expenditure.
  It is a significant advance in parliamentary scrutiny, criticism and control of the executive that an expenditure committee is now seriously looking at defence. I pay tribute to the Government for having made available a great deal of information which has hitherto never been disclosed to hon. Members, and that has made a valuable contribution to opening up the whole subject. We on this side of the House feel there is room for a greater relaxation in security classifications and I said this when I was in government, and we endorse the recommendation from the all-party committee that there should be far greater freedom to disclose classified expenditure figures. We understand that there are security implications, but I believe that all my hon. Friends, whatever their feelings about defence expenditure, would

  1525
  welcome more information and a clearer idea of the options. I hope that the Government will think, too, about providing time for a discussion of the report. Perhaps as a member of the Committee I should not comment on its merits, but I believe the report contains enough information to justify the House taking a further look at expenditure.
  I believe that world military expenditure is far too high and, like many of my hon. Friends, I would thoroughly support any activity which is consistently aimed at reducing world military expenditure. It stands at the moment at about £500 billion and it absorbs some 6 per cent. to 7 per cent. of all world output. There is a grave danger that we shall learn to accept a continuing arms race. It has already become a part of twentieth-century life. But, as parliamentarians, we have a duty constantly to examine this expenditure.
  With inflation and rising wealth in many Western countries, defence expenditure has increased to keep pace, but there have been two significant leaps. It doubled in the three years following the declaration of the Korean war in 1949 and it then increased by 50 per cent. between 1965 and 1970, largely as a result of the Vietnam war and as a result of Soviet military expansion and increased expenditure. However, this trend has not been followed in Europe. In 1952 Britain was spending approximately 11·8 per cent. of her G.N.P. on defence. That may not be comparable with the way in which we express defence expenditure now, but it is a fair approximation. In the same year, 1952, our European allies were spending 7·5 per cent. So even at that time there was a marked discrepancy between Britain and Europe. By 1959 our European allies were spending 5·9 per cent. while in Britain—
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: The hon. Member is referring to our European allies collectively and that, therefore, gives him an average figure. But that could be misleading because it could include Luxembourg, and I do not think her defence expenditure can be all that great.
  Dr. Owen: Luxembourg is included but it is a weighted average. In Britain in 1964 we were spending 7 per cent.
  1526
  of our G.N.P. on defence. My hon. Friends should bear in mind that one of the substantial achievements of the Labour Government from 1964 to 1970 was substantially to reduce that figure to its current level. I would say to many of my hon. Friends who signed the Amendment before the House that I, like them, fought in 1966 and 1967 for defence cuts—and I have done that while representing a naval constituency. I am proud to say that I did so and openly advocated such cuts. I believed at the time that we should withdraw from East of Suez, that we should adopt a different world rôle, with a primary emphasis on Europe.
  We were right to press for that, but we should not delude ourselves. To bring about that degree of reduction in percentage of G.N.P. was a painful experience. We had difficulties with our allies and the Services, and we had persistent and most obsessional criticism from Conservative Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is all very well for them to say "Hear, hear". They are now accepting exactly the same defence policy as the Labour Government. There is not a jot of difference in it, and they know it. It is all credit to the Secretary of State who sits in another place that, for all the difficulties, he saw the sensible nature of the defence changes that had taken place and has carried them on substantially unchanged. I am glad to see the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary here, because he, too, has accepted many of the foreign policy judgments embodied in many of the defence cuts, particularly in relation to the Persian Gulf, that were so vigorously opposed by Conservative Members.
  I welcome to that extent the degree of agreement between the two Front Benches, but when we left office in June, 1970 we had every intention of pursuing defence cuts. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), the then Secretary of State, was convinced that there was a possibility of multilateral discussions aimed at reducing defence expenditure. It is here that I part company with my hon. Friends, because I am certain that defence expenditure cuts by this country in the next decade can come about only by multilateral agreement, by negotiations with our allies, and that the most foolhardy

  1527
  step would be to make those decisions unilaterally.
  We should see what some of our friends in Europe think about this issue. We on this side often pay tribute to the immense achievements of our Social-Democrat colleagues in West Germany for their Ostpolitik policies, but let us face facts. Neither the Chancellor, Herr Brandt, nor the Defence Secretary, Herr Schmidt, would dream of advocating unilateral defence cuts at this critical moment in the pursuit of détente. They know full well that their ability to conduct negotiation on détente, to pursue the policies we have all advocated for many years, depends on their having behind them a shield of security. They are as committed to N.A.T.O., to the European Improvement Plan, to the overall strength and stability of N.A.T.O., as we are.
  Equally, it is no use our being anxious about defence cuts by our principal N.A.T.O. ally, the United States. If we were to pursue unilateral cuts, would it pursue unilateral cuts? I believe it is inevitable, and, as viewed from the United States position, probably right, that it should to some extent reduce its force levels in Europe. But those reductions should be planned and discussed with its N.A.T.O. allies and come about as a result of mutual agreement.
  Where my hon. Friends' criticism of the Government is wholly justified is on the difference of attitude between the two Front Benches on the possibilities for détente and the objectives behind it. I was utterly astonished to hear the Minister of State say yesterday, in discussing the negotiations for force reductions in Europe:
  "We want to strike a fair bargain which does not diminish security on either side."
  Nobody would disagree with that.
  "If it can be achieved it may well be enormously worth while in relaxing tension, but we must be under no illusion that what we are concerned with is force withdrawals for a specified area. It will not result in any direct financial savings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 23rd February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 1316.]
  If that is the right hon. Gentleman's concept of mutual and balance force reductions, it is a very different concept from that which was inspired by the then Labour Government in 1967 in the Harmel Report, which was agreed by all
  1528
  our N.A.T.O. allies then and in subsequent N.A.T.O. discussions in Reykjavik, Brussels and in Lisbon, when his own Government were involved. It has always been a part of mutual and balanced force reductions that they lead to an absolute reduction in forces, that one disbands forces. Obviously, the savings will not come in the first financial year or even in the second or third, but the end result is substantial savings if reductions can be achieved on a mutual basis. I see no point in continuing the arms race just for the sake of doing so. There are far more priorities for expenditure in this country to which I would gladly divert resources, and to which we did divert resources when we were in government. What I am not prepared to contenance—nor, I believe, would many of my hon. Friends who signed the Amendment—is anything that in the short term put in peril the security of this country.
  The objective of defence cuts is one that I commend. I would go even further. As this country enters the Common Market, as we compete with European countries across the open tariff system, it will become clear that we shall not be able industrially to support a disproportionate defence effort. That must be apparent to our friends and allies both in N.A.T.O. and in the European Economic Community. It is reasonable and right—and I am sure the pressure is being put on by the present Government as it was by the Labour Government—to ask our European allies to ensure that their contributions compare reasonably with those of the countries paying the highest contribution. It is obvious that in any form of industrial common market no country can make a disproportionate effort. One of our major arguments against the East of Suez policies was that we felt that we were being saddled with overseas costs wholly disproportionate to this country's size and its place in the real world, particularly in Europe.
  I do not dispute for one moment that Conservative Members wish to see mutual and balanced force reductions as much as we do. But since they took office they have always been the most pessimistic about them. One of the bases for their pessimism is their assessment of the threat in Europe. The White Paper is the second to start by re-emphasising the

  1529
  imbalance in Europe. It must be clear to any hon. Member who studies the facts that there is a marked difference between this country's assessment of the military balance and that made by our principal N.A.T.O. ally, the United States. To say that it is more optimistic and that we are more pessimistic is but one explanation. The pressures on both sides are different. We wish the American Administration to resist force reductions. They wish to show that in the fullness of time, if they do make force reductions, they will not be leaving Europe with an unbalanced military force level.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman explain—
  Dr. Owen: No. The hon. Gentleman made his speech in an intervention yesterday. I am going on to explain the point. I know the hon. Gentleman will not like it.
  I am asking the House to look at the question of the military balance far more seriously than is normally the case in the opening few paragraphs in the last two Defence White Papers about the "threat" or the kinds of advertisement we see, usually for the Army, which talk about the crude two to one outnumbering of N.A.T.O. forces in Central Europe, the three to one outnumbering in armour and artillery, and four to one outnumbering in some essential types of aircraft. Anyone can play the numbers game. The facts are that the United States' objective assessment of the military balance is that we are roughly in balance. That was McNamara's belief in 1968 in his annual posture statement.
  Mr. Wilkinson indicated dissent.
  Dr. Owen: The present American Administration has not come out with quite such a categoric statement, but the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson), who is always quoting the Institute for Strategic Studies should examine a publication of that Institute, January's edition of Survival. He will find Frederick Wyle's assessment of the balance. He was the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and N.A.T.O. Affairs and left office in 1969. I believe that his assessment is exactly similar to that of most people in the Pentagon today. He says:
  1530
  "First, there is in fact a reasonable balance of conventional forces between N.A.T.O. and the Warsaw Pact, and between the countries on each side in the Centre Region of Europe, with and without the backing of the principal power in each alliance: a global superiority in manpower, equipment, and budget by N.A.T.O., and a rough parity on the ground in Europe, with substantial equipment advantages in most categories."
  That may be too optimistic for hon. Gentlemen in this House, and I think it possibly is in some sense. I think the United States has tended to underestimate certain key factors, but it is certainly a long way from the pessimistic forebodings that come continuously from this Government, and of course from none more than the Secretary of State, who said, as reported in col. 400 of the OFFICIAL REPORT:
  "The fact is that in Europe the Warsaw Pact has a marked superiority over the West…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 22nd February, 1972; Vol. 328, c. 400]
  Mr. R. T. Paget: Does my hon. Friend realise the danger of articles such as that of Wyle? This is the same kind of argument as that which says that the Americans can leave Vietnam and leave a viable situation behind them. This is the preliminary excuse for their going, and it is terrifying.
  Dr. Owen: If my hon. and learned Friends reads the article and knows Wyle's commitment to the subject of European defence and N.A.T.O. he will realise that what he says is unjustified. Wyle has always been a very strong advocate of continued American contributions at a substantial level in Europe, as I am. He has always believed that the strength of the European defence effort is wholly dependent on the United States' contribution to it. If my hon. and learned Friend wishes, I can add another statement. I would draw attention to the statement of the Government, a very valid statement, on the question of mutual and balanced forced reductions at a conference in Munich only a few weeks ago which I had the honour of attending. The Under-Secretary of State for the Navy said, talking about Europe:
  "…there are complications arising from the different size of Warsaw Pact and N.A.T.O divisions. Although there is something approaching equality of manpower there is also a crucial disparity in numbers of major equipments, of which, in terms of offensive

  1531
  capability, tanks and tactical aircraft are the most significant. Here we have some 14,500 Warsaw Pact tanks facing 6,000 of N.A.T.O.'s and figures of 3,500 and 1,300 respectively for tactical aircraft. These facts serve to illustrate the central problem of M.B.F.R., namely the enormous difficulty of applying mutual and balanced reductions to an unbalanced situation without producing a result which is even less balanced."
  I accept those figures, which are taken from the International Institute for Strategic Studies publication "The Military Balance 1971–72". But when we talk about numbers of tanks we must look at the capability of those tanks and the difference in their rôles. Tanks deployed by N.A.T.O. are primarily for defensive purposes. N.A.T.O. has always had a far higher percentage of anti-tank guns, for instance; and quite rightly so, because their primary rôle is defensive. So when we look at tanks we must look at their capability, and the Chieftains and other British tanks are in every way superior to most of the tanks of the Warsaw Pact countries.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: Has the hon. Gentleman seen what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said in another place—that the Warsaw Pact has a superiority of two to one?
  Dr. Owen: I read what the noble Lord said in another place and I would say that the emphasis on his speech was on criticism of the Government for not pursuing policies of détente and disengagement. I agree with that. But on the question of balance in Europe I do not agree with the noble Lord, nor do I agree with him on the question of nuclear weapons. Those were not the views of the Government of which I was proud to be a member when they were in power, nor are they their views in Opposition. There has to be reliance on some form of nuclear guarantee; that is inherent in the strategy of flexible response. Many hon. Members, including hon. Gentlemen opposite, have argued that Europe must have a massive conventional capability, and I believe that that is the view of my noble Friend. I believe that this is politically impossible and that this is the view of the present Government.
  The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): How can the hon. Gentleman tell us that we are not trying to achieve relaxation of tension and détente? We support the Ostpolitik, we
  1532
  are playing our part and are involved in the strategic Arms Limitation Talks, and the Berlin Agreement was signed last September. What further step does he think should have been taken which we have not taken?
  Dr. Owen: I think it is a question of enthusiasm and emphasis. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may not like to hear this, but they should listen. The basis on which they have to look at this is that if they support the desire for a mutual and balanced reduction of forces from a wrong assessment of the facts, they are not likely to achieve rapid progress. I am not unrealistic about the position; I realise that progress will be slow. President Johnson first suggested the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks in 1964; it is only now, in 1972, that the first break-through is likely to come on A.B.M.s when in May President Nixon visits Moscow. Of course these things take time, but hon. Gentleman have every right to urge the Government, as we do, to put as strong an emphasis as possible on this.
  A more realistic assessment must be made of the military balance, especially since the assessment of this country is not in agreement with that of our principal N.A.T.O. ally. I am not necessarily saying that we should accept all the American views on the balance, but I believe that we are unrealistic in many of our basic assessments of the military balance on the central front and in Europe as a whole. I think this point needs to be brought home to the House.
  I would say that there are in this report of the Committee, which did not feel able because of the limited evidence taken to form an assessment, two articles of interest. There is the article on military balance by the Institute of Strategic Studies—so often referred to by hon. Gentlemen opposite—which is very good, and another article from the S.I.P.R.I. Year Book, 1968–69. The figures in the latter may be slightly out of date, but it gives a rather more optimistic viewpoint. These should be studied by hon. Gentlement. It is no use bandying figures about without looking more carefully at the facts. Unless and until that is done, we shall not achieve the basis for negotiation of large mutual and balance reductions of forces.

  1533
  Having said this, I think my hon. Friends are right to urge this Government to reduce defence expenditure and pursue policies of détente. I must say to them that if in fact they are trying to do this on a unilateral basis they are threatening the success of what they and I wish to see. That was the view of this party in Government and it should not change because we are in Opposition.
  There is one other major item of defence expenditure and that is the research and defence budget. It is well known to this House that the research and defence budget, which the hon. Gentleman who started the debate mentioned because he is responsible for it, involves substantial amounts of money. It employs, I believe, some 30,000 people, has some 30 establishments and spends over £100 million.
  We on this side welcome, broadly speaking the setting up of the procurement executive. We believe it is doing a substantial job. We are greatly concerned—I know my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) is—that we are taking up too much of the scarce resources of manufacturing skills and equipment, and we must urge the Government to make strategic decisions in this whole area. I believe that the room for small, piecemeal changes and small economies is not great. What is needed is, first, a merging of establishments, and second, the eradication of some whole areas of research and development—a policy of much greater selectivity and considerable ruthlessness. This is one area where I do not believe this will lead to unemployment because industry is crying out for these skills.
  Industry is crying out for these skills, and if we are to get industrial expansion it is unhelpful, to say the least, to have so much skill bound up in defence research. This area merits considerable study. It has been looked at several times by Select Committees of the House, and the conclusion on an all-party basis has always been that there is room for substantial cuts. I hope that the Government and the new procurement executive will pursue this with vigour.
  On other aspects of the defence estimates I reiterate what are becoming old chestnuts, and they will continue to be reiterated by me for as long as I
  1534
  continue to speak from this Bench. The Government should look at the shape of the Navy. It is wrong. I have said before and I will say again that we need to build more nuclear-powered submarines and fewer surface ships. I draw to the attention of the House the important and difficult expenditure choice that will face the country at the end of this decade. The M.R.C.A. expenditure is coinciding very much with the cruiser expenditure, and there is little room in the defence budget for future years. We who expect to be on the opposite side of the House dealing with these problems three or four years hence are showing more concern about what will be happening then than in the immediate future. We therefore feel we should draw attention to this and to the need for it to be looked at again.
  There are areas of defence where I should like to see more money spent, with economies in other areas. The argument that the balance of the Fleet has always been the same is no argument, when the Russians have so significantly changed the balance of their fleet in favour of under-water warfare and submarines, for saying that we in this country should continue to stay outside such a strategic change.
  On he question of the M.R.C.A., most hon. Members thoroughly approve of the prospect of greater European collaboration in building together expensive military projects. This not only makes sense in terms of unit costs because of the larger numbers but also makes sense in terms of logistics, support and back-up in Europe. It also means that we can make economies. But the European collaboration has to take place at a much earlier stage, right back at the staff requirement and operational requirements stage, and we need to push this with a great deal more vigour.
  For instance, in Europe the lorries run by various European armies, are practically without exception, national in origin, with different spares and different logistic back-up. This is a nonsense which cannot be tolerated for much longer. There are economies to be made there. Similarly, with aircraft types and with ships, where the different types of frigates and destroyers bear little resemblance to each other.
  It is no use to talk on the one hand about European unity and on the other

  1535
  hand to put forward European force levels which constantly exclude France and even exclude the French divisions in Germany. Of course the French are not members of the military structure of the organisation, but they are and have always remained subscribers to the North Atlantic Treaty. The amount of money the French continue to spend on nuclear weapons is also of serious concern. It means that they cannot spend much on conventional weapons. By 1975 it is estimated that 20 per cent. of the French defence budget will be spent on nuclear weapons, although that technology is already available within the Alliance.
  There is no doubt in my mind that collaboration in Europe on procurement and military strategic matters within N.A.T.O. can result in substantial economies. There is a need for this policy to be pursued with much more vigour. Everyone wants it, but the attainment of this objective has been severely limited.
  In conclusion, I hope that when my hon. Friends come to make a decision on how they will vote tonight they will ask themselves whether the Motion will achieve its objective. If it were to encourage the Government to pursue policies of détente with the same vigour with which they are pursued by our Socialist colleagues in West Germany, the Motion would possibly have a good effect. If it were, however, to lend credence to the belief that unilateral defence cuts by this country are the answer to stability in the future and to world peace, then it would be gravely disadvantageous. We are a member of an Alliance, and our strength lies in the unity of that Alliance and in multilateral agreement. We in this country must realise that one nation alone is not capable of responding to the threat to our shores or to industrial competition. We need to combine; we need to adopt a multi-national identity. It is in multilateralism that the prospect of meaningful and safe defence expenditure reductions lies.
  5.5 p.m.
  Mr. Julian Critchley: Earlier this week the whole House showed and shared a sense of horror and sorrow at the outrage that occurred in
  1536
  my constituency of Aldershot when six civilians and a priest were killed. It is ironic that some advantage may come from this disaster, for the universal horror which has been expressed has led Mr. Lynch to move with unaccustomed firmness against the I.R.A. in the Republic. I think we are all, on both sides of the House, agreed that there can be no settlement in Northern Ireland until the South recognises, as does the North, that the ugly romanticism of the I.R.A. is the enemy of all reasonable people.
  My intervention is for one purpose, to tell the House that the Mayor of Aldershot has announced this afternoon the setting up of a disaster fund for the dependants and relations of those who have died and for those who have been injured. I feel certain that many people, civilian and military alike, will wish to show their sympathy in this way for the victims of the outrage.
  The relationship between Aldershot and the Army has always been close, but it has been strengthened by what has happened this week. We have strong feelings of admiration for the skill and restraint that the British Army has shown throughout the emergency in Northern Ireland.
  5.7 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof:
  "condemns Her Majesty's Government's failure to restrain arms spending; and urges it to reduce Great Britain's share of the gross national product devoted to military expenditure from the current 5·7 per cent. towards the 4·2 per cent. average for European North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Governments".
  The Amendment stands on the Order Paper in the name of 117 hon. and right hon. Members. Before anyone asks where they are, I will point out that there are only 15 hon. Members opposite present this afternoon. On a matter which involves nearly £3,000 million, hon. Members, particularly hon. Gentlemen opposite, seem blind to their responsibility for trying to secure the enormous savings which could be achieved.
  Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell: There are 15 on this side of the House, and that is more than there are on the Opposition benches.
  Mr. Allaun: Fifteen does not represent a record-shaking attendance. We are talking about the biggest increase, in cash terms, in the Army's expenditure in peacetime history, not excluding the period of the Korean war.
  I am not an expert statistician, so I have asked the statisticians in the Library to work out how much the defence budget costs each family in the country. The cost to an average family of four of the £2,854 million works out at £3·97 per week. Of course some families will not pay so much in taxation, and others will pay more. The taxation comes from money spent on beer, tobacco, income tax, and so on, and this defence budget accounts for £4 per week per family.
  It is remarkable that, with the exception of my 117 hon. Friends, most people do not seem to be very concerned about this matter. I am advancing a moderate argument. Indeed I am beginning to wonder at myself. I am becoming so moderate that one day I shall join the five hon. Gentlemen who sit behind me on the Liberal Benches—but if I do I shall certainly wear a steel waistcoat.
  What we are proposing is that the British share of G.N.P. devoted to arms, which I was told in November by the noble Lord was 5·7 per cent., should be reduced to the average amount of G.N.P. spent on defence by European N.A.T.O. countries, namely to 4·2 per cent. The noble Lord said that if the figure were reduced, it would save the little sum of £600 million. If we were to reduce it to the Italian share of G.N.P., to 3 per cent., or to the West German share of G.N.P., to 3·7 per cent., we would save far more than £600 million a year.
  With a sum of £600 million a year in our hands we could do all the things we dearly want to do. I want to see the building of 500,000 houses a year to relieve the terrible housing misery in this country. I believe that 500,000 houses could easily be built annually with this money. The T.U.C. and the Labour Party are pressing for the old-age pension to be raised from £6 to £8 a week. That again could be done out of this saving of money on defence. We have all heard with horror about what happened recently in one mental hospital, and I have no doubt that such cases could be repeated in future. All these matters require money to remedy them, and defence
  1538
  is the only sphere in which the present Government, or any other Government, can act without hurting ordinary working people.
  I repeat the question which I put to the noble Lord yesterday: why should Britain spend a higher share of G.N.P. on arms than any other country in Western Europe, with the exception of Portugal which is engaged in a colonial war? The Minister said:
  "… the simple fact is that the Soviet military capability is growing steadily … Its present expenditure is about 8 per cent. of the gross national product."
  I deplore the fact that the Minister was deliberately selective in his arguments. He omitted to mention that the Soviet Union is the great military power in the Warsaw Pact and that America is the great military power in the N.A.T.O. Pact and that, if the Russian share of G.N.P. is 8 per cent., that of America is, I understand, 9 per cent.
  The Minister then proceeded to attempt to scare us—and this was not the first occasion—with reports about the Soviet Navy. He spoke about
  "… its deployment in the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 23rd Feb., 1972; Vol. 831, c. 1313.]
  I dislike its presence there, it serves no useful purpose at all. And exactly the same applies to the United States Navy. What are they doing in the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean. They are much further from United States' shores than are the Soviet Union ships. The White Papers which were issued by the Labour Government—and I did not always agree with them—all maintained that there was no likelihood of Soviet military advance into Europe. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) as former Secretary of State for Defence put forward this view in his White Paper, I do not remember it being challenged by the Opposition at that time. Is it not clear to all but the most hidebound militarists that neither the Americans nor the Russians have the slightest intention of invading East Europe or West Europe.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Then why is it that the Yugoslavs are so apprehensive about their security and are having to revise their ideas of partisan warfare and citizen force defence to meet a Soviet challenge, and why is it that the Romanians also

  1539
  are apprehensive about the Russians to their north?
  Mr. Allaun: I accept the question. What Soviet Russia did in Czechoslovakia was absolutely wrong and indefensible, but this is partly due to the existence of the two military camps—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Gentlemen may not accept it, but that is my belief. There are also other reasons, but I regard that as the dominant one. If that is the case, then I argue that neither side wants to invade the other. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman did not suggest that the Soviet Union wanted to invade Western Europe, any more than America wants to invade Eastern Europe. If this is the case, why should we go on wasting our resources in this way?
  Mr. Patrick Wall: The hon. Gentleman has put forward the case involving stalemate in general in Europe, and I go a long way with him. Would he accept that the Soviet Union has the second largest and most modern fleet in the world? Why should the world's second largest land power wish to be the second largest sea power when it does not need sea communications to survive, as do these islands?
  Mr. Allaun: The hon. Gentleman asks why the Soviet Union has the second greatest navy in the world. He might as well have asked why America should have the first greatest navy in the world. They are both equally foolish, and I am asking for sanity so that there should be mutual force reductions. Why should we act even more foolishly than the rest of the European N.A.T.O. Governments?
  I was disappointed with the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson). He should have taken the line of my hon. Friends and myself. The pursuit of drastic arms reduction is the official policy of the Labour Party, to which we on this side of the House belong. I hope I summarise his argument correctly by saying that he believes the time is not right to reduce arms, that the situation is one of détente and that we are on the eve of discussion of mutual arms reduction. I think that is a fair summary of his argument. He was really saying that this is not the time to take action. But it never is the time. Supposing at this moment we had a situation of acute
  1540
  tension in Europe. Would the argument then be that it is not the time to take action because the situation is so serious? One cannot win. It seems that it never is the time.
  Mr. George Thomson: There is a time, and I was a member of a Government which recognised that there was a time when we reduced defence expenditure from 7 per cent. to 5½ per cent. of G.N.P.
  Mr. Allaun: I am grateful for that intervention. What I am asking goes further and reduces the percentage to 4·2.
  My right hon. Friend's second argument was that he wants to see mutual arms reductions. I believe everybody is of this view. There may be some people who still believe in gunboats, but most sensible people on both sides want to see mutual arms reductions. I stress that our Amendment in no way conflicts with mutual balanced force reductions. The latter, mutual force reduction, should bring down the proportion for all countries and give additional help to our social services and other needs. In my view, Britain would be in a stronger position to argue for mutual arms reduction if her own contribution were not higher than the remaining countries in N.A.T.O., with the exception of America and Portugal.
  Where could we make the cuts? The first sphere would be in research and development. We are spending £330 million a year on military research and development. I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) that it is a fantastic expenditure. It is almost exactly ten times what the State spends in two different directions on medical research. We spend £33·8 million a year on medical research and 10 times that amount on military research. This is a crazy situation. This is where the country could and should make cuts if commonsense applied.
  The second item is the British Army of the Rhine, which involves direct expenditure of £263 million. If overheads were added, it would be a tidy sum more than that.
  Thirdly, we could make cuts in our nuclear strategic forces programme.
  Fourthly, we could make cuts in the development and production of the

  1541
  M.R.C.A. The latest figure which I could get appeared in Flight of 24th June, 1971. It is now estimated that it will cost us £630 million. However, I should like to take a bet that that by no means is the figure which it will eventually cost. Everybody knows that this has happened to all our previous weapons, without exception.
  The last sphere in which we could make cuts is in the size of our Armed Forces. They should be reduced from their present size of 364,000 in uniform, plus 344,000 non-uniformed employees of the Ministry of Defence. Before anybody asks me whether I believe we should cut their pay and conditions, I do not think that I need to answer that question. It is quite clear that certainly we on this side of the House stand for good pay and conditions for both Servicemen and people in the ordnance factories. However, this makes it all the more important, if we are to increase their pay—in view of inflation and price increases it has to be increased—to make economies in their numbers and in other spheres of arms spending.
  That brings me to my last point which was mentioned this afternoon by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement: would reduction in arms spending cause unemployment? My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), who represents a town which is based on Vickers Armstrong, has had the sense and the courage to point out to the workers at Vickers that their employment would be far more secure if, instead of concentrating on the 7,500-ton Polaris, they were tendering for and building 100,000-ton oil tankers, and so on.
  There have been two high-powered inquiries into the question whether arms reduction would cause unemployment. One was by the United Nations and the other by the Economist Intelligence Unit. Both have shown that, with planning, it is practical to transfer men from war production to peace production. I will illustrate my point to the Minister, because it may be that he has not had the experience. Imagine an engineer turning a small piece of metal on a centre lathe. It does not matter to him whether that piece of metal is to go into a tank or a tractor. However, from my experience of
  1542
  engineers with whom I have worked, I know that they would greatly prefer that piece of metal to go into a tractor rather than into a tank.
  The proof of the pudding is that in 1945 we did not just transfer from a large arms programme to a small arms programme, which is what I am advocating today; we switched from a war economy to a peace economy. There were 9 million men and women in the Armed Forces or in the war factories. Within nine months they were switched from a war economy to a peace economy, with planning under a Labour Government, without unemployment. What I am suggesting is very moderate, and no doubt it could be done, but perhaps phased over about three years.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: No one disputes that at certain stages of the economic situation what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting can be done. However, the point with which he has to deal is: can it be done in a period of high unemployment? If it is as easy to redeploy people as he suggests, it is difficult to understand why unemployment doubled when the Labour Government were in power.
  Mr. Allaun: I do not defend that. However, unemployment has now gone up to over 1 million, which is more than we ever imagined or would have allowed.
  A high military budget is normally accompanied by a fall in economic growth rate. The example given to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness, who knows more about shipbuilding than I do, is Japan where tonnage has grown from 2 million per year to 14 million per year in a relatively short time, whereas our share of world shipbuilding has slumped dramatically. We devote between 90 and 98 per cent. of research in shipbuilding to military rather than to peaceful shipbuilding. My point is that an equal amount of research and development applied in the civilian sphere would ensure far more employment and production than in the military sphere.
  5.28 p.m.
  Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: I endorse wholeheartedly the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) who spoke about the Report of the sub-Committee of the Select Committee on

  1543
  Expenditure. The hon. Gentleman was a most valuable member of the sub-Committee, as were the other six members, of which I had the honour to be Chairman. The eight members of the sub-Committee got to know more about what is happening, by the kindness of the Ministry of Defence, than any hon. Members have done before. We produced a unanimous report because we kept the right objective before us. As part of the Expenditure Committee looking at the expenditure of the Ministry of Defence, we did not conceive it our duty to say which weapons or how many men should be employed, but we pointed out that, if it followed a certain course, that would be the expenditure. This is the report which we produced. I do not want to put hon. Members off by its size. Our report is in the first part. The rest contains the evidence which we took.
  One remarkable point about our report, which is not in the White Paper, is that many words are missing and we have had to put in asterisks. We are grateful for what we heard, but we hope that in future the Ministry will be able to let us publish rather more, because it is only with knowledge of what is happening that we can have a true debate on whether we are spending our resources properly.
  I shall take certain points in the White Paper and comment on them with partially my own views and some of the views of the Committee. I refer first, from my own point of view, to paragraphs 4 to 9. From the evidence we took and from what I have seen, there is no doubt that the Soviet threat is still as strong as ever and increasing in the West. That was underlined by my noble Friend the Secretary of State in another place yesterday. Though the Soviet Union may have built up its forces in the East, this has meant no slackening in the West. I welcome particularly the remarks in paragraph 8 about our contributions—increased contributions—in N.A.T.O. for the European defence improvement programme.
  Taking one example of what comes under this programme, we visited Germany and saw the building of solid shelters for our aircraft, which should be bombproof. At present we do not have them. We and the Royal Air
  1544
  Force there considered that on our four airfields these are very necessary.
  From our observations and from a visit to S.H.A.P.E. headquarters and talks with General Goodpaster and our own General FitzPatrick, the Deputy Commander, we also concluded that the slowness of integration between the different allies was most disappointing, particularly now that 52 per cent. of our expenditure is on personnel, thus limiting the equipment. Standardisation would help in this matter. That comes out clearly at paragraph 31 of our report.
  When the Secretary of State gave evidence before the Committee, he said that one of the most disappointing aspects of N.A.T.O. since 1949 has been the lack of any real advance in the standardisation of weapons. He said that some standardisation had been achieved, and we know this. But the obstacles are still formidable. They must be overcome.
  One of the difficulties is that countries want to re-equip at different times. Many countries, because of social or employment conditions in their industries, prefer to produce their own weapons. Many have their own research and development. Many are still reluctant to make themselves dependent on what they regard as possibly unreliable sources for weapons which they consider vital to their defence needs. Integration does not mean that every N.A.T.O. country must participate in every project. Experience shows that three countries combining is the best formula—such as over the multi-rôle combat aircraft. Such products can then be sold to the other N.A.T.O. allies. Much more can be done in the standardisation of equipment. Even if we have the same equipment, each country can produce its requirements.
  At present there is a large variety of different types of aircraft in the German, Belgian, Dutch and British air forces. Their effectiveness is greatly reduced because the airfields of each country are equipped to deal only with the types of aircraft used by that country. The Commander-in-Chief told the sub-Committee that if, when one or more R.A.F. airfields had been put out of action, those R.A.F. aircraft which were airborne at the time could be diverted to airfields of other countries to be rearmed and reloaded the operability of

  1545
  the R.A.F. as a whole would be increased 200 to 300 per cent. These are very sobering thoughts for allies against one common enemy. For this reason, he said that he would give first priority to inter-operability, and then to standardisation of aircraft and weapons.
  Second, I refer to paragraph 13. During the Christmas Recess I visited the new Five-Power Pact in Singapore. It is possible that I am the only Member of Parliament who has made such a visit. I hope that many other hon. Members will do so. I also went to Kuala Lumpur and met leading Ministers in Malaysia. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, the ANZUK side under Admiral Wells is off to a good start. The Australian and British contingents are roughly on a par, while that of New Zealand, naturally, is smaller. But it is remarkable that New Zealand has placed her one regular battalion in Singapore, although rather under-strength. All the staffs are already integrated. The brigade commander is British. Fortunately, he has had experience in the trouble in Malaya in the early 1950s. He was staff trained in Australia.
  As our battalion, we have the Royal Highland Fusiliers. They have had no jungle fighting experience, but they are becoming trained. They are alongside New Zealand and Australian forces, of which some men have had experience in Vietnam. The brigade was using signalling equipment from Australia, to achieve standardisation, and we paid for and hired our portion. There was a united financial control, with Australia and ourselves paying 40 per cent. and New Zealand paying 20 per cent., owing to the strengths. I was very glad to find that on our side there was only one joint command secretary covering all United Kingdom financial matters.
  The staff of the Department of the Environment responsible for our defence buildings has been reduced from 2,000 to 400, but I am told that in future the task will probably be carried out by the Public Works Department of the Singapore Government. This should result in a saving.
  It must be hoped that we can continue to take full advantage of the jungle training school in Johore, which is now to have a Malaysian commandant but will
  1546
  still have British instructors. Arrangements have been made for two British battalions to be put through a ten-week course each year from 1973 onwards. I hope that our commitments elsewhere, such as in Ulster, will not prevent this.
  I saw something of our other two partners who are there on the ground. The Singapore Air Force, flying Lightnings, is training very well. The aircraft are serviced by Royal Air Force volunteers. The young Singaporian Army appears to be keen and efficient. It lacks good young officers and senior warrant officers and N.C.O.s, but in three or four years' time that will be rectified and it will be capable of giving as good as it gets.
  I could not help thinking how much wiser is the policy of getting local troops in their own country to look to their defence. When I visited Changi Barracks, I recalled the utter folly of the Colonial Office in the years 1939 to 1942—be it from Whitehall, local men on the spot, or the Commander-in-Chief—which would not recruit a single Singaporian Chinese for labour battalions to clear fields of fire or to arm them to be soldiers. Naturally, those Chinese dislike the Japanese and they would have fought hard to defend their homes. That was one of the most crass, stupid policies, either of the civilians or of the military chiefs on the spot, and we paid dearly for it. It was one of the biggest blots in our history. However, I have said enough of those past times.
  The Malay Army has been nearly doubled, and it has seen quite a bit of active service combating the Communist terrorists who are now showing much activity again. The Malay Navy is based in the Straits between Johore and Singapore, and, again, it is indebted to regular Royal Navy personnel who go out to instruct and to see that all the engineering side functions properly. There is no reference to it in the White Paper, but I want to pay special tribute to those airmen, soldiers and sailors who go abroad as specialists to train service men in different parts of the world and to look after machinery. Certainly their work is much appreciated out there.
  I do not want to be controversial, but I found that there was much rejoicing in Malaysia and Singapore when the present Government reversed the complete

  1547
  evacuation policy of the Labour Government. I thought, knowing those parts of the world, that this was one of the more important issues at stake at the time of the General Election.
  I want to say a word about B.A.O.R. In 1960, we saw the creation of a new fully professional volunteer British Army which today enjoys a reputation for high morale and efficiency. In Germany, this is very well deserved. We were assured that the pick of all our equipment is set aside for it. However, we must realise that it is a peace-time Army, with all the problems of the dependants. With the lowering of the age of majority to 18, this has meant that more recruits and very young soldiers are married. It increases the problems of accommodation, and we say in our report that some of the accommodation amounts pretty well to squalor. That is not to say that there are not excellent quarters in B.A.O.R., and it is fair to say that the Ministry of Defence had nearly got on top of the problem before the age of majority was reduced to 18. It is typical of us politicians to take a decision without considering all its ramifications.
  Some of these younger married soldiers cannot get quarters when their battalions or regiments go out to Germany. They have to remain in hirings, especially round Munster, which is a University town where there is very little accommodation. What they get is poor and expensive. In our report, we recommend that this problem should be looked at as quickly as possible. For the same reason, there is an increase in the problems of schooling, health and hospitals. It is not realised by the British public at large that the Defence Vote bears a big sum which is purely for civilian matters.
  In Chapter 2, paragraph 8, it is said that the peace-time strength would be more than doubled on mobilisation. This would take quite a considerable time. It is difficult to know whether this sentence can be substantiated and, if so, how soon, whether there would be a time of tension and, if there were a proclamation to call up reserves, whether our enemies might not take this as a warlike act and attack. It should be realised that, if this happened suddenly, not the whole of B.A.O.R.'s strength could at once go into action. Some personnel would be
  1548
  on leave, some would be on other duties, some would be sick. What is more, a certain proportion of weapons such as tanks and A.P.Cs. would be being serviced. But our troops are highly trained and, in a situation which we do not envisage and certainly do not want, I am sure that they would give a good account of themselves. One important point that we discovered is that, in such an eventuality, the German civilians on whom our Army depends so much in peace time would continue to function in the initial stages of any war.
  Then I want to say a few words about manpower, which is dealt with in Chapter 4. We must all welcome the increase in recruiting. So far as I have been able to ascertain, men are satisfied with their pay and their terms of service. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is to be congratulated on what he has done in this respect.
  As for our reserves, clearly it is very difficult for them to keep up their skills. Times move on and, as one who some years ago was a Territorial soldier, like my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I was glad that this Government increased the size of the Territorial Army. The White Paper shows that recruiting is going very well and that the 10,000 ceiling should be achieved. If this comes about, is it intended to raise the ceiling by a further 5,000?
  I am glad that the White Paper pays tribute to the excellent work that the cadet forces do. I have found from my own experience that the contention that they are a good recruiting force for the Regular Services is fully maintained. This country owes much to the many hours put in by the volunteers, both officers and other ranks, who act as instructors to the cadet forces.
  My sub-Committee has been considering where expenditure could be cut. We had a strong feeling that there was still too much red tape, form filling and old-fashioned methods of accounting. We all know the time that can be wasted over whether half a dozen pairs of pants have gone astray in the wash. The clerk in Whitehall with his room, his secretary, his lighting and heating is very expensive, and to waste hours writing stupid letters over 50p or £1 in these days is crazy.
  We recommend greater power to write off these losses, even down to company

  1549
  commander level. Some degree of loss is to be expected. Chain stores write off 1 per cent. of their turnover for theft or loss. The present system was set up originally to prevent theft. From the taxpayer's point of view, it is silly to spend £100 to save £1, and we recommend that the Ministry should appoint a committee to investigate this problem. When we returned to this country, I was delighted to see in an O. & M. Bulletin that a Committee had been set up to look into handling pay. It has been decided that £500,000 a year can be saved by adopting new methods. We want to see similar methods applied to these small stores.
  There is one final point that I wish to put to my right hon. Friend. I have always been a believer in the use of simulators for safety flying. We are good at this. We have a simulator in Germany for the Phantom, though we have not yet got one for the Harrier. I hope that it may be there by now. I understand also that a system has been devised called Simfire for checking the actual firing of weapons and that it is far in advance of anything that we have had until now. It was experimented with in B.A.O.R. and highly recommended. It could have a tremendous use on manœuvres. This is very important for better training. I believe that the Ministry is recommending it, and it would be pleasant to hear that it is to be forthcoming. It may be expensive, but I believe that we shall gain in better training.
  Our Army and Air Force personnel in Germany face the most potentially powerful threat that we have against us anywhere in the world. Their great value is as a deterrent, and the knowledge that they will hit back. In being a good and efficient combatant deterrent, which I think that they are, they are playing a most essential part in the life of this country and in keeping peace in the world.
  5.50 p.m.
  Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: I am pleased to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison), and I look forward to reading his report among those 400 pages. I was encouraged to hear him say that his sub-Committee's report is only a relatively small part of the 400-page document.
  1550
  I see that there is a great deal of security blanking out. For example, in paragraph 41:
  "The Sub-Committee were informed that increased costs were a matter of * * * to * * * per cent. The original contingency allowance was about * * * and it has now been reduced to * * * . The heaviest expenditure will come between 1977 and 1984 when it should be between * * * and * * * a year",
  and then it adds without censorship "at 1970 prices". I do not know whether other hon. Members remember a little book called "Mother Goose Censored". It certainly was one which by putting in blanks made innocuous rhymes look not sinister but extremely surprising.
  We have to that this in stages. The Ministry of Defence has been much more helpful than it used to be, and one day we might have a Parliamentary Standing Defence Committee on the lines of our allies in N.A.T.O. I say that the Ministry is more helpful than it used to be because in the 1950s when on the Opposition Front Bench we wanted certain information which we thought was essential to mount a proper debate about British Forces in Germany we could only get it by asking Belgian Members of Parliament, who as members of their defence committee had everything we wanted to know about the British Forces in Germany. We have gone a little way since, and I am hoping that the progress will be continued.
  I have been disappointed over the past few years that we have had so few discussions about what happens to nuclear weapons when we become part of a more unified Western Europe. The time has come for us to consider this. The Treaty of Rome is not concerned with defence, and even the Council of Europe, which is the European organisation of which all 10 countries are members, is not allowed to discuss matters of defence. The Prime Minister has spoken about the British nuclear weapon being "held in trust" for Europe, and it is important that we should find out in debate what this means.
  I have been greatly surprised to hear French politicians explain this as meaning that Britain and France would cooperate to produce an exclusively European nuclear force. Britain, France, Germany and other European countries already collaborate in advanced military

  1551
  technology, particularly the production of aircraft. But the military implications of this co-operation are very different from collaboration in nuclear weapons. Why did Britain and France develop nuclear weapons? Surely it was because both wanted a greater share in the decisions governing the use of the Western deterrent. We sought a bargaining power in the use of the American deterrent force. Of course there have been other considerations. British Governments have feared that one day political pressures in the United States might end the special position of Britain under the MacMahon Act by which we have the privilege of obtaining American military nuclear information. Fearing this, some people have thought, and I have read about this and heard it discussed, that the best insurance against this was a link with France, however limited French experience may be, as the only alternative way of maintaining an advanced European nuclear technology.
  On the French side, certainly ever since General de Gaulle came to power, they have always questions the credibility of the American nuclear guarantee and reacted in an extreme way. They have gone in for their own nuclear force and said things about the United States to which I will come later. We have to ask whether Europe wants to join a nuclear arms race and whether she can afford to do so. We all know of the astronomical sums needed to become a credible nuclear power of the size of the United States or the Soviet Union. Apart from the financial considerations, not enough thought has been given to the fundamental political problems which will arise. If we were to work with the French the result could not be anything comparable with the United States or Russia while the merging of French and British Forces might antagonise the Russians without achieving anything militarily.
  Even more fundamental is the prospect that any such challenge might upset the delicate but relatively stable balance between the two super-Powers in our world of terror. I do not believe that there is a political rôle in Europe for a European strategic nuclear force. If it were to be truly European it would have to evolve some form of European poli-
  1552
  tical authority or shared nuclear command. That can only come from a close political organisation, which is far off. I have heard this argument, but it is putting the cart before the horse. A unified nuclear policy must follow not precede integration.
  If it is suggested that what is called for is not a nuclear force but merely Franco-British co-operation, we are faced with other arguments. It really would be Franco-British, which would divide our N.A.T.O. allies into first and second-class Powers. Further, after the treatment which the Americans have received from the French, it is impossible to believe that the United States Congress would ever amend its legislation to allow France to have any access to United States nuclear information.
  Perhaps Western Europe will become unified, but I do not think that is an argument for setting up a separate nuclear strategic force. It should not be regarded as a symbol of European greatness. The new African countries appear to think that having a national airline is a necessary status symbol. We do not need any of these symbols in Europe. At the heart of the matter lie the questions: What kind of Europe will evolve in the next 10 years, and what is the rôle of North America in relation to that? I regret that we have not debated these matters thoroughly in the last few years. It is not enough to debate them in Paris, Bonn, Ottawa or Washington. Members of the N.A.T.O. Parliaments interested in defence should have the chance of debating these matters together in one assembly.
  Fortunately, an unofficial forum exists where members of the United States Congress and the N.A.T.O. Parliaments can come together and use this organisation for the exchange of views and for debate. This is a continuing process. I need hardly remind hon. and right hon. Members that such an unofficial organisation has been going since 1955. What we wish is to see the Government make this an official assembly on the lines of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe.
  Last year hon. Members on both sides joined in pressing this on the Government. People ask, "What can we do without France?" We can go ahead

  1553
  without France because that is what is done already in the N.A.T.O. Defence Planning Committee, but the door is left open. People say, "What will you do about Greece?" That has solved itself because Greece has abolished her Parliament and she has no parliamentarians to send to this Assembly. Of course there are arguments against it, but I beg the Government to consider the advantages in having a body like this.
  I will remind the House of what Paul-Henri Spaak, who had been Prime Minister and had held every sort of office on both sides of the political fence, said in 1969, when Secretary-General of N.A.T.O.:
  "For an administrative service, the fear of a parliament is the beginning of wisdom."
  He was then a civil servant and had seen both sides. In an official assembly, these matters would be debated, and we could discuss the problem of the E.E.C. and nuclear weapons.
  Another point which could be discussed and which goes right to the heart of the matter is, what is N.A.T.O. for? Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), I wish that all our allies in Europe would do as much as we do in proportion to their gross national product. One of the reasons why I say this is that I believe that by building up balanced forces opposite, not opposed, to the Warsaw Pact we build an umbrella under which we can work for a détente with Soviet Russia.
  I believe that Soviet Russia has now reached the stage of being interested in establishing a stable and peaceful Europe. I wish this to be tested in a European Security Conference. My right hon. Friend Lord Chalfont, argued in another place a few days ago that the Government had shown themselves most suspicious and reluctant about accepting a European Security Conference. I was not impressed with the arguments in favour myself until the Russians admitted that the United States and Canada had as much a part to play in European security as they did. Twice in the lifetime of many of us, Canadians and Americans have been killed in Western Europe, as have people from all parts of the Soviet Union.
  I think that we can now test the Soviet Union on the security conference. I ask
  1554
  the Government to do all they can in the coming months to bring about a security conference, while of course in no way relaxing their support for N.A.T.O., the strength of which I believe makes the success of a security conference much more likely.
  6.03 p.m.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence opened this debate in a measured and balanced way, and put the threat facing the N.A.T.O. alliance very frankly before the House. I particularly welcome his emphasis on the threat which the conventional forces of the U.S.S.R. pose to the security of Europe and of the West as a whole. I wish that he had continued that argument a little further and had hypothesised a little more about the threat we face. One of the greatest weaknesses in this White Paper is that there is very little analysis of the type of war which is planned for our Armed Forces to have to face or even to have to fight.
  I wish that some analysis could have been made of recent military experience. The most recent, of course, was the war in the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent. My right hon. Friend made a passing reference to this in column 1317, when he referred to the developments now taking place with President Nixon's meeting with Chou En-lai and Mao Tse-tung and other Chinese leaders and the emergence of Bangladesh and the war itself. But the White Paper did not draw the right deductions from these events.
  The first deduction that I wish to draw is that they are transformations of the security situation in the Indian Ocean. From having been a power vacuum, the Indian Ocean could in reality become a Russian lake. There have been plenty of auguries. There has been much to presage this development, but, as so often, wishful thinking has got the better of us and we have been blind to the realities.
  It was in January, 1968 that Kosygin made his visit to Delhi. The very next month, the Chief of the Soviet Naval Staff paid a visit to India. Base facilities were granted, particularly Vishakhapatnam, and we all know what has gone on since then. No Western person has got within 100 miles of Vishakhapatnam

  1555
  on the Bay of Bengal. I am not sure whether the House is aware that many of the sinkings of Pakistani naval vessels in the war and the destruction of a British ship, the "Harmattan", off Karachi, were achieved by Osa patrol boats equipped with Styx guided weapons. This is a development which we should study very carefully and from which we should try to draw the right conclusions.
  This also underlines the Soviet Union's determination to get a position of strategic dominance at the exit of the Arabian Sea. She already has base facilities in Somalia, and we know what has happened in Aden. If there is an extension of base facilities in India as well, this could be a very grave development.
  The right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) was engaged in a most delightfully friendly way in fratricidal strife with his brotherly hon. Friends below the gangway, but he said one or two things which must be taken up. First, he said that, in Central Europe, we have one of the greatest concentrations of arms in the world but that fortunately it is one of the areas where at the moment the best prospects lie for disarmament and détente. I believe that "détente" will in the 1970s be as dangerous a phrase as "peace in our time" was in the 'thirties. Again, it fulfils many people's wishful aspirations and it is a noble aspiration in itself, but it does not accord with reality.
  The reality is that, to the North, on the southern flank of the N.A.T.O. alliance, and of course in the crucial central land sector in which the Northern Army group of N.A.T.O. lies, the Soviets are immensely preponderant.
  To suggest that they were somehow making these dispositions of forces for neo-colonial purposes, to keep down their Communist brothers in Eastern Europe, or, even more ludicrously, according to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, that it was done because of the obessions of the old men in the Kremlin with their rivals in Peking, is crazy. If one has rivals in Peking, why station all one's forces in Europe, where the only Chinese-orientated regimes are the Romanians, who are a very independent-minded member of the Warsaw Pact, with no Russian stationed on their soil, and Albania, which of course has no
  1556
  Russian troops at all? This was a very circuitous and illogical argument.
  The right hon. Gentleman then talked more sensibly about how one analyses defence expenditure. He suggested that we should not be so simplistic as to imagine that one can compare defence expenditure by mere percentages of G.N.P. I helped point that out to him, I hope respectfully, by quoting the examples of East Germany and Poland and the fact that Sweden, which is very much admired by hon. Members opposite, devotes, on a per capita basis, almost 50 per cent. more to defence than we do.
  One must analyse the Soviet military expenditure. This Lord Chalfont did in the debate in another place when he referred to expenditure by the Soviet Union in its science budget for research and development. We shall discover, if we examine this, that from October, 1964, lack the day, when Khruchshev fell, Soviet research and development expenditure was £5·2 billion roubles. Today it is estimated at £14·4 billion roubles. When hon. Members opposite speak of Soviet defence expenditure of 8 per cent. of the G.N.P., they are indeed deluding themselves for it is over 11 per cent. and it is rising fast, as the latest N.A.T.O. review shows. In that review there is an excellent article by the former chairman of the Department of Soviet Studies at the University of Bradford, which shows how the Soviets are able to close the technology gap by concentrating on R. & D.
  In 1965 the U.S.S.R. had only 224 I.C.B.M.s, whereas the United States had 934. In 1970 the United States had only 1,054 and the U.S.S.R. had one-third more than that. I know that the United States possesses more seaborne systems, but this is still a very frightening development and we should take note of it. That is why I felt so angry about what was said by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. David Owen) who attempted to drive a wedge between the United Kingdom and the United States in their attitude to the Soviet threat. Mr. Nixon, in his State of the Union Message, said that the West faced an enormous threat and he called upon the American people in Election year to increase defence expenditure by over 5 per cent. Melvin Laird has also consistently emphasised this threat.

  1557
  We have gone full circle in the last 15 years. In 1957 we had a classic White Paper which spoke of massive reductions. Missiles were everything and conventional forces were to be virtually phased out. Doubts began to be expressed in the mid-1960s. I see the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) nodding his head. Perhaps he had a share in that. If so, I admire his prescience. From 1967 we had the strategy of flexible response and now we are told that N.A.T.O. strategy based on flexible response and forward defence is a strategy which is soundly conceived. Nonetheless, we do not have the reserve power or conventional forces to maintain that strategy.
  Lord Chalfont, like his right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State, re-emphasised the day before yesterday that if we did face a major incursion, the choice facing the West would once more be suicide or surrender. It is as frightening as that once we get beyond the two or three days period in which we try to identify and check the threat and get political support for whatever military response is appropriate. This leads me to the reserve concept. I admire what the Government have done to encourage the Territorials. This is admirable and is one of the best features of the White Paper, but it seems a pity—I must repeat this—that they should so much neglect the naval, and particularly the air, aspect. People will think that I am getting my hobby horse out of its stable again, but it does not make sense to imagine that the Royal Air Force would have to fight only a three or four day war.
  We do not know what kind of war it would be. There are all sorts of gradations of conflict and even if there were a nuclear exchange in which tactical weapons were employed, there would still be a need to augment the front line and to expand. There would be a requirement for less sophisticated systems to back up the more expensive sophisticated systems. I beseech the Government to be more flexible about this. When we have suggested linking a reserve of this kind with some sort of emergency force or some kind of volunteer service, it has been intensely depressing to have the voluntary spirit and enthusiasm and the technical expertise of these volunteers cast aside.
  1558
  I must develop on the naval side a little and I am sure that my hon. Friends would be upset if I did not do something for the Fleet Air Arm at this stage. I know and fully understand that the mess in which they find themselves is not of their making. It is quite extraordinary how policy changed under the last Government. I well understand why the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) resigned. It was a pity that the whole Admiralty Board did not follow Admiral Luce on the aircraft carrier issue. The 1966 statement on the defence Estimates said:
  "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 can also play an important part in operations where local air superiority has to be gained and maintained and offensive support of ground forces is required."
  That is still the same today. Since then the Soviet Navy has increased by 500 units. It has probably increased in size by 33 per cent. overall and the Soviet Navy has become missile equipped. In 1970 it had 25 per cent. of its forces equipped with surface-to-surface weapons. By 1975 the proportion will be 50 per cent. Can anyone tell me that in 1975 we shall have surface-to-surface weapons widely in service with the Fleet? If so, those weapons will not be comparable in range with the sort of missiles that the Soviet Navy possesses. All the arguments are as strong as ever they were.
  When we turn to the United States Navy Institute Proceedings of July last year, we find four good reasons why we in the West should retain carriers. The first is that the Soviet Navy is now virtually at parity with the navies of the whole Western world and only our carrier force gives us any edge or measure of advantage. Secondly, in weapon systems even the United States Navy hardly has an effective surface-to-surface guided weapon in service. Thirdly probably 50 per cent. of the United States Navy is 20 years old whereas more than three-quarters of the Soviet Navy is less than 15 years old.
  Then lastly there is the whole question of how to provide air cover against the long-range intruder, the long-range bomber equipped with stand-off weapons, the TU/16 Badgers, of which the Soviet

  1559
  air arm has about 300 in service. These weapons have a range of 100 nautical miles and those of the TU/22 Blinders have a range of 150 nautical miles.
  These arguments reinforce what the Government have chosen to do about "Ark Royal". However, "Ark Royal" will not always be at sea, and it is the 35 per cent. of the time when she is not at sea that particularly worries me, for that will be the time when the threat will be at its greatest. If I were a naval planner I would make sure that such a threat was kept very much in mind. People like Admiral Gorschkov are not fools.
  Mr. Cronin: The hon. Gentleman is adducing an interesting argument in favour of aircraft carriers. He has not, however, mentioned that the Soviet Navy has, on grounds of cost effectiveness, turned its back on carriers.
  Mr. Wilkinson: I do not think that is so, although I am not privy to the defence intelligence possessed by my colleagues on the Government Front Bench. Nevertheless, I can read the periodicals and articles on the subject and also between the lines.
  The United States Navy Proceedings show that the Soviet Navy has already the carriers for using helicopters, while no fewer than three V/STOL fighter designs are airborne in the Soviet Union today. There is as well the suggestion—it appeared in Time magazine—that the Soviets could be laying down a carrier hull.
  The Soviets are also expanding their land bases. They can now deploy their long-range air arm from the North Cape to the Black Sea area and to the six bases which they enjoy in Egypt. The situation has been transformed. We have nothing comparable, although we have the technical developments, which should be exploited, on the naval air side, and this brings me to the question of the Harrier.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member and I do so only to inform him that he has been speaking for nearly 20 minutes and that 15 of his hon. Friends have indicated their desire to catch my eye in this debate.
  Mr. Wilkinson: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I am watching the clock closely and trying to avoid repeating myself. I promise not to take more than another few minutes.
  It has been suggested that we should either go for the very sophisticated version of the Harrier, and try to get the Americans to fund it, or go for a cheaper option. I suggest that in the interim there is every argument for going for the cheaper option. If the United States Marine Corps can use it, why cannot we do the same on our commando carriers? We have said that we want periodically to uprate Pegasus. There is no reason why the Harrier should not be deployed for close air support duties with "Hermes" or "Eagle". The Jaguar would also make an effective naval aircraft.
  I must in closing refer briefly to aerial matters. I appreciate that many hon. Members are not interested in the issue and I sympathise with them, but these matters must be considered. The Soviet Air Force is probably the most flexible instrument of mobile blitzkrieg in the world. The Soviets showed in Czechoslovakia that they were quite prepared to use it. Indeed, they could not have mounted that operation without a heavy lift capability.
  It is clear that the Soviet Air Force has a considerable lift capability right through the spectrum, down to the lowliest helicopter. We do not have that sort of capability in support of our armed forces. We saw in East Pakistan how a helicopter-borne assault can surmount obstacles. In the North European plain the Soviet Union have an effective instrument of a similar kind. They also have a superiority of three to one in the air, and this nullifies what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton said about the effectiveness of our tank defences. They are bound to be outnumbered over the battlefield against such air superiority. Consider, for example, the number of interceptors that the Soviet Air Force can boast. They outnumber those of the West by ten to one.
  This is, of course, an alarming and frightening threat. We should not be complacent. We must pursue such technical developments as are in train, including the Harrier and Jaguar. We must also wholeheartedly go for V/STOL

  1561
  because we are a defensive Alliance and are thereby subject to the possibility of a first strike. In that event we must have the reserve power if necessary to mount a protracted war of attrition.
  To conclude, we have recently been experiencing a power crisis due to a shortage of coal. Goodness knows what would happen if an aggressor cut off our supplies of oil. The result would be far worse than anything we have experienced in the present fuel and power crisis; and the Soviet Union has the military power and is getting into the position of being able to do so.
  6.25 p.m.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson), in a well-informed speech, brought out the overwhelming preponderance of power enjoyed by the Soviets in Europe. I wish to deal with the consequences of that preponderance of power.
  You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that when the Chiefs of Staff of Europe met at Lisbon in 1952 to decide what was necessary then for the defence of Europe they came to the conclusion that, in round figures, we needed 50 divisions at the ready, another 120 divisions available within so many days, 4,000 aircraft of front-line character, plus a strategic plan which would enable the great bulk of those forces to be held behind the Rhine so that the axis of advance of the enemy could be identified before moving in for the counterstrike.
  Since those days the power of Russia has increased very considerably indeed; at least by 30 per cent. Thus, the Lisbon figures are not only inadequate but we do not have even one-third of the in adequate. The force required for the safety of Europe were denied to N.A.T.O. for two reasons; first, because the Powers of Europe were not prepared to pay for them and, second, because Germany was not prepared to provide the battlefield.
  The realistic plans of the Chiefs of Staff were scrapped and instead an army was placed on the Elbe and Weser right forward in a position from which it could not manoeuvre and, it was about one-third of the size of Army we required. Speaking yesterday, the Minister, the noble Lord, told us that Europe had responded to the challenge. He cannot really believe that. He said expenditure on this had gone up by 1 billion dollars.
  1562
  That billion dollars would merely increase the enemy booty collected in the first week if they were to attack.
  I remember working out with the late Sir Basil Liddell Hart and some people from the Staff College what would happen if the Russians moved at last light on a winter's evening when the North German Plain was frozen; and remember they are 20 to 50 miles closer to our deployment positions than we are ourselves. By first light next morning they could be on the Rhine. On the third day they could be on the Swiss frontier, and the Army of N.A.T.O. would be eliminated in a week. The rôle of that Army of N.A.T.O. is the rôle of a tethered goat. It cannot manoeuvre because it is tethered to its political position. Its horns are irrelevant. It is there for one purpose only—the rifle in the tree that covers it; the American nuclear deterrent. It is there to give credibility to the American nuclear deterrent and if that credibility ceases the Army of N.A.T.O. has no purpose left.
  What does credibility mean? The noble Lord in answer to a Question the other day rather fell into an old error when he talked of a power to inflict unacceptable damage. Anybody who has an atomic bomb can inflict unacceptable damage, but that is utterly irrelevant. Credibility depends on being in a position to face the consequences of inflicting that damage. The only people with any credibility in the nuclear sense, probably, are the Americans. If Turkey were attacked they could use a nuclear bomb on a place like Odessa and then say to the Russians, "Face the consequences if you reply". That has a measure of credibility. We worked out with Strategic Studies that it would take about 13 nuclear weapons to make this island cease to be a country in the sense of being a governable unit. We are within immediate range of, and indefensible to, 700 Russian nuclear weapons. Are we deterred? We are indeed. The nuclear weapons in our hands are a rather ridiculous passport to admission to a so-called top table. They have no military importance.
  We come back to the final thing, the only thing that matters, the American deterrent and its credibility and the belief that if the American divisions in Europe were scuppered the Americans might then, in this sphere, risk the appalling

  1563
  retaliation to which they are indefensible. This is easy to believe even today. It takes very little change to make that wholly incredible. The noble Lord said that Mr. Nixon had said he intended to maintain this American position. I personally am an admirer of Mr. Nixon as President. He is not perhaps the most attractive of men, but I believe that in his curious, self-pitying way he has shown considerable gallantry and staunchness; but he is not a dictator and has enormous difficulties on his hands. Senator Mansfield, majority Leader in the Senate, and Senator Fulbright, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, are demanding a reduction in this European commitment.
  The polls, which are a very important political factor in America demand it; and we have had the article of Mr. Wyle to which my hon. Friend referred. He is one of those Americans who exist in that strange American limbo between the academic and the presidential and occupy themselves very often in cloaking the nakedness of American foreign policy with a kind of mist of sophisticated technical gobbledy-gook. That article is an example to any Communist propagandist in the art of subordinating objective truths to the superior truth of political desire. It is a kind of article which we have been having to justify the American retirement from Vietnam in terms of President Thieu being able, without American assistance, to do that which he was unable to do with that assistance—beat the Communists. This is the level of nonsense which is very worrying when we see it trotted out, perhaps to justify a retirement which would leave us utterly naked.
  We are not helping Mr. Nixon in what I believe in his sincere effort to keep the credibility of the American interest in Europe. We do not want to go into the Common Market, but the Common Market agricultural policy is being designed to cut off America from a very important agricultural market and, even more, to cut off the people to whom she has given aid from that very important agricultural market. Again on currency, heaven knows if ever one nation owed a debt of gratitude to another we owed it to America in terms of currency. But in order to be good Europeans à la
  1564
  Pompidou we set out to be as uncooperative as possible when the burden on American finance of financing not only the defence of this free world but the development of the under-developed world proved too heavy a burden. We went out of our way, for no economic purpose—because the actual value of gold matters not at all in economic terms—but to provide France with a situation in which she was able to humiliate the Americans and to impose a form of devaluation on them.
  Then on this question of China, whether China should come with or without the Taiwan into the United Nations, do we really have to vote against the Americans? Every one of these Europeans who depend upon America for their defence did so. Was that really necessary? When they and we are behaving like this, is the American interest in maintaining us, who were so unco-operative in both the economic and the political fields, and in defending us at such risk to herself? Does it remain credible?
  Credibility is tottering. Credibility moves almost in reverse preponderance to the power of this nuclear arm. The more terrible it becomes, the more it multiplies, the more unlikely does it become that it could be used. The only thing that gives that credibility, the only thing that defends Europe, are those four American divisions and the thought that if they are attacked perhaps—perhaps! and that is enough—this awful consequence might result. Now we are having talks about reducing those forces and reducing American interest. It is not very credible now and any reduction will kill this credibility and we shall be left with that vacuum of power which is Europe, without the American screen, a Europe which has neither the will nor the authority to defend itself.
  This is the sad reality. We have not the will in Europe to produce even one quarter of the forces necessary, and within this system of Europe we are not building any authority with the power to dispose of, to raise or to post an army, if it had one. We have created and are creating the historic power vacuum; and a power vacuum with Russia tottering on its edge is a most dangerous place to live in. What is going to happen? I do not

  1565
  believe that this policy is now reversible. It may be that if we had a Churchill with his kind of inspiration and belief in the Atlantic Alliance, that Alliance might once again become a vital and credible thing; but we have not got a Churchill. We prefer Europe to the Atlantic and that is losing all things.
  What will be the effect of this loss of credibility. Will Russia charge into Germany? I do not believe that for a moment. Russia is basically a conservative power and she has learned that communisation does not necessarily mean Russianisation. She would be nervous of having to hold the whole of Germany within her system but I do not think she could avoid it. Whenever there has been a power vacuum in history, particularly Russian history, the Russians have tumbled into it.
  As the noble Lord said yesterday, that accumulation of naval and military power so overwhelming on the borders of Germany could induce a sense of despair as to what can be done. And I see that despair coming in Germany and in a very quick time. It will be a despair when they see that they have no shield and when they see behind them allies who are worthless—and, let us face it, that is what they are. I cannot remember a war in which Italy started and ended on the same side. France's record as an ally, not as a fighting power when she is fighting for France but as an ally, is known to Czechoslovakia and to ourselves in 1940. Does any German think a Frenchman would die to save a German?
  All through Germany patriotic unite-the-Fatherland leagues will spring up. They will be financed by German industrialists who are taking out insurance against the inevitable day, because that is how the German mind works. They do not want to go Communist but if they are going to go Communist it would be better to be on the management side. I have a bet with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) that within three years of our joining the Common Market Germany will be united and Communist. What will happen then? The working-class parties in Italy and France are Communist, too. Thus Europe will be a power vacuum. It is on the verge of
  1566
  collapse and the real power of the Communists and the real impotence of Europe will move to an inevitable conclusion.
  Not every nation will fall in. Finland, by her gallantry and by her power of a citizen army, has maintained an independence. Yugoslavia has, to a considerable degree, done the same, not by ever attempting to become nuclear—she has never been so silly—but by raising a citizen army which would make an occupation intolerable to the occupier. Switzerland will remain free because she has the will and determination to resist this sort of thing.
  These are the terms in which we ought to be thinking. Our nuclears will do us no good. We should have local defence and an effective Territorial Army trained not to go off and fight somewhere else but to fight in the old village and the old place so that it will be perfectly clear that occupation would impose an intolerable burden which would make occupation not worth while. This is the only deterrent which means anything, and this is the way in which we should be moving.
  I confess to great pessimism here. All history tells us that this Christian civilisation of ours, which is no longer Christian, is moving to a conclusion which may be more dramatic than that of Rome. We are driving there with our eyes deliberately closed.
  6.45 p.m.
  Dame Joan Vickers: I cannot follow the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) in the great eloquence with which he expressed himself. I agree with a great many of his ideas except the part about the Common Market, but he is very sincere, very well-informed and has great courage in putting forward his point of view. I hope he will forgive me if I do not follow him in all the details of his speech.
  I am delighted that we now have an Expenditure Committee to examine the details of defence spending. Last year I and a number of hon. Friends put a motion on the Order Paper that we should have an all-party policy committee on defence. Perhaps the Expenditure Committee is one step towards what we were seeking. The right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) mentioned

  1567
  that perhaps we would now be able to go to the Foreign Affairs and other committees in Europe—I went to one in Bonn—and it seems a pity, as they have opened their doors, that we cannot have a joint committee as he has suggested.
  I wish to say one word in reply to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) who is not here. It concerns the question of cost. He forgets that we pay our Services well and that all the other countries he mentioned have conscription. If he wants to cut the amount of money spent he will have to consider introducing conscription, which I would not want. He referred to £ 3·09 per head for a family of four being spent on defence, but he must remember that this is an insurance policy. The Americans are also our insurance in the Mediterranean. Admiral Duncan said in a speech not long ago that if history is any teacher the nation which could control the seas would almost certainly have the strongest voice in settling disputes. Settling disputes does not necessarily mean going to war. What he said was very wise.
  The rate of naval construction in Russia is three to four times that of N.A.T.O., and if this continues Russia will have more submarines than N.A.T.O., and America together. The Russians have at the same time built up their navy, which has no parallel in the history of any country in the world in peace time. They have also built up their merchant shipping to three times what it was three years ago. It is no longer now just a fleet of defence; it is a fleet which holds a three dimensional challenge in the air, on the surface and beneath the sea. So this is where the main danger lies.
  For some time I have been a delegate to the Western European Union, and I have the feeling sometimes when I go there that I am living under a roof which is being continually patched while termites are nibbling away the rafters and that it might eventually fall and crush us. There is such a lack of planning and collaboration between the different nations and in regard to expenditure. This has been brought out very well in W.E.U. document No. 557, a report submitted on behalf of the Committee on Defence Questions and Armaments by the hon. Member for Bishop
  1568
  Auckland (Mr. Boyden), who was rapporteur. It states:
  "That European defence should continue to be based on the integration of European and United States forces in NATO, and that NATO countries should continue to concert their policies on European security, disarmament and East-West relations in the North Atlantic Council".
  This has been discussed for some time.
  The infrastructure of the defence support side of N.A.T.O. is stated to have been successful, but, regrettably, N.A.T.O. has not been so successful in the joint production of armaments. Exceptions are perhaps the G.91, the F104, the Anglo-French Jaguar or the M.R.C.A. aircraft. There has been some success with the Hawk, the Bullpup and Sidewinder missiles. There was to be a conference of national armament directors in 1968, and I do not know what has resulted. I hope my hon. Friend who winds up can tell us about any decisions made.
  I do not want to go into details of naval matters, because we are to have a Naval Estimates debate. But I support what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) said about H.M.S. "Eagle". If we cannot keep her, surely we could offer her to our allies instead of scrapping her? We shall have a long time to wait for the through-deck cruisers; I gather that they will not be in operation for at least another 10 years.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Peter Kirk): The first cruiser will, we hope, be operational in 1978.
  Dame Joan Vickers: That is a wait of six years, anyway.
  The French are more realistic. They have the "Clemenceau" and the "Foch", which carry 30 aircraft. Lord Mountbatten has said that it is necessary to have one and a half carriers or no carriers at all. He has had great experience, particularly in the Far East.
  According to the White Paper, we are also to scrap 21 other ships. Surely some of them could be put to use, even if only we sold them at a reasonable price to some Commonwealth countries.
  As Iceland may become neutral, it would appear that there is a danger to Europe and America not so much from central Europe but from the north, from

  1569
  Murmansk. What action is the North Atlantic Council taking? The White Paper says on page 3, on the subject of European defence co-operation:
  "Within the Western Alliance the European countries should seek to co-operate more closely on defence and to establish a greater identity of view … Europe needs both to exert more influence on the major issues affecting Western security and to assume increased responsibility for its own defence."
  This is the era of Soviet maritime expansion. I am worried that in a time the Russians might easily surround us and exert a squeeze on us behind our backs. That is not an idea entirely of my own. The matter was discussed at a SACEUR meeting, when it was stated that:
  "We may look back on the 'seventies as an era of Soviet maritime expansion, when, balked in Europe, they reached around us to exert the big squeeze behind our backs."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) spoke in a letter published in the Daily Telegraph today about what could be done for the Navy with the £17 million to be spent on buildings at Bath for the staffs of the Admiralty. But I gather that if the Navy did not have those buildings the Naval Estimates would not be helped. Having been a civil servant in Malaysia, I realise the position. The buildings belong to a different Department, the Department of the Environment, and I do not think my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment would hand back to the Services the money saved if the Navy said it did not want the buildings. This sort of matter must be tidied up. If the Navy protested too much that it did not want the buildings the Department might say, "You are ungrateful. We shall give them to another Department." That is the sort of thing the Expenditure Committee might go into. It is a case of one Department working against another. If the Navy could have the money back, it would mean at least 2½ "Leanders", which would be a great asset to our Fleet.
  One matter on which I agree with the hon. Member for Salford, East is that there should be more mention in the White Paper of arms control and disarmament. There could be no harm in backing a European Security Conference.
  1570
  After all, it was Sir Winston Churchill who said,
  "Jaw-jaw is better than war-war."
  Perhaps because I am a woman, I prefer talking to fighting. We should take the opportunity, if it presents itself in a reasonable manner, as I think it will, to have a discussion as soon as possible.
  Regrettably, we can no longer play a part in world peace-keeping, as we did in the Victorian era, but because of our geographical position, because we are an island, we must still protect our merchant fleet and fishing vessels. While I have some sympathy with the Amendment, I am not keen on appeasement, and I am not a pacifist. It would be useless to take the action the hon. Member for Salford, East suggests, especially in view of the U.S.S.R.'s current spending of 14·4 billion roubles on research, and the fact that it has over 1,500 missiles.
  I should like the Government to consider the question of selling arms. I have always hoped that it could be done between Governments and not by the pushing of arms by various firms. Intergovernmental transactions might control or stop some of the smaller countries spending far too much on arms and creating small wars.
  I was pleased to see in the White Paper that in January and this month a conference on Biological Weapons ban has been taking place. Such a ban is very near, according to the latest document from N.A.T.O. It would be a very great blessing, and a big step forward in East-West relations. I congratulate all those involved in the conference.
  A resolution passed by the Western European Union last November recommended the North Atlantic Council to:
  "Take the opportunity offered by the enlargement of the E.E.C. to harmonise the policies of Western European countries with a view to finding a solution to the problems of Central Europe …"—
  I shall not read it all, but I would mention two other recommendations, which were to:
  "Consider the implications of a conference on European security in regard to full and detailed preparation and also the date and place of such conference"
  and to
  "Ensure that any withdrawal of United States forces from Europe does not result in a unilateral reduction in the level of forces in Western Europe".

  1571
  I have had the opportunity of going twice to Ulster, and would like to give particular praise to the Royal Marines and the Devon and Dorset Regiment. All our troops have been excellent, but they happen to come from the West Country, and they have done a splendid job. It is very sad that the problem of Ulster is continuing as it is, but we should pay tribute to our forces for the rôle they have played in an intolerably difficult situation.
  Malta has not been mentioned in the debate. Perhaps my hon. Friend who winds up will be able to say whether Mr. Mintoff is coming to England, and whether there is likely to be a successful and satisfactory outcome of the meeting with him, which would continue our happy relationship with Malta.
  6.59 p.m.
  Mr. John Cronin: I propose to devote most of my speech to the operations of the British Army in Ulster. But I should like first to take up a few points made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) about the adequacy of our arms generally. She drew attention to the expansion of the Soviet Navy, and I think one of the dominating factors in this debate has been the enormous expansion of the Soviet Government's conventional armaments against the background of nuclear stalemate.
  I do not think the situation is quite as gloomy as has been suggested by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who made my flesh creep a little when describing what might happen, because it seems to me that looked at from the Soviet Government's point of view it is not surprising that they have increased their conventional armaments. They remember the Second World War, when they were overrun and 25 million people were killed. They see around them American bases, American forces deployed all over the world. And the Soviet Government have found that on every occasion on which their foreign policy has been dependent on conventional military power, they have failed. The occasions I have in mind are Cuba, Vietnam, the Middle East and Berlin. So it is not surprising that they wish greatly to increase their conventional forces.
  1572
  There are other favourable factors. There has been some progress in the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks and I think there is some evidence that the Soviet Government are finding the excessive expenditure on the defence budget rather a strain, not to mention the intense scientific effort for defence, instead of for more useful communal purposes.
  Nevertheless, with the present Soviet situation we must be very careful in considering any reduction in armaments as far as N.A.T.O. is concerned. There is no escape from the fact that the Soviet Government have a dislike and distrust of Western Europe, based on our ideological differences and, of course, on our material superiority. It is much easier for the Soviet Government to conciliate their military lobby than to agree to more consumer spending, which has political and social repercussions which it finds rather unattractive. Finally, the monolithic nature of the Soviet Government is such that they lack all the checks and balances which Western Governments have, therefore it is always possible for some war-like people to gain control and to set in hand some reckless movement. So I suggest that there is no good reason for any reduction in arms as far as N.A.T.O. is concerned unless it is a balanced reduction on a mutual basis.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) did a very good service to the House in pointing out the big discrepancy between the amount spent on arms by Great Britain and that spent by our partners in Europe. He pointed out that we are spending 5·7 per cent. of our gross national product and that the remainder of Europe averages about 4·2 per cent. I should like to ask the Government why they are agreeable to this situation continuing. Perhaps the Minister of State would tell us. Why is it that we are spending such a disproportionate amount, making such a disproportionate contribution to the budget of N.A.T.O.? We know that the Secretary of State for Defence has been negotiating in a most tight and bitter way with the Prime Minister of Malta for a matter of a few million pounds. If we were paying only our proper contribution to N.A.T.O.s budget there would surely be a saving of hundreds of millions. I think that the Government are being excessively relaxed about the fact that

  1573
  the British taxpayer is carrying a much larger proportion of the N.A.T.O. budget than are our European partners.
  Mr. Wilkinson: But in many other ways the British taxpayers, the British people, are having fewer burdens put upon them. The percentage of the British people of military age who have to do military service is lower than in any other European country and we have lower reserves than almost any other country, except Italy.
  Mr. Cronin: I see the hon. Gentleman's point, but what is quite clear is that my constituents are being asked to contribute much more from their pockets to the N.A.T.O. budget than are their opposite numbers in other countries of Western Europe. That is an unsatisfactory situation and I should have thought that the Government would have taken some steps in N.A.T.O. to negotiate a better financial situation for us.
  Lord Balniel: The point just made by my hon. Friend is completely valid, of course, and there is the further point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) that we alone of all the European countries have a voluntary system, which means that we have to pay our Service men as opposed to conscripting them. There is the further point that France spends as much in cash as we do and that Germany spends substantially more, and it is an increasing rate of expenditure.
  Mr. Cronin: But the important question is, what is the proportion of the gross notional product spent? There is no escape from that. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we should have conscription back in this country. I am merely suggesting that these figures show that we are carrying a much heavier burden than we need. But I do not want to dwell on this. I should like to concentrate on the operations of the British Army in Ulster.
  First of all, what I want to make clear beyond any possible doubt is that I, and all my hon. Friends on this side of the House, I think, wish only to praise the British Army in Northern Ireland. They have shown restraint and humanity in appalling psychological circumstances. They find themselves being insulted and
  1574
  abused, living in appalling quarters, every day exposed to dangers from snipers' bullets and petrol bombs. They put up with this intolerable situation with good humour and with a courage which must excite the admiration of everyone in this House.
  Having said that, I should like to say that one of the most deplorable tactics of the Government is that every time their policy in Ulster is criticised they try to suggest that this is an attack on the British Army. We heard this several times yesterday. This defence has been used by Ministers.
  Lord Balniel: I think that is an intolerable suggestion to make and I would ask the hon. Gentleman to substantiate it by quoting from HANSARD.
  Mr. Cronin: I cannot do that, I am standing on my feet.
  Lord Balniel: It is an intolerable suggestion to make.
  Mr. Cronin: The hon. Gentleman may find it intolerable, but if he will look at HANSARD, at replies to questions to himself and his hon. Friends—in last Thursday's HANSARD—he will find suggestions from his side of the House that there have been attacks by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House against the British Army, which did not take place.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: I have HANSARD for last Thursday open at Question No. 7 by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), which most certainly was an attack on the British Army and the regiment to which I belonged.
  Mr. Cronin: I have not got HANSARD of that date in my hand and obviously cannot reply. I repeat that this has been the tendency of Ministers when attacks have been made on their Irish policy.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The hon. Gentleman is an honourable man and is taking this matter very seriously. Would it not be better if he withdrew that allegation and then, if he finds that it is right, he can make it again at a future date?
  Mr. Cronin: I am certainly not going to withdraw that allegation because I recollect only too well the intense

  1575
  annoyance I felt last Thursday when that accusation was made. I should be very glad to have the noble Lord's reassurance that there is no further intention of indicating that an attack on the policy of his Government in Ulster is an attack on the British Armed Forces. If we can agree on that, I shall be content.
  The British Army has an intolerable job in Ulster and I think it has been seriously hampered by the efforts of the Ministers sitting on the Treasury Bench now who have agreed to policies which have made serious difficulties for the Armed Forces. First, internment has made the Roman Catholic population of Ulster 100 per cent. against the British Army. Secondly, the British Army is closely connected operationally with the Stormont Government. The noble Lord told us last Thursday, and again yesterday, that the General Officer Commanding regularly meets the Joint Security Council, which consists almost entirely of Ministers of the Stormont Government. How can the noble Lord expect the Roman Catholic population to consider that the British Army is impartial when it is meeting the Stormont Ministers in the Joint Security Council every day and receiving tactical directions from them? The British Army, quite contrary to its wishes, has lost all credibility as an impartial force in the eyes of the Roman Catholic population.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: If the situation is as the hon. Gentleman suggests, how is it that such a large number of Roman Catholics, against great difficulties and terror, are joining the Ulster Defence Regiment which is commanded by a Roman Catholic? Is not one Minister in the Cabinet also a Roman Catholic?
  Mr. Cronin: I am not suggesting that no Roman Catholics are prepared to co-operate with the British Army. I am suggesting—and the facts bear it out—that the vast majority of the population do not regard the British Army as being an impartial force. This is obvious from the news received every day of the cooperation of a large part of the Catholic population with the terrorist organisations.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: If the hon. Gentleman has been
  1576
  following the news carefully, he will be aware that while up to about a year ago the terrorists often worked from behind large crowds in the streets, within recent months there has been a noticeable change. The terrorists are finding it more difficult to get the crowds out on to the streets to support their operations. This is entirely contrary to the suggestion the hon. Gentleman is making.
  Mr. Cronin: I see the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not think we can come to any agreement about this. By the very nature of its operations the British Army is moving largely in the Roman Catholic populated areas, and its operations tend to involve the harassment of the Roman Catholic population. This is obviously unsatisfactory, when the British Army is so clearly instructed in tactical operations by the Stormont Government.
  The only effective way to deal with the situation is to transfer responsibility for security from Stormont to Westminster. This would have a tremendous psychological effect on the Roman Catholic population of Ulster and also upon the Opposition. The British Army would no longer be an obvious instrument of repression. The Social Democrat and Labour Members of Parliament in Ulster might be induced to co-operate, although this is a long way from their basic demand for an end to internment. It would also provide Mr. Lynch, the Irish Prime Minister, with a quid pro quo which would enable him to take stronger action against the I.R.A.
  To transfer responsibility for security from Stormont to Westminster would be an act of political courage by the Government, and they should do it. They might lose the support of the Unionists Members of this House, or a large proportion of them, and this would make their political situation rather shaky, but it would put them in a much more honourable position.
  Will the Minister who winds up the debate give an assessment of the success of the British Army in ending the I.R.A. campaign? There has been no significant decrease in I.R.A. activity, and the news we get from Ireland gets more pessimistic every month. The Times of 15th December, 1971 has this headline:
  "Home Secretary says I.R.A. may never be totally eliminated."

  1577
  That is not an optimistic assessment of the winning of the battle.
  There is no way of completely stopping terrorist activity. The men in the I.R.A. go about in civilian clothes, and no one can stop them putting an attaché case containing a bomb in any place they choose, even with the most drastic security precautions. This is a battle which cannot be won, and there is no prospect of it ever being won.
  No member of the Government knows what the I.R.A. really wants. There is a case for finding out what considerations would induce the I.R.A. to abandon its terrorist campaign. I fully appreciate that the I.R.A. is basically a criminal organisation, and that it is repugnant to have dealings with it. At the same time, it probably has some motives which are worth probing. The members of the I.R.A. are not sadists—perhaps some are, but the majority I should think are not—and they are getting no economic advantage out of the campaign. Most of them may regard themselves as being brave patriots, fighting for some cause. It might be a help for some form of communication to be established with the I.R.A. to find out under what terms it will agree to abandon its campaign.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Anarchy.
  Mr. Cronin: That is not necessarily so. The United States was faced with the same problem in Vietnam when the Government refused to have any communication with the Viet Cong. Now, United States diplomats sit down in Paris with representatives of the Viet Cong. Compared with the Viet Cong, the members of the I.R.A. are a collection of Victorian governesses. The Government should give consideration to establishing communications, even of a most unofficial nature, with the I.R.A. to see what inducements would cause it to abandon its campaign.
  Mr. McMaster: I have just received some figures which show the position to be contrary to that which the hon. Gentleman has been portraying. In the week to 31st January the amount of gelignite used in terrorist activities in Northern Ireland was 245 pounds. During the week to 7th February, 1972 it was 140 pounds, almost half the previous week's total. In the week to 14th February,
  1578
  111 pounds was used. This is evidence that the scale of terrorist activity is on the decrease as a result of the activities of the British Army.
  Mr. Cronin: I do not think one can come to any far-reaching conclusion on the basis of the number of pounds of gelignite used. The general situation seems to be that the I.R.A. is continuing its campaign of terror relatively unchecked. I suggest that there is a case for the Government to establish some form of communication with the I.R.A. to discover what considerations will induce it to abandon its terrorist campaign. There is no suggestion at present that it can be beaten by military forces.
  My main theme is that until the I.R.A. can be induced, either by military force or by some form of negotiation, to cease its campaign, we obviously have to continue political discussions. Rut all the political discussions in the world will mean nothing unless they have the consent of the I.R.A. Ministers are seeking political solutions and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has suggested somewhat complicated political solutions. However, unless those solutions have the consent of the I.R.A. we shall remain in exactly the same position.
  It is important to discover what the I.R.A. really wants. I suggest that the most important objective is to transfer from Stormont to Westminster responsibility for security. I suggest the dangerous and unpleasant burden which the British Army is bearing so well would be greatly reduced if the Government would take this single step. I suggest that the Government's obstinacy in this respect has no affinity with either virtue or wisdom. I suggest that the present Government policy of forcing a humane and reluctant British Army to carry out the reactionary and sectarian aims of the Stormont Government will be one of the darker pages of Army history.
  7.25 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: I have on occasion heard the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) make an interesting and intelligent speech in this House, but that cannot be said of his contribution this evening. His speech was neither virtuous nor wise. He surely must realise that a propaganda war is taking place. If he believes that it is

  1579
  helpful in this House to call the British Army an obvious weapon of oppression, as he did a few moments ago, then I do not know what hon. Members in this House are coming to.
  Mr. Cronin: I am not sorry the 'Ion. Gentleman has mentioned this point since he has proved what I was saying a little earlier. Every time somebody says that the British Army is being wrongfully used in Ulster, hon. Members opposite say that it is an attack on the British Army. I devoted several minutes of my speech to expressing my appreciation of the British Army in this situation. The hon. Gentleman seized upon one sentence of my speech in which I said that it was being used as instructed in a quite unjustifiable way.
  Mr. Goodhart: The hon. Member must realise that the whole of his speech will not be reported in the Press of Ireland or of anywhere else. What will be seized upon tomorrow will be that one sentence in which he made his unfortunate refererence to the British Army being used as an obvious weapon of oppression.
  Mr. Frank Judd: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that by taking the sentence out of context and emphasising it in an unfair way he has ensured the result which he says will happen?
  Mr. Goodhart: I would have thought that when moving on this sensitive ground the hon. Member for Loughborough would have taken care not to use words which can be used by the enemies of Her Majesty's Forces against those Forces.
  There was one point at least on which I agreed with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen), and this was when he commented on the great difficulties of hon. Members when discussing defence matters because of the secrecy requirements. This point was reiterated by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison), who has just carried out a splendid job as Chairman of the Defence sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee.
  This point is very much brought home by the argument which is raging on these benches about the fate of H.M.S. "Eagle", which is a subject that gene
  1580
  rates a considerable amount of heat. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) in his admirable speech yesterday rightly made play of the value of the aircraft carriers in a surveillance rôle. However, back-bench Members in this House cannot judge whether the surveillance rôle of an aircraft carrier is of value and whether it will be of continuing importance. We do not know how effective the American spy satellite system is in supervising world trade routes, nor do we know how much information we get from the American satellite system or how quickly it is provided. Therefore, we cannot sensibly discuss the value of the surveillance rôle of H.M.S. "Eagle".
  Unfortunately, what is all too clear, and cannot, alas, be classified, is the fact that we are completely out-gunned and out-rocketed by the Soviet Union in terms of long-range hitting power. We do not have any effective surface-to-surface weapons, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) reminded us, Russian rockets which have been handed over to the Egyptian and Indian Navies have proved very effective at long range. It is a sad fact that we should be out-rocketed by the navies of Egypt and India. It is surely, then, not sensible to send to the knackers' yards one of the few ships in the Royal Navy which are capable of a long-range striking rôle, particularly as we know we shall not have adequate surface-to-surface missiles for many years to come. This cannot be blamed on the Conservative Government or even on their Labour predecessors. This is a general gap in the armouries of all the navies of the West.
  I trust that the plea by my hon. and gallant Friend for "Eagle" to be put into reserve rather than to be scrapped straight away will be listened to. At the same time I regret that the present Government have had to continue the policy of the Labour Government in withdrawing most of our forces from the Gulf. That was one of the worst actions taken by the Labour Government. The story is only too well known of how they sent one poor unfortunate Minister round the Gulf saying that they would honour their defence commitments. That Minister had barely returned to this country when he was put on a plane and sent back

  1581
  to say that the Government were going to rat. It has been difficult for this Government to repair the damage to our position in the Gulf by their predecessors.
  I fear that there is a dangerous power vacuum in that area. Today, we have seen reports of disturbances in Qatar and the removal of the British military and police advisers from that country. The events of the last few days and weeks have shown how vulnerable we are when power supplies are cut off. It was not wise for us to withdraw so many of our Forces from an area on which we are so dependent for fuel supplies.
  Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman appears to be in some slight confusion, if I may modestly suggest it, between internal coups and a political vacuum to be filled by an external power. He must be as aware as anyone else in this House that even when we were in the Gulf coups were not an unfamiliar scene in the Gulf States.
  Mr. Goodhart: I am well aware that coups did take place. I am also aware that, despite the enormously explosive mixture of Arabs and immense quantities of oil and money, there was less bloodshed in the Gulf than in any other part of the Arab world. Also, the oil continued to flow while our Forces were there. We can only hope that it will continue to flow in future. However, that seems less certain.
  I wish now to return to the Irish scene, although, alas, it is no longer just the Northern Irish scene, because in the last 48 hours we have witnessed the outrageous and murderous attack on the women of Aldershot by at least part of the I.R.A. The I.R.A. suggests that this is just the beginning of a protracted campaign of terror on this side of the Irish Sea. I see no reason for thinking that this is an idle boast on the part of the I.R.A., because there are an infinite number of soft targets in this country. I do not know whether it is true, as the so-called official wing of the I.R.A. has boasted, that its murder squad has now returned to the Irish Republic. However, that brings into question the communications between this country and the Irish Republic. One wonders whether terrorists are going to be able to shuttle backwards and forwards at will between the Irish
  1582
  Republic and this country. I wonder how long that situation can go on.
  It is legitimate to suggest in a Defence debate that there should be controls and security checks on travel between Eire and this country. Northern Ireland has a long land-frontier with the Republic. It is not for us in this House to tell the Army and the security forces how to conduct their campaign in Northern Ireland. However, many independent experts in counter-insurgency to whom I have spoken believe that it is essential that some degree of control should be brought to the frontier. There is the argument that this would involve thousands of men. However, with the development of electronic sensors, control and surveillance of an area can be carried out by comparatively small numbers of men. I think that the time has come to consider this proposal very carefully. I believe that every vehicle travelling between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland ought to be searched as a matter of course.
  Mr. McMaster: Is my hon. Friend aware that while it may be difficult to supervise a border of more than 300 miles, it is possible to defend in depth by checking at each of the many crossroads further back? If one only covers the border in depth this might be one way of controlling it more effectively.
  Mr. Goodhart: I have no desire in this debate to try to tell the Army or anybody else how to do the job. However, it is right to point out that many people seem to think that this particular job sooner or later—and sooner better than later—has to be done.
  The political argument about the deployment of the Forces in Northern Ireland has turned on the question of control from Westminster, a point raised by the hon. Member for Loughborough, who, I regret, appears to have left the Chamber.
  Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: Does my hon. Friend share my view that to make a highly controversial speech describing the British Army in Northern Ireland as an instrument of repression and then not to have the courtesy to remain to hear the subsequent speaker is a matter very much frowned upon in this House?
  Mr. Goodhart: I expect that the hon. Member for Loughborough may be returning to the Chamber.
  The argument presented by the hon. Member for Loughborough and, indeed, by Opposition Front Bench speakers, is to a considerable degree a non-argument, a play upon words. Whatever we say about the degree of control exercised by Westminster, in practice the security operation in Northern Ireland is bound to be a partnership between the Army, controlled from Westminster, and the indigenous forces.
  The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) went to an absurd degree in an intervention yesterday, when he reproved the Army for carrying out an operation on information which had been supplied by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that that was putting the Army into an absurdly dependent position on the Stormont authorities. Nothing could be further from the truth. British Forces operating in Northern Ireland are bound to be dependent on information which comes to them from Northern Irish sources.
  Mr. Maclennan: In fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who is not here to defend himself, I think that I should point out that he was making the point not that it was absurd for the Army to act on information from the R.U.C. but that the R.U.C., being directly under the Stormont Government and observed as such by the minority population, was itself unpopular, which meant that its unpopularity spilled over to the Army. That is the real nub of the problem.
  Mr. Goodhart: Perhaps that was the point made by the hon. Member for Salford, West. But not even the Opposition Front Bench has argued that direct control of the Royal Ulster Constabulary ought to be taken over by Westminster. Therefore, it seems inevitable that any information given by the R.U.C. is open to that charge, whether or not one makes a grand statement that control of security has been taken by Westminster. We have to face the fact that the British Army can operate in Northern Ireland only with the co-operation of the people of Northern Ireland. No semantic change of these words can alter that fact.
  1584
  I welcomed the Hunt Report soon after the riots of 1969. The report called for the demilitarisation of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. But I now think that perhaps, it went a little far in that direction. We have seen the Americans going into Vietnam and thinking that the main force war in Vietnam was too important a matter to be left to the Vietnamese, and then, eventually, when wiser policies prevailed, there was the policy of Vietnamisation which seems to be substantially more successful.
  In 1969 we had the feeling that security in Northern Ireland was too important a matter to be left to the people of Ulster. We rather overdid this particular shift in our policy. I suspect that a wiser policy might be to build up the indigenous defence forces in Ulster. In that respect, I pay tribute to the work done by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army in respect of the Ulster Defence Regiment. I have been in Ulster recently and have seen the regiment at work. I was pleased to hear from the regular British Forces of the value they now put on the work of the U.D.R. I was also pleased to hear from the U.D.R. and others how hard the Under-Secretary had worked to obtain the equipment required. I believe that recruitment has gone exceptionally well recently. I hope that that will continue, and that the regiment's rôle can be expanded.
  I listened with interest to the speech of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement on the question of development and research—and very good listening it made. There was, however, one defect in it. We are spending £330 million on research and development for some very sophisticated weapons. But the war in Northern Ireland does not require very powerful or sophisticated weapons. It requires weapons that will stop people doing things we do not want them to do, such as throwing stones, rocks, petrol bombs and nail bombs. But we do not want weapons that will kill people. I regret that anyone who touches on this subject is apt to be labelled as a crank. I have been so labelled in the past when I have stressed the importance of non-lethal weapons. One has heard people say, "Here comes old Philip with his silly old nerve gases." But, alas, the problem now is to stop people throwing rocks at our soldiers and rioting but without killing them. If they are killed,

  1585
  the propaganda battle is lost as well. Some greater part of that £330 million research and development budget should be devoted to weapons that are of real use in the crowd situations which arise in Northern Ireland.
  In conclusion, I congratulate the Government on the splendid recruiting figures they have been able to announce, in particular on the splendid increase in recruitment for the TAVR. I hope that the Government will continue to press for an increase in recruitment to the Territorial Reserve Forces, because the events of the last few weeks have shown only too clearly how thinly stretched on the ground are the forces of law and order. One of the reasons why recruiting has improved so much in the last 18 months is the factor that we now have in office a Government which put defence in its proper place at the top of our list of priorities.
  7.47 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Judd: The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) always makes extremely interesting speeches in these debates. Therefore, I hope he will take it in the spirit in which it is offered when I say that, on reflection, he will probably feel that the remarks he made at the beginning of his speech were an unworthy reflection on the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin). It is because of our almost unbridled admiration for the way in which the British troops in Northern Ireland are operating under immensely difficult circumstances that we have a duty to examine honestly and openly any misgivings we may have about the context in which we are expecting them to serve in our name.
  The strategy behind the White Paper is the nuclear deterrent and the willingness, if circumstances demand it, to use it first. The credibility of that deterrent must depend upon the fear of our potential enemies that we are prepared to use it. This must mean that we have to convince those potential enemies that we are prepared to take the retaliatory holocaust which would inevitably follow from our pushing the button. If we are to convince them of that, surely a comprehensive civil defence system is an indispensable element of a deterrent policy.
  1586
  I here hasten to say, before it is said from the other side of the House, that I have never been altogether satisfied about policy on this front since the original decision was taken by the previous Government to run down drastically the civil defence programme. Why do the present Government stick to this policy? It seems to be a serious gap in our credibility. Is it that the considered opinion of the Government Front Bench is that there is no meaningful defence against the retaliatory holocaust, that we must be seen to be willing to commit collective suicide as a nation if need be? I put these questions because it seems to me that in a responsible democracy the public has the right to know the philosophy on which the strategy is based.
  Perhaps I put this view forward with special feeling because, representing as I do a constituency which contains one of our principle naval bases, it is not unnatural from time to time to find people asking in conversation what would happen to the civilian population of a city like Portsmouth in the terrible context of a nuclear war. I have heard people ask whether there are deep shelters in Portsmouth, and usually they go on quite entertainingly to discuss which senior citizens and senior Service personnel have their names on the list for entry to such shelters. I had even heard it suggested that one of the reasons why people stand for Parliament is to get into a deep shelter in time of need—a suggestion which I refute hurriedly! However, civil defence is a matter we should look at very seriously. It has been sadly lacking from recent defence debates.
  Yesterday the hon and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), whose remarks we always enjoy again in debates of this kind, referred to the observation of the late President Kennedy which summed up the predicament of the possible stalemate of nuclear confrontation in the words:
  "The greatest danger to the West is being nibbled to death in conditions of nuclear stalemate."
  If we take that thought seriously, we might also give a little more time to examining the observations of the late Stephen King-Hall on possible effective defence systems in the nuclear age.

  1587
  Sometimes I wonder whether a really radical look at our predicament might not result, as he suggested, in our recognising that there is a great deal to be said for a system in which we have a home defence force able to say to an enemy, "If you come, come. But the cost of coming, once you are here, will be so great that the coming will not prove to have been worth while."
  Naturally, during the debate we have talked a good deal about Northern Ireland. Representing a constituency in Hampshire, I am well used to the Service traditions of the county. Even before the desperately tragic events at Aldershot earlier in the week, we had been struck already in our community by the number of military casualties and military funerals and the agony of the families who had suffered.
  I refer again to the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Beckenham when I say that it is because we have such a heavy responsibility to our men in the front line that we must be able to establish beyond a shadow of doubt that they are operating within a framework which shows the community of Ireland and of the world as a whole that their rôle is completely impartial. That must mean their direct accountability to Whitehall. Whitehall's direct responsibility for them should be beyond question. I know that the Minister of State is convinced that this is the case, but it is patently clear that the people of Ireland do not see this any more than do the world community or many people in this country. I ask the Government seriously to consider how this can be made more clear, if they are convinced that it is the case already.
  Lord Balniel: I see the hon. Gentleman's point. It is the presentational aspect which worries him. But he will appreciate, as I am sure will everyone in the House, that our troops are answerable to the G.O.C. Northern Ireland, who in turn is answerable to Ministers of Defence, who in turn are answerable to the Houses of Parliament. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about the presentational aspect. However, the facts are clear beyond peradventure.
  Mr. Judd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I respect his sincerity. But, while I agree that to a large extent it is a presentational problem,
  1588
  there is more to it. The close involvement of the Army in co-operation with the Royal Ulster Constabulary complicates the issue. Therefore, I believe that we have seriously to take this point on board.
  I make one other observation in passing about the rôle of our troops in Northern Ireland. The duties that they are being asked to perform are in some ways exceptional, though if we look at the rôle of the British Army in recent years in various parts of the world they are not so very dissimilar. I hope that we shall be assured before the end of the debate about the amount of consideration being given by the authorities to the need for increased amounts of specialist training for this sort of operation. It is a tremendous challenge to those involved, and it is unfair to send troops into a situation where a special form of training is required if they have not been given that specialist training to help them in the immensely problematical difficulties which confront them.
  I come now to one or two other points which are important in the context of this White Paper. I should like to pick out the reference to the Beira patrol. I represent a naval constituency, and I wish to pay tribute to all those Service personnel who have been involved in maintaining the patrol in a stance which at times must have appeared almost ridiculous because of our refusal effectively to challenge the Portuguese, who so deliberately set out to undermine and thwart the international sanctions policy.
  While discussing this area of the world, perhaps I might make one other observation. We have heard very little in this debate about the supposed Communist threat in the Indian Ocean which resulted in the Government's decision again to sell arms to South Africa and which nearly wrecked the Commonwealth as a result. I hope that we shall hear about this problem before the debate ends. I believe that the real indictment of British policy in that part of the world is that it could not be better calculated to encourage the spread of Communist influence in the African Continent. What we have to look at seriously is the interrelationship between our defence objectives and our foreign policy as it is conducted at the moment.

  1589
  In this White Paper there is a good deal of talk about conditions of service. Anyone who has regular dealings with Service personnel and their families will welcome many of the measures which have been announced. That concerning flexible engagement is a tremendous step forward, and the Government deserve genuine congratulations on their move in this direction. I applaud the concept of men serving because it is their choice rather than because there is an element of compulsion in keeping them in the Services. Having visited the detention quarters in Portsmouth and seen the psychological and physical misery of young men who have had no alternative but to work their passage out of the Navy, I believe this proposal is a civilised move that we must welcome.
  There is one point that I do not understand. It may be my fault. It concerns how far existing Service personnel will be able to switch, all of them if they so wish, to the notice system which is to operate for new personnel. While it may affect only a small number, it will be a grave injustice if the opportunity is not there for all.
  I thank the Government also for what they say about family welfare, especially in the context of the Royal Navy. The Seebohm Committee is doing vital and important work on this front. There are still special strains for naval families.
  I would mention one other Service problem which has begun to worry me because of the number of cases that have come to my attention, and not only in the Navy. This is a problem which arises where, partly perhaps as a result of the strain on family life of Service conditions, a family has broken up and the wife and children eventually find themselves being expelled from the Service quarters without having built up any right to alternative accommodation elsewhere. This is a problem of different centres of responsibility, the local authorities being responsible for public housing and the Services for Service housing. Is it beyond the bounds of possibility for different Government Departments to get together and look at the problem and see whether a civilised solution in keeping with some of the other moves in the White Paper could not be found?
  1590
  There is one other point I want to raise about conditions of service. I have already had the opportunity of raising the matter in Adjournment debates. The hardship being suffered by a certain number of Service widows becomes more serious as they contrast their position with the greatly enhanced and improved conditions of service for current Service personnel and their families. I beg the Minister to look at this problem, particularly of the pre-1950 Service widows of men of non-commissioned rank. This is a declining section of the population but one which has suffered gross injustice for too long. Can the Minister and his colleagues get together and, now that pensions are being so generally reviewed in the public sector, do something to secure justice for this group? I would also like him to look at the principle of the taxation of Service widows' pensions in general because it seems that this is an area in which we are out of step with many countries.
  Might I be permitted a few words specifically about the Portsmouth naval base. We are proud of the virility and technological punch of the new Navy. There are, however, a few points on which we are looking for reassurance. First, on the dockyards, I entirely endorse the Government's decision to use naval construction as a means of combating the injustice and hardship of unemployment where it is a grave problem in other parts of the country. However, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at the difficulty of maintaining efficiency in the yards in their servicing rôle if they are for all time to be denied the opportunity of producing naval vessels, which is an important experience for the whole yard mechanism and personnel, and which can have tremendous benefits in terms of the quality of subsequent servicing work.
  I would also ask the Minister to look at the morale of the labour force in the yards. There are some general references in the White Paper to productivity agreements. There is a danger that these people, fulfilling an important service to the community, are being allowed to drift behind once more because they are in the public sector. I have too many constitutents whom I see in personal terms finding it difficult to make ends meet in the face of constant inflation. I hope

  1591
  that the Government can really place their remuneration and financial wellbeing on a higher priority.
  We have heard of the inquiry into naval land and the importance of coastlines and amenity and so on. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept that in a city such as Portsmouth, although the Navy is more powerful in a sense than it has ever been, its economic significance to the local community is obviously not so great, proportionately, as it used to be. Yet we do not see any dramatic reduction in the demands on land by the Navy and the other Services. There is a land famine in the city. Land is desperately needed not only for housing and other social amenities but also for new, alternative industries to make up for the change in the Navy's rôle.
  I endorse the remarks of my hon. and right hon. Friends who have said that if we are serious about defence policies we have also to look to disarmament and security conferences as a positive and front-line aspect of our overall defence policy. I found myself responding spontaneously and with conviction to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) when he said yesterday:
  "It is known amongst the major members of the alliance that the British Government are the most reluctant, the most sceptical, and the most pessimistic in the pursuit of détente."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 1329.]
  Again the Minister has sought to deny this allegation. He says that it was a most unjust observation. If it is, then let us see a bit more evidence from the Government that they are taking it seriously.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: While the hon. Gentleman is on this point of cutting down, would he like to see H.M.S. "Eagle" scrapped, or would he like to see her become an addition to the virility and punch of the Navy about which he spoke?
  Mr. Judd: I want to see the logic of the development in the modern Navy carried through as effectively as possible.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: What about H.M.S. "Eagle"?
  Mr. Judd: Frankly, I do not see H.M.S. "Eagle" fitting into that logic very convincingly.
  8.17 p.m.
  Mr. Carol Mather: The hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) wondered whether we were overplaying our hand in the Indian Ocean by making too much of a fuss about the Soviet presence there. The significant thing about the Soviet presence in the Indian Ocean is that it actually arrived in a place where it had never been before, in the same way that it arrived in the Mediterranean where it had never been before, and gradually increased its strength.
  I too, pay tribute to the men of the Beira Patrol for their endurance in a somewhat fruitless task. I met them going on and off patrol in the Seychelles last summer and in the Persian Gulf the year before. If my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) had not pre-empted me, I was about to ask the hon. Gentleman what he thought about the previous plans for scrapping "Ark Royal". On the question of the "Eagle", I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could look at this from the other point of view—not at the prospect of keeping the "Eagle" but whether we want a viable carrier force and whether such a force is viable if we have only one carrier? A business with only one lorry will sooner or later have to take that lorry off the road or it may have a crash, and the business cannot be kept going.
  I see my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) in his place. I do not intend to talk about the Persian Gulf but I agree with what he said, particularly at this time of a fuel crisis. I wonder about the wisdom of the previous Government in setting off a course of events which it has proved impossible to reverse. The present threat is twofold. One is the massive build up in Soviet conventional forces, particularly sea power, and the extension of their fleets in the Indian Ocean, the Mediterranean, the South Atlantic and particularly around the North Sea. The second threat is what one might call the subversive threat.
  These two threats are now more deadly than the nuclear threat with which we have lived for so long. When one talks about the conventional threat, one has only to consider the events of two years ago, when the Soviets moved a million men in 24 hours into Czechoslovakia,

  1593
  without Western intelligence getting wind of what was going on. This is what they can do and will do if they have a mind to do it.
  What will their navies do? They have the ability, as they are spread out in strategic positions around the world, not to launch direct attacks on our shipping, but perhaps to disrupt our shipping lanes and to engage in exercises across our sea routes which could prove extremely disruptive and could lead to a very awkward situation.
  These are the tactics which I think they will follow. Power afloat is political power and the power to influence people who are impressed by such things, in exactly the same way as we used gunboat diplomacy so successfully years ago.
  On the subversive side, the aim of the Communists, both the Chinese and the Soviets, is to set up subversive centres in target areas—which they have been very successful in doing. The obvious areas are Cairo, Cuba and Hanoi. Less obvious—the new target areas—are in Aden, the Gulf and Ireland. These subversive centres are growing like mushrooms and they will grow wherever the West relaxes its guard around the world.
  The problem with Northern Ireland is that there are two things to look after—the cities, Belfast and Londonderry, and the Border; and we have only enough troops to look after the cities. If we are to look after the Border, we must either remove troops from this other task or bring in more. Do we need more troops to do the job, to prevent terrorists crossing the Border from their bases? Sadly, I believe we do. Where will they come from? We have mentioned the Territorial Army in Northern Ireland. I know that there are technical difficulties in calling up the Territorial Army, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State explained last night. But such difficulties are there to be overcome, as we overcame them in the Bill introduced and passed yesterday on another matter.
  Perhaps it could be explained whether the difficulty is that these men have signed a contract which prevents them from being called up for part-time duty or even for a month at a time—or whether it is a parliamentary difficulty that we face. There are 3,000 men there, trained, organised and very ready to help in this situation. We are very short of
  1594
  manpower; we should overcome these difficulties and use this reservoir.
  As my hon. Friend said, there are ways and means now of keeping surveillance on the Border. One can make it a normal international border, with the normal formalities of papers and passports, or one can turn it into a natural barrier. Although the difficulties are great, we must cut ourselves off from the sources of terrorism and, if necessary, form a cordon sanitaire.
  We have had a taste of urban terrorism in the United Kingdom in the last few weeks, both in the riots in London and in the events in Aldershot. We have seen this in other parts of the world and we have now realised that Britain is not immune. What happened at Aldershot was even highly predictable. It happened during the previous campaign of 1938 and 1939.
  Once this kind of thing has happened, events can move very swiftly, so any necessary precautions should be taken now. Our best defence is a strong Territorial Army. The Government are to be congratulated on increasing the strength of the T.A. by 10,000 men. Not only may they have to be called upon to guard vital points like power stations; they are a force with local loyalties and knowledge and they are a cohesive force.
  We should consider some kind of rescue service for disasters of any kind. I hope that the Government will carefully consider resuscitating the Civil Defence, for which there are volunteers ready and waiting to be called into service again.
  The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) mentioned the word "conscription". He asked my hon. Friend, "Surely you do not mean to introduce conscription?" My right hon. Friend said, "Of course, certainly not." The House then heaved a sigh of relief. The recruiting figures are very good and this is a good sign that the voluntary spirit is there. But it cannot just be left. It needs arousing and sustaining.
  At a time of high unemployment and great social disturbances about the country, our society needs buttressing and reinforcing. I wonder whether the time is not ripe now, when we are, after all, facing something of a national emergency, for young people to be asked to do a period of voluntary service for the

  1595
  nation, actively encouraged by the Government, industry and the universities. There are a hundred and one different jobs outside the Services that they could do and at the same time they could be given the opportunity of work inside the Services as well.
  The question is whether this should be compulsory or voluntary. I am surprised that we have never discussed this before. It has been discussed in another place and not so long ago in a paper by the R.U.S.I. called "Mobilisation of Youth; Voluntary Service or Conscription?" But we have not discussed it here and the time has come to consider the matter very carefully.
  It is not as if there were great hostility in the country at large. General FarrarHockley, when he was at Exeter College, Oxford, discovered by means of a survey that, from the age of 70 down to 16, 84 per cent. said that they were in favour of the reintroduction of national service, either purely for the military or in a wider concept.
  At our present stage, we should carefully consider whether we should do something on a voluntary or even compulsory basis. So many people say that youth has lost its way; this may be our chance to give them a lead and the opportunity for service. Possibly, they may jump at the chance.
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) will forgive me if I am a little personal and say that when I listen to a man with his particular background in military intelligence I get a little depressed because about some of the things he said he ought to know a little better, if I may say so without being impertinent. To talk about subversion and a threat from the Chinese and the Russians seems a misleading diagnosis of precisely what is the problem.
  I had the good fortune to be in China in November. I found the Chinese very frank about this matter. They said that their military help to a number of Asian and African countries had run into some difficulty, but where they have provided what some may think of as a threat—although I would not myself think it was—was in the nature of the aid which
  1596
  they have given to countries of the Third World in simple machinery, for example, for extracting oil, and simple rice-milling machines. Fortunately or otherwise, I happened to be in Peking at the time of the visit of the Prime Minister of North Vietnam. Many Chinese made it clear that they have no control over what the North Vietnamese did or did not do. Perhaps this is one of the misunderstandings which we in the West have had. If ever there were a buffer State to China, it essentially is the buffer State of North Vietnam. Many of the associates of Chou en Lai would be surprised to hear it said that they have subversive control over what happens in Vietnam.
  Mr. Mather: If the hon. Member had had intelligence training he might have understood these matters a little better.
  Mr. Dalyell: I think we can agree on the way in which the intelligence services have misled Governments of both parties about the nature of subversion. I do not, however, wish to continue on that line, I should like to concentrate on a single subject.
  This is related to paragraph 21 on page 5 of the White Paper and to the Ministerial Aerospace Board. We are told that this is responsible for co-ordination. My speech is one of inquiry. I do not expect any kind of answer tonight, but it might be helpful to some of us if the Government were to reflect and perhaps to answer my speech next Thursday in the debate on the Air Estimates. My decision to intervene in the defence debate arises from the fact that a major decision has to be made on this matter. We are told by the Americans that a major decision has to be made this summer on whether Britain and Western Europe or Western Europe, are to participate in the space shuttle programme.
  The first thing that has to be said is that this involves a great deal of money in one way or another. The estimate given is 5·5 million dollars, give or take 20 per cent. error. I had better declare straight away that of course there are people in the United States who say that it is not 5·5 million dollars, but that we are talking about a possible 25 billion dollars. There are people who say that this may be a major Apollo programme and that the answer is £200 millions which can be spent in 1973. That is

  1597
  rather like the camel which puts its head into a tent and we know that the hump will be coming later. I do not want to be naïve and to talk about the cost, but no one can deny the importance of the decision, for better or worse.
  The S.B.A.C., Hawker Siddeley, the employers' engineering association, the electronic engineering association and many other organisations in this country take the view that on our participation or otherwise will depend the future of many sectors of the electronics industry in this country and the industrial stake is quite enormous. If we are to remain at the frontiers of technical knowledge it is argued that we have to partake in this venture at a certain percentage.
  I am genuinely not clear about the Ministerial and departmental arrangements for a decision. I am told that Lord Carrington said that this was dealt with by my hon. Friends under the old Ministry of Technology and that it was a Ministry of Technology decision. The Minister of State for Defence Procurement shakes his head. Perhaps he can put me right and say what exactly is meant by the sentence:
  "The Ministerial Aerospace Board proposed in Cmnd. 4641 has now been set up, to ensure inter-Departmental co-ordination on civil aerospace policy."
  My information is that it will be the Ministry of Defence who will take the decision.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: Aerospace and civil aviation are primarily responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace, but in aerospace there are connections between civil and military aircraft questions and those are the prime responsibility of the Aerospace Board.
  Mr. Dalyell: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that perhaps the next generation of strategic weapons is mixed up in it and therefore perhaps I may be in order in pursuing this subject. On the question of costs, it is claimed for the shuttle that it would reduce the cost of putting per pound weight in space from £240 to £280, equalling £40, so there are great advantages if we want to do this kind of thing. It is a very fair question to ask: do we want to do this kind of thing? I do not claim that many of my hon. Friends would not have the most severe reservations and I am not making
  1598
  a speech to launch into a great attack on the Government for not saying "Yes" to the Americans. This is a genuine speech of inquiry, but it is my certainty that this subject ought not to go undiscussed in the House of Commons.
  The question arises, why should we want to be interested in the shuttle? That is a difficult question to answer. It is like asking why a man should go to the moon. There are certain specific advantages, such as those in remote sensing of earth's resources, communication satellites, air traffic control and the whole question of the control of military aircraft. There is the whole question of spreading television education to developing countries, and there are many other issues, but I will not go into them in detail.
  What I would like to ask is whether it is the view of the Government that the time has come for Western Europe as a whole to make up its mind on this issue, and whether next Thursday there could be some indication about what we are saying to our partners in Europe. This is not an issue about the Common Market, of course, but of European co-operation.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again but I should make it clear that this is not strictly a matter to be answered today, as he himself has pointed out, and nor is it a matter to be answered next Thursday, because these matters do not come under the Air Estimates. It is a civil aviation matter and comes under a different Estimate.
  Mr. Dalyell: This is precisely the kind of confusion I had suspected, because if this is true, what on earth is the National Defence Industries Council doing, unless it discusses this kind of issue?
  Mr. Gilmour: It discusses the industrial aspects of defence. Major defence firms are represented on it, and we meet together and discuss the future of defence policy.
  Mr. Dalyell: When I read out the names of the firms which are involved and interested—McDonell Douglas, Hawker-Siddeley, Martin Marietta, North American, Rockwell and General Dynamics, B.A.C. and many others—I wonder what men like Mr. David Farrar,

  1599
  the co-ordinating director of the post-Apollo studies at B.A.C., would say to the answer we have just been given, because if we separate them and make a rigid division between civil and military I doubt whether things are any better than they were ten years ago.
  Slowly and with a great deal of sweat and a great deal of difficulty, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) knows, the last Labour Government did something in this direction. I think they might have gone much further and faster, but I know it is a difficult problem, and they did something to bring sense into co-operation between defence industries and civil industries. If the Ministry of Defence on this issue is saying that it is passing by on the other side of the road like the Levite and that it will have nothing to do with it, we are back in as bad a position as we were in the early 'sixties. What is at issue is the whole future not only of civil industry in this country but of much of the defence industry. Does the Minister want to intervene?
  Mr. Gilmour: Not really. What I was saying is that space is not a central part of the work of the National Defence Industries Council, and that, in view of the name of the Council, and in view of the people who sit on it, although my right hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace is present at its meetings, it is not very surprising that in fact it does not impinge upon it.
  Mr. Dalyell: Of course it impinges upon it. I wonder how industry will react to what we have been told tonight.
  I would like, finally, to put my own view. I think it is true, in a sense, that any man who goes to China is influenced by China. I say this, but at the same time I have not been taken over by Mao. The truth is that there is an increasing number of countries in the world whose forces have some kind of socioeconomic function; that is, they do jobs other than defence. I am not saying that the Army has not other things to do. However, there is an issue here. If Britain is to take part in any kind of major space venture—I say "if"—it seems to me sensible to involve the Royal Air Force, partly because it has the organisation to do it, and partly because,
  1600
  if we are to have an Air Force at all and are to have, as we have and ought to have, technical people in the Air Force, we must give them a clear job to do.
  So I say to the Ministry of Defence, "If you wash your hands of British participation in the post-Apollo programme it seems unwise a thing, from the Services' point of view, to do, because you will not get the high class recruits when you need them other than in the war that none of us wants to happen."
  So the R.A.F., like the Navy, should become involved in this kind of satellite communication earth resource world, a world which may extend far beyond the immediate purposes for which we have had an Air Force in the past. Without striking an extravagant analogy, it is a bit distressing that the whole impetus of what I would call the hog back to the middle sixties is continuing today.
  If I am wrong, there is no responsibility. I simply say there ought to be a responsibility, and if we are to partake in the whole post-Apollo effort—and President Nixon has given us a golden opportunity—the Royal Air Force ought to be involved, and it is extremely shortsighted of any Minister of Defence to want to wash his hands of this interesting sector of development.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. Churchill: Though I hope shortly to follow him to Peking, the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will forgive me if I do not follow him into the byways and back corridors of the Ministerial Aerospace Board.
  Six years of Labour Government have eaten deep into Britain's self-defence capability. They were years which saw major setbacks in our aerospace and guided weapons industry. They saw the cancellation of the TSR 2 and the P 1154. Both of these aircraft, like Concorde, could have been world beaters and could today have been in service with the Royal Air Force and, indeed, with air forces throughout the free world. What is more, they would have provided work for British industry and British workmen.
  The French have, off their own bat, made their own equivalent of the Polaris submarine and Polaris missiles. They have developed their own intermediate-range ballistic missiles and a highly

  1601
  successful version of the supersonic Mirage. The Swedes have developed a supersonic aircraft, the Draken; even tiny Israel, with a population only one-quarter that of Greater London, has been able to produce its own supersonic fighter-bomber.
  There is today no purely British supersonic military aircraft either in production or on the drawing board. Colossal gaps have been left in our defences. The Navy has been reduced to a situation in which it no longer has adequate air defence and it is the only significant Navy in the world not equipped with surface-to-surface guided weapons. I am glad to say that under this Government this state of affairs is shortly to be remedied.
  This Government have gone far to halt—indeed, in many respects reverse—the decline in Britain's defence capability. Recruiting shows a substantial upswing. The T.A.V.R. has been greatly expanded, construction for the Navy is going ahead, four additional infantry battalions have been added and, on the Prime Minister's personal initiative, the Five-Power Far East Defence Force has come into being in Singapore.
  Additional front-line Jaguar squadrons have been added in Europe, further orders have been placed for Buccaneers and we in Manchester particularly appreciate—I trust that the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) will endorse this—the Nimrod order, which will provide substantial work in the Manchester area. This is a record of which any Government can be proud.
  There remain, however, areas of substantial concern. The past week cannot have failed to bring home to the people of Britain, and especially to the Government, how vitally dependent we are on just two or three sources of energy for the operation of our industry and for our very livelihood. In Trafford Park in my constituency 50,000 people are on halftime working because of the power situation.
  On page 4 of the White Paper, referring to withdrawal from the Gulf, it is stated:
  "All British resident forces have been withdrawn, but ships of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force aircraft will visit the Gulf regularly."
  1602
  It is with sadness that I and some of my hon. Friends have seen the Government implement a decision of the Labour Government. A decision taken very much against the better judgment of that Government and forced on them by a tiny handful of Moscow-liners in the Labour Party.
  Britain is dependent, and will be for the foreseeable future, on Persian Gulf oil for two-thirds of its supplies. The same is true of Western Europe as a whole and it is about time that N.A.T.O. sat up and realised this.
  Mr. John Morris: The hon. Gentleman has talked about the reversal of policies, though I have been glad to hear the remarks in his last few sentences. Will he now tell the House how wrong he was in the speech he made last year when he said that the Conservatives had reversed the policies of the Labour Government on the Gulf?
  Mr. Churchill: Several of my hon. Friends hoped that that would be the case and it is our sadness, as I said, that it has not been the case.
  We have seen how effectively the Soviet Union has taken over control in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East and has established major naval and air force bases there, with more than 20,000 Russian military personnel. Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence believe that if the Russians had the opportunity of gaining, without a shot fired, political control of our oil supplies in the Persian Gulf they would not do so? Eight hundred policemen may not be sufficient to break through the picket lines of Birmingham, but can he say that 800 men—one battalion—might not be sufficient in the Persian Gulf to safeguard energy sources 1,000 times greater than anything that was in Birmingham last week?
  The instability in the Persian Gulf is clear. We have seen in recent weeks two attempted coups, one in Sharjah, the other in Qatar. So far no hostile coup has been successful but one must view this against the background of consolidation by the Soviet Union in Aden, and the fact that they are negotiating a treaty of friendship with Iraq at the moment and are shortly to open a mission in Abu-Dhabi.

  1603
  It is said, and it has certainly been the consistent view of the Foreign Office, that this policy cannot be reversed, but of course it can be. A battalion can be sent to Sharjah tomorrow for training in desert warfare, and I very much hope that serious consideration will be given to this. I would submit that it is fatuous to state, as is stated on page 4 of the White Paper, that:
  "A continuing British maritime presence in the Indian Ocean helps to maintain vigilance in that area of strategic importance"
  if at the same time the Government make it easy for a hostile power to move in and directly take over the sources of energy that we seek to protect. That is something far easier for the Soviet Union to do than the interdiction of our shipping on the high seas. Have we not yet learned that it is futile to continue playing the game of gunboat diplomacy in a era when the Russians have 20 times the number of gunboats? Can my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and his colleagues say that Britain's energy resources will not be better safeguarded by the presence of just one battalion in the Gulf?
  On the wider and even more crucial front, namely, the defence of Western Europe and the United Kingdom, the picture is even graver and more threatening. I accept that this Government have taken major steps to provide for more teeth for our Armed Forces but we must ask the question: have we done enough?
  Mr. Dalyell: Teeth?
  Mr. Churchill: More teeth, more hardware.
  It may be that some of us will disagree on the intentions of the Soviet Union but I believe that nobody in this House or indeed outside it can deny her growing military might, which is clear for all to see. She has today, according to this White Paper, 2,100 I.R.B.M.s and I.C.B.M.s deployed against the West. She has 90 Soviet divisions, that is 1 million men, under arms west of the Urals, apart from 63 Warsaw Pact divisions. She has a supremacy of three to one in tanks and three to one in tactical air power over N.A.T.O. in Western Europe. In addition she has become a growing naval power with more than 400 submarines deployed throughout the world.
  1604
  But it is, above all, when one looks at the defence budget of the Soviet Union that one sees what is taking place. I would draw the attention of the House to the relative position of defence spending today compared with 10 years ago with figures from the Military Balance. In 1961 the United Kingdom defence budget was $4,653 million. The defence budget of the Soviet Union was $10,180 million. By 1971 the United Kingdom defence budget had increased by 40 per cent. to $6,333 million while that of the Soviet Union had risen to $55,000 million, an increase of five times in a ten-year period. We have reached the situation where the Soviet Union having had a defence budget little more than twice that of Britain is today spending nearly ten times as much. In addition she devotes nearly twice the proportion of her defence budget to military hardware. The Soviet Union is now spending 20 times as much as Britain on military hardware.
  Mr. Dalyell: Would the hon. Member not agree, after our recent discussions on space, that the Soviet space programme almost certainly accounts for most of their budget?
  Mr. Churchill: Maybe it accounts for a proportion, but it provides the basis of a colossal nuclear striking power for which the rockets are vital.
  We must consider the intentions of the Soviet Union. The Guardian in an editorial yesterday, said the Soviet military power was clear and that the only argument was over what are her intentions. The Guardian says there is nothing to worry about, but can we in this House be sure about that? What is the purpose of this colossal burden of military spending that the Soviet people are being asked to shoulder? The White Paper rightly states that Europe needs
  "to assume increased responsibility for its own defence".
  But what would our situation be two years, five years or eight years from now if the United States were to withdraw from Western Europe? What was suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), in his moving and eloquent speech, might then come about. I very much hope that it will not and that this House will take the necessary steps to make sure that it never happens. But is European responsibility increasing fast enough? Is it

  1605
  increasing at all in relation to the Soviet Union? Are the Government satisfied with the amount of resources that we in this country and Europe as a whole are devoting to defence? The Minister of State rightly said yesterday that we must not judge our efforts by those of our friends but by those of our enemies.
  I wish to conclude with some questions. First, do we have enough manpower? Is there not a case, following the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) and also of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton of a citizen army, for at least the introduction of a one-year or eighteen-month voluntary national service? I believe that this would not only help the employment situation but it would provide a sound basis for any large-scale expansion of our armed forces that may be required at some unforeseen point in the future.
  Secondly, is not there a case for a fifth Polaris submarine? With the growing sophistication of the attack submarines, in which this country excels, are we allowing ourselves a sufficient margin by having only two—and sometimes only one—Polaris submarine at sea at any given moment? I have heard it argued that we have not sufficient manpower to man some of the Navy vessels, but four more Fleet submarines are being added to our strength, so surely manpower is not a problem, at least in the submarine context?
  Thirdly, have we sufficient naval air power? My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) raised the question of H.M.S. "Eagle". The sum of 10 million is all that is required to refit her, provided that she is not to be refitted for Phantoms. That would be £10 million very well spent. I do not favour endlessly refurbishing our older military equipment, particularly naval vessels, but until we have a vessel that will take over the rôle of "Eagle" we cannot be happy about seeing her go to the scrap yard. The Conservative Government said in the 1964 White Paper:
  "The carrier force will continue to form the backbone of the Navy throughout the 1970's."
  Fourthly, I must ask about the supersonic version of the Harrier, which would have been in service with the R.A.F. by
  1606
  now if it had not been cancelled. We are led to believe that there is no requirement for it until 1980. By 1980, I doubt whether there will be a requirement any more. Why cannot we have it in 1975? Why cannot we make it a world-heater, too, and sell it to all the air forces and navies of the world?
  Fifthly, can my noble Friends ensure that the next generation of missiles required by the R.A.F. and the Navy will be British or at least a joint European project, in the development and constrution of which we have a major part?
  We all look forward to next month's Budget. With a Tory Government, that means looking forward to tax cuts. I may be alone—though I venture to believe I am not—in hoping that adequate defence will be given priority over tax cuts. I hope that my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will press for more resources. More resources for more manpower and hardware. These resources would provide more employment and more security and enable Britain to take a lead in building up Europe's defence capability, which is so lamentable today, so that Europe may shoulder her fair share of western defence and keep her peoples living in peace and freedom.
  8.53 p.m.
  Mr. George Cunningham: It is rather pathetic to see the way in which the House debates foreign affairs and defence matters as if this country were still one which could form a significant opponent to any of the large, or many of the medium, Powers. When we hear the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) arguing for more equipment and masses more men, and even for some kind of volunteer conscription—a contradiction in terms—we wonder "What for?"
  The world does not expect of Britain these days that it should stand up to the Soviet Union or China.
  Mr. Wilkinson: We expect it.
  Mr. Cunningham: The rôle we should expect to perform in the world is much more modest. In particular, we should make sure that the problems which certainly are ours, with which others cannot cope, are properly dealt with by us. If hon. Members on the other side

  1607
  of the House had been less strong in their encouragement of the Labour Government in their period of office not to use the Forces for the one situation in the world which really was ours to deal with—namely, Rhodesia—then one might have greater sympathy with calls for an increase in the military might of this country.
  There was not much to choose between the two sides of the House on the matter of military force in Rhodesia. There was a hair's breadth and little more between them. The world expects us initially to look after our own back garden, and Rhodesia was and still is our own back garden. So let us start there with the little patch we are responsible for and not let our minds roam so wildly about world affairs.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Since the hon. Gentleman has raised the question of Rhodesia, I wonder if he could tell me whether there is any truth in the statement that the Rhodesian Army was prepared to put down U.D.I. if the British Government had shown any willingness to send any Forces at all to Salisbury when U.D.I. was declared, and that it was the failure of his Government to take that action that allowed U.D.I. to be the success it has been?
  Mr. Cunningham: I cannot answer that, but if the hon. Gentleman had listened more carefully I think he would have gathered fairly clearly that I do not altogether agree, and did not at the time, with what was done by the Labour Government, and I said so very clearly at the time. I think they failed in their duty, and I have said so many times before and will no doubt do so again. I do not think that particular way of dealing with the situation was the right way, nor do I know where it cropped up in that form.
  I want to start by making a plea to the Minister to deal, when he winds up tonight, with a matter I have been nagging the Minister of State about for a week or two. I recognise that it is a great part of parliamentary technique, which I hope I shall never learn, that when someone makes a point at an hon. Member during a debate it is preferable
  1608
  to ignore it entirely in the winding up speech, which the Minister of State for Defence did when I was in this sort of tangle with him once before. So I am quite clearly asking him to deal with this matter when he winds up.
  We have seconded military personnel to a number of countries overseas—an absolutely right thing to do. For some reason, which, frankly, I have forgotten, I wanted to know exactly where they were, in which countries they were situated. I thought in my naïve way that as a Member of the British House of Commons I would be entitled to that information, which there would be no difficulty in obtaining. However, I was told by the Minister who is going to wind up tonight that such information is confidentiol between Her Majesty's Government and the countries concerned.
  What a lot of rubbish! Here we have British personnel, some of them paid by the British and some by the host country, seconded to other countries. It is an official act. It is something which no American Administration would or could dream of keeping from Congress, but in this country Ministers just blandly say: "We are not going to tell you the answers". I think that should not be sustained, and will not be sustained, and if it helps the Minister I may say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), the previous Secretary of State for Defence, assured me that, if put to him, such a question would have been answered. I can see no reason whatever why the Minister should give a great deal of detail about ranks and so on but simply say in which countries British seconded personnel are currently serving. Many of them are serving under international agreements, some of which have been registered with the United Nations and some of which have not. I am not sure that the agreements are technically valid if they have not been registered with the United Nations, although secret treaties continue in default of the Charter. Most of the troops are covered by written agreements. I ask a plain straightforward question about a fact which I am entitled to know and, if the Minister does not tell me the actual facts tonight, I hope he will tell me what bogus reason he has for not answering my question.

  1609
  I ask the Minister also to say something about M.A.C.C., the Military Assistance to the Civil Community operation. A few years ago a great deal was written about this operation, and there was much enthusiasm for it on the part of some members of the Forces. I am thinking particularly of the G.O.C. in Edinburgh. My interest is mainly in the assistance which the Armed Forces, particularly the Royal Engineers, can give to the work done by the Overseas Development Administration. The Royal Engineers are mad keen to do this job. The defence Statement refers to the operation, but my impression is that some of the steam has gone out of it. This may be attributable to haggles between Whitehall Departments about who is to pay for it, whether it is to come out of the aid budget or whether the Royal Engineers will have to pay for it themselves. This needs to be cleared up.
  Despite the generality of this debate, the principal subject on which we must concentrate is the activities of the British Forces in Ireland. Regretfully, it needs to be said that when an hon. Member criticises an action of the British Forces or raises questions about their activities, this does not imply lack of support for what the military in general is doing in Northern Ireland. I do not want British troops to come out of Northern Ireland; that would be as much a dereliction of our duty as it was not to do what we were talking about earlier in Rhodesia. It is our job to maintain law and order and justice in Northern Ireland, and that requires British troops to be there.
  I do not know whether there is a military justification for having more British troops in Northern Ireland, but if there were a security justification for it I would support it. I should like to see Northern Ireland almost saturated with British troops. By doing that a far larger number of targets would be created, and that is objectionable. In the absence of something approximating to saturation, we are allowing large numbers of youths who are hostile to all authority to grow up in Northern Ireland with skill in the making of bombs which they will possess for 30 or 40 years. If the despatch of more troops to Northern Ireland is an efficient way of limiting that danger, then for God's sake let us do it. Nevertheless, the activities of the British troops
  1610
  must be watched over very closely by this House.
  Paragraph 19 of the Defence Statement refers to the Compton Report. It is necessary to say something in qualification of the claims which are there made. It is said that the Parker Committee is examining the practices described in the Compton Report. This is not strictly true, because the Defence Statement was published in February and the Parker Committee packed up work on 31st January, when it presented its report to the Prime Minister.
  I know that it is not the Minister's job to supervise the Parker Report, but I wish somebody would say why nobody has yet seen that document since it was presented to the Prime Minister on 31st January. Three to four weeks is a long time for a report of that significance not to see the light of day. If the Government wish to allay suspicions it is important for that report to be issued as quickly as possible. We should be told why there has been almost a month's delay.
  It is not clear from paragraph 15 of the Defence Statement dealing with the Compton Report whether the so-called ill-treatment—which was physical brutality, though by a semantical exercise Compton said it was not brutality—was an accidental aberration either of individual soldiers or of an organised group of soldiers. It was activity for which those soldiers have been trained. There are establishments in this country which exist to train soldiers to stand men against the wall, to bombard them with noise, to put sensory inputs to their ears, to hood them, and so on. So far as we know, there is at the moment no positive intention to terminate that military activity. In so far as it was the R.U.C. which did this and not the military in Northern Ireland, the R.U.C. did so with military training.
  In discussing the activities of our Armed Forces, it cannot pass without notice that it is surely contrary to the principles of this country and the traditions of this House that British troops should be trained to apply those methods to prisoners. This is not the place to argue that that activity is illegal but, whatever Ministers may have said, I am prepared to assert that it is, and there is

  1611
  very high authority for that statement. It is illegal, immoral and certainly stupid.
  If we think back to our history in dealing with comparable situations, what is it that has made it possible for this country to live on after the troubles with Nehru, Gandhi, Kenyatta and so on? It was the fact that, though we may have put them in jail, we never tortured them. That alone made it possible to deal with them afterwards. If we wish to breed in Northern Ireland men who are so seared that to the end of their days they will want to shoot at British soldiers, this is a certain way to do it. The only way to treat prisoners in the hands of the British Army is by adopting the same standards as we apply in this country.
  The terrible thing about these incidents is not that they have happened but that when they have been put before this House in an official report we, instead of holding up our hands in horror and saying "This must stop" have said "This is a very difficult situation and is not as clear as one's principles might suggest". It is time for this House to get back to the principles which are instinctive within us and apply them to Northern Ireland. Only in that way shall we get out of the morass and save ourselves from slipping further downwards.
  The allegations which were examined and proved by Compton have been followed by further allegations. I have received, as no doubt have other hon. Members who show interest and sympathy in this subject, bundles of allegations. One of these was referred to in the House the other day when the Minister of State said that he had referred these papers to the G.O.C. in Northern Ireland and in turn the G.O.C. had referred them to the R.U.C.
  I was not born yesterday. I do not believe every allegation of ill-treatment which comes from Northern Ireland. I am quite certain that some of them are untrue from beginning to end and that others are exaggerated. However, these new allegations have an element of apparent truth, just like the allegations into which Compton looked. I suggest that, if only to preserve the good name of the British Army, it is necessary to have some form of continuing investigation of allegations made against the British Army, other than the R.U.C.
  1612
  I could base that point on the fact that the Catholic community in Ireland will not believe the R.U.C. However, I do not need to do that. I will not believe the R.U.C. After Compton, after revelations which I did not believe when they were first made because I could not believe that British troops would be permitted to do those things, how can I accept that an investigation by the R.U.C., which was privy to doing those things in secret, is likely to be fair and thorough? It is contrary to human nature to ask the R.U.C. to find fault with the Army in Northern Ireland circumstances, or vice versa.
  We need a small permanent commission to be set up to investigate allegations against the troops. That would not destroy the morale of the troops: it would give them the assurance that allegations would be swiftly and impartially investigated and that those which were wrong would be dismissed immediately. I do not wish to see these allegations proved, but disproved by an authority which I can accept as impartial. I hope that, when he winds up, the Minister will deal with some of the points which I have raised.
  9.12 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick WallI congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) on his speech. He underlined three of the issues which should be in the minds of all right hon. and hon. Members: the growing imbalance in forces between East and West, the lack of hardware in this country, particularly of the Royal Navy, and the possible dangers that the West faces to its oil supplies in the Persian Gulf due to the withdrawal of British troops.
  As the end of the defence debate last year I said that I thought that the Government had done more than could be expected, in the short time that they had been in office, to restore the cuts made during six years of Labour Administration. I said that I hoped that there would be a lot more to come.
  I must admit that the White Paper is somewhat of a disappointment to me. It contains some very good things, but it has not faced up to the greatest threat since Hitler's blitzkrieg—namely, the phenomenal growth of Soviet sea power. This matter is often either laughed at or

  1613
  disregarded by the Opposition, but even the Conservatives have not really faced up to it as yet.
  On the credit side I should like to refer to three particular areas. First is the establishment of the five-Power Force in South-East Asia. The House should note that the cost is about £10 million, which is what we always said it would be when the Labour Government said that it would cost at least £300 million a year to keep a force in Singapore and east of Suez. It shows just how wrong their estimates were over this factor and many others.
  Mr. George Thomson: With respect, it was the present Prime Minister, not us, who, on television, priced this at about £100 million.
  Mr. Wall: The right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. My right hon. Friend said that to keep Forces East of Suez might involve an overall increase in our defence expenditure of that amount but that the cost of having British Forces in Singapore itself as part of a Commonwealth Force would be about £10 million. According to the White Paper, that is a slight over-estimate. The figure is about £9 million. It shows that we are better at estimating costs than were the previous Administration—some £291 million better.
  We must congratulate the Government on assisting the creation of a Federation of Arab Emirates in the Gulf. I agree that it is a great pity that there is not a British battalion undergoing desert training in that area in the same way as jungle training is undergone in Johore. If a British battalion was on the ground in that area it would do much to improve stability in an area vitally important to the West.
  The Government have saved the Gurkhas, whose future was doubtful under the previous Administration. They have stopped the dangerous rundown of the Army and expanded the TAVR. They have boosted recruiting and introduced the new flexible engagements which have been welcomed on both sides of the House. Above all, they have ordered more Nimrods, which is particularly important because it will allow time, I hope, for foreign orders to be generated as it will keep the production line going for a further 6 to 12 months.
  1614
  I turn to the world stage. The threat of the U.S.S.R. is now world-wide because, and just because, it is a maritime threat. Also, we face the long-term threat of subversion and guerrilla warfare from Communist China. But the maritime threat from the Soviet Union is particularly dangerous because it is a conventional threat. The Soviet Union could gain its ends, without resort to nuclear power, by strangling our sea communications. N.A.T.O. covers only a restricted area in the context of the world scene, and not the Indian Ocean and the oil supply routes that lead from the Persian Gulf round the Cape to Europe.
  Today, as time is short, I shall deal only with the N.A.T.O. area. I concentrate first on Central Europe, and then on the two flanks, north and south. In Central Europe we have a nuclear stalemate, and this is enhanced by the fact that the Soviet Union is more interested at present in China than her western flank hence we have a possible European Security Conference, M.B.F.R.s and so on. We all hope that these will be successful, though many of us have considerable doubts.
  With regard to the British Army of the Rhine, there are certain weaknesses, which I hope the Government will deal with in the very near future. The first is the lack of modern tactical nuclear weapons. Obviously, the doctrine of flexible response depends to a large extent on having good mobile tactical nuclear weapons. Hon. Members will remember me saying six years ago that it was about time Honest John was replaced. Now that Lance is in full production in America and is held to be an excellent weapon, I hope the British Government will contemplate buying it as a weapon for B.A.O.R.
  The only long-range strike aircraft that we shall have on this front in future is the M.R.C.A. The only thing I regret about the M.R.C.A. is its short range. Experts say that it is enough for the European theatre, although its range certainly rules it out for maritime theatres, and I have doubts that it is sufficient for Europe. The Harrier is now being deployed in some numbers in Germany, but we have yet to hear of the medium-lift helicopters which are essential to make full use of Harrier's flexibility on this front.

  1615
  On the Home Front we have seen the dangers of subversion and guerrilla warfare. One has only to look at what is happening in both the North and the South of Ireland. Therefore, the expansion of TAVR and, I hope, the reactivation of civil defence are matters which are concerns and should concern the Government. But it is not to the central front that I address my main remarks, because I believe, as I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House believe, that the likelihood of war in central Europe is remote merely because that war would almost automatically escalate to full nuclear confrontation. The great danger is that N.A.T.O.'s flanks are the seven oceans of the world, and since Cuba in 1962 the Soviet Union have woken up to the use of sea power. The Americans gave them the demonstration, and the lesson struck home.
  I repeat, briefly, figures given to me at SACLANT only a few weeks ago. The Soviet fleet is the second largest in the world. Of that fleet 45 per cent. is under 10 years old; therefore, it is more modern that that of the United States. It has 90 nuclear-powered submarines, thirty-five ballistic missiles and 35 cruise missiles. These are backed by 260 attack submarines. The Soviet Union has the world's heaviest armed cruisers of the Kynda class capable of delivering surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles which outrange any in the West. Those are backed by 50 guided-missile destroyers and destroyer escorts and by a further 50 conventional destroyers and 100 destroyer escorts. The Russians have over 1,000 naval aircraft and an amphibious force of over 200 vessels. Their merchant fleet—this is maritime power in its full extent—was 2 million gross tons in 1950. It is now 15 million gross tons. By 1980 it is estimated that it will have expanded to 27 million gross tons and will be probably the largest in the world. They have a fishing fleet of 4,500 vessels, and the largest hydrographic and survey fleet in the world.
  This mass of expanding maritime power represents a much more serious threat to this country, to Europe and to N.A.T.O. than anything that Kaiser Wilhelm or Adolf Hitler possessed in their days. This sea power, if it is used as the Russians already have shown signs
  1616
  of using it, could be used to strangle our sea communications by the threat of a conventional war alone, with no danger of nuclear escalation. That is the basis of this rapid and increasing Soviet maritime expansion.
  To be a little more specific, I turn first to the northern flank and then to the southern flank. The largest and most modern of the four Soviet fleets is based on Murmansk and the Kola Peninsula. Its ships, both surface and submarine, have to pass either between Iceland and Greenland or between the Norwegian coast and Iceland. In Iceland we have already Communist Party participation in the Government, and there is growing pressure for the evacuation of the American base on the island which is there essentially for the surveillance of the North Atlantic area.
  In Norway, General Sir Walter Walker, who until a few days ago was Allied Forces Commander in Northern Europe, is reported in a recent issue of the magazine Defence as saying:
  "First, let us consider the present physical line up. Soviet Standing Forces in the Kola Peninsula outnumber the opposing Norwegian forces in the ratio of 4 to 1 in troops; 15 to 1 in armour; and 6 to 1 in artillery. They have seven times as many aircraft and these operate from a large number of forward airfields. The powerful Northern Fleet, largest of all their fleets, has some 500 vessels including no less than 160 submarines. Modern amphibious craft and a naval infantry brigade complete the picture, and in the Murmansk area, the Russians have constructed, and continue to improve, one of the most powerful military base complexes in the world."
  I suggest that the commitment to their northern flank is a problem which N.A.T.O. commanders have to face. It is intensified by the reluctance of the Norwegian Government and people to see tactical nuclear weapons on their soil in peace time. It is their right to make this decision, but it is for the N.A.T.O. commanders to be able to stage a quick reaction to any threat in this area. The House will have in mind what happened in the Second World War, when we reacted too slowly; we did not have air power, and we lost control of airfields. History could repeat itself. I suggest that one of the tasks of the British carrier forces—for both "Eagle" and "Ark Royal"—is to be able to stage a quick reaction on the northern flank. When one considers that the Americans have few aircraft carriers in the Atlantic and

  1617
  have to cover the whole Atlantic area and that those ships have to steam from North Virginia, clearly the importance of "Eagle" and "Ark Royal" should be underlined. When my hon. Friend again discusses the future of "Eagle", I hope he will tell us what the views of Saclant were on this subject.
  I turn to the southern flank. Here, General Walker said about the north and south flanks:
  "The difference between the two encroachments, as I see it, is that in the south, the prize for the Soviets is the control of the Mediterranean Sea. In the north, the prize is the control of Europe itself."
  I do not agree that the prize in the south is the control of the Mediterranean Sea. I do not believe that the southern flank of N.A.T.O. rests on the Mediterranean Sea. I did not believe it in the old days, and, now that the Suez Canal is shut it must be evident that the flank of N.A.T.O. lies on the Cape of Good Hope. The oil routes from the Persian Gulf, along which two-thirds of Europe's oil supplies have to come, are through the Indian Ocean, round the Cape and into the South Atlantic.
  The House should wake up to the fact that N.A.T.O.'s responsibility ends at the Tropic of Cancer and that convoys that come round the Cape are, anyhow on paper, unprotected by N.A.T.O. and not the concern of N.A.T.O. until they cross the Equator and reach the Tropic of Cancer. This affects 50 per cent. of our oil, 25 per cent. of our food, and 5 per cent. of our minerals which pass the Cape of Good Hope. Those are figures given in the House last year. How are these convoys in the South Atlantic or Indian Ocean to be protected?
  There are two ways—either by ship-borne air power which at the moment can only be carrier-borne but which later will include vertical and short takeoff aircraft carried in other types of ship or operating from land bases in co-operation with South Africa under the Simonstown Agreement. I hope that in winding up the Minister will explain why it is that South Africa has ordered her six new corvettes from Portugal and not this country. It is well known that South Africa wanted to order from Yarrow, and it is equally well known that it did not do so because the Leader of the Opposition said they would not be delivered if
  1618
  his party won a subsequent General Election. This shows the direct responsibility of the Leader of the Opposition for a certain degree of additional unemployment on the Clyde.
  We must have air strike and defence capability on the sea routes, in these oceanic areas in the Atlantic or Indian Oceans. We are unlikely to have access to shore airfields in these areas except possibly in South Africa. We have no long-range aircraft, not even M.R.C.A., in operation. We have no long-range surface-to-surface missiles, and we have no adequate anti-submarine helicopter protection unless we operate from some form of aircraft carrier because the other ships carry only one helicopter. I am thinking in the context of the Russian submarine fleet of 300–400 vessels. We must retain the existing carriers until they can be replaced by some other form of ship. I do not want to continue these ships simply for some idea of military grandure. It is essential to close the missile gap, and it will not be closed until the through-deck command cruisers are at sea.
  The argument advanced by my right hon. Friend about H.M.S. "Eagle" is that she would cost £25 million to £30 million properly to up-date so as to be able to operate with Phantoms. However, she has a far more advanced aircraft command and control system than "Ark Royal". In this respect she is better equipped than "Ark Royal". Yet the Government are planning to spend £17 million on new Admiralty buildings in Bath. They intend spending £1,300 million on cleaning our rivers, a very important task but not an immediate priority. I suggest that the Government have their priorities wrong.
  The second argument was about manpower. My right hon. Friend said that "Eagle" would require ships' companies for five frigates. In a state of cold war or conventional war one aircraft carrier is more valuable than five frigates. An aircraft carrier off the coast in a cold war means something. The situation in Guatemala only a week or two ago proves the point. A fine ship like "Eagle" is impressive, and her aircraft can be seen, and—what is perhaps even more important in cold war terms—can be heard. Put five frigates off the coast and no one would notice them. They

  1619
  are too small. One aircraft carrier is more important than five frigates. If the Government want to save frigates, may I suggest that they remove six from the Beira patrol?
  Everyone appreciates the excellent work done by my right hon. Friend at the Ministry of Defence and we congratulate him upon it. I am not at all critical of him in general, but just specifically. He said yesterday:
  " … 'Eagle' would not have been in service long enough before the new cruisers and other new naval weapon systems were beginning to be deployed in quantity to make the cost of refitting her truly effective."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 1324.]
  What new naval weapon systems? Is my right hon. Friend talking about Exocet, the short-range system, or shall we really at last have a long-range guided missile system, something comparable to that mounted in the Russian Kyndas? I hope not, because it will take 10 years to develop and will cost far more than keeping "Eagle" in commission.
  My right hon. Friend also referred to it being "deployed in quantity". Is he referring to the new cruisers? Will they be deployed in quantity? I thought that the maximum was to be three. I know how costs escalate and how succeeding Governments tend to pare away, and I doubt whether we shall see more than two eventually.
  Lord Balniel: If I may simply explain to my hon. Friend what I had in mind, it was a combination of new naval weapons, the nuclear-powered attack submarines, the Sea Dart, the Sea Wolf and ultimately, of course, the cruisers which will come into operation around 1978.
  Mr. Wall: Sea Wolf, surely, is a short-range surface-to-air missile, and Sea Dart will be fitted only in "Bristol" and a few of the new destroyers—about six by that time, I should have thought. The nuclear hunter-killer submarines will be excellent, when we have submarine-to-surface missiles—which have been in and out of the White Paper since hon. Members opposite were in charge and are missing altogether from the White Paper this year.
  1620
  I do not believe that we can fill this missile gap until these new cruisers are in commission, and, above all, until the super-Harrier is provided to operate from them. The White Paper is very vague about this, and, reading between the lines, it looks as if it will be at least a decade before the super-Harrier is in operational service. My right hon. Friend must agree that until then we cannot fill this missile gap and, therefore, need carriers with fixed-wing aircraft.
  At a time when France is maintaining and extending her fleet, maintaining two carriers and ordering new aircraft for them, when the U.S.S.R. is reported to be laying down her first conventional carrier, this is not the time to scrap 50 per cent. of Britain's seaborne air power. Navy International says:
  "Still, even at this stage, sanity can prevail and Eagle should and must be saved from the scrapheap."
  My right hon. Friend implied yesterday that the decision was made but that consideration would be given to what is said in the House. If the Government will not reconsider this matter, the only method open to my hon. Friends and myself who feel so strongly and wish to express our views about this matter of principle is to vote against the Navy Estimates, much as we would regret it.
  Defence expenditure is 5·5 per cent. of our G.N.P., the same as last year, but, as the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) said yesterday, there is no increase in expenditure in actual cash—£262 million will go on inflation, £57 million on accounting charges and only £4 million is really an addition, and that is to help unemployment in areas where it is particularly high.
  The total now spent on defence is not enough. I would go even further: not enough is spent on hardware, because we spend 66 per cent. of our expenditure on personnel and only 34 per cent. on hardware. In N.A.T.O. nations it is 60 per cent. on personnel and 40 per cent. on hardware. In the Soviet Union it is 25 per cent. on personnel and 75 per cent. on hardware. It is about time that we had more hardware.
  I suggest that, in the face of Soviet maritime expansion, both Britain and N.A.T.O. are dangerously weak, particularly at sea. One thinks back to the

  1621
  position in the 1930s and compares it with now. Then, Hitler started a war with 66 submarines. Today the Soviet Union has 360. Then the left-wing of the Opposition in this House was pacifist and voted regularly against rearmament. Today the left-wing of the Opposition is either pacifist or Marxist and speaks, and may vote, against rearmament. Then the Conservative Government was facing severe problems of unemployment; the same applies today. The National Government then were afraid to face the truth about defence expenditure. I hope very much that today this part of history will not repeat itself.
  I underline that the Government have got their priority wrong. I hope they will fulfil their election undertaking and give a higher priority to defence, especially to the production of adequate weapons, particularly those at sea.
  9.36 p.m.
  Mrs. Renée Short: I agree with the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on one thing. In his closing sentences he said that this Government have got their priorities wrong. We on this side of the House would agree, but not on the thesis about the need for increased defence expenditure. I found the hon. Member's speech very depressing indeed. I found the speech of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) equally depressing. Both seem obsessed by the fear of what the Soviet Union might possibly be doing.
  This is a record which we have heard played in this House and in the country ever since the end of the war. Where has it got us? It has led to ever-increasing defence expenditure, particularly when there are increasing pressures for more social expenditure to help to raise the standard of living of our people and to help under-developed countries for whom we have some responsibility—
  Mr. Mather rose
  Mrs. Short: No, I will not give way. We are in no way nearer to reaching any kind of agreement than we were at the end of the war. This marks the failure of policies pursued by successive Governments since the end of the war. I disagreed with my Government because I believed that, although they made some
  1622
  cuts in defence expenditure, those cuts were too little and too slow and we wanted them to go at a faster rate so as to meet the needs of our people.
  I find it very depressing that this Government are increasing defence expenditure over the figure for 1970 to about 5½ per cent. of G.N.P. In 1970 it was 4·9 per cent. I deplore that any government of East or West Europe, or anywhere else, are increasing defence expenditure. I deplore that the Soviet Union's defence expenditure is so high and that many countries in Eastern Europe are spending a higher percentage on defence than we are. I also deplore very much that we are spending more on defence than any other country in Western Europe, in the Common Market for example. I cannot see why we should bear this burden. Why should we have to spend more of our resources on defence than West Germany, Italy or France, never mind smaller nations? If anyone on the Government Front Bench could tell us why, I should be pleased to hear it.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: It is because we are an island.
  Mrs. Short: The hon. and gallant Member is not on the Front Bench.
  Lord Balniel: Perhaps I could answer the hon. Lady. She is utterly wrong for in fact West Germany is spending more than we are.
  Mrs. Short: Perhaps the noble Lord should have a word with the Library or the Institute of Strategic Studies which provided me with figures that contradict what he said. The figures I have received are those which I have stated. If he would like me to do so, I will read them.
  Lord Balniel: The hon. Lady is making a mistake. She is talking about a proportion of the gross national product. I am talking about real cash. France is spending as much and West Germany is spending more, and its expenditure is increasing more rapidly than ours.
  Mrs. Short: I am talking, as I made absolutely clear, about the percentage of the gross national product. Therefore we really ought to resist, and I hope that the Government will resist, the blandishments of their hon. Friends behind them

  1623
  and below the Gangway for an increase in defence expenditure.
  It comes ill from this Government to increase defence expenditure, as they are doing, at a time when they are saving paltry sums of money in ways which cause great suffering and great hardship to our people. I am thinking of the miserable, contemptible savings on school milk, for example, and the raising of the prices of school meals. They hope to save a few million pounds—and less than £1 million—through charges for admission to museums and galleries. It is absolutely contemptible, and yet we see an effective increase in defence expenditure getting on for £400 million. This is a measure of the Government's priorities. This is where I profoundly disagree with the attitude of hon. and right hon. Members opposite.
  I, of course, am supporting the Amendment tonight. [Laughter.] Well, I am glad that even some of the newest additions to this House now realise how the party opposite to them feels about this question of defence expenditure. What is important is that this party reflects the point of view of people outside this House. I am sorry—I will say clearly, and it may please the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack)—that it is not an official Opposition Amendment that I have the pleasure of supporting tonight.
  One of the things I find most depressing in this White Paper, as I mentioned, is the contention which, of course, is that of hon. and right hon. Members opposite, that, as it says in paragraph 7 on page 2,
  "The Western Alliance must, therefore, remain resolute in avoiding any premature lowering of its guard: it must also insist that the imbalances in the forces confronting each other in Europe, which favour the Warsaw Pact, are taken fully into account in any negotiations on arms control or force reductions."
  If that means anything at all, it means that we have got to go on spending more and more on defence till we reach what the Government feel is a balance between East and West Europe, and then we shall start talking about reductions. When will they think such a state is reached? How long must be go on spending more of our G.N.P. on defence and armaments to reach the point at which they feel we might start talking about armaments
  1624
  reductions? It seems to me an absolutely Gilbertian and foolish situation.
  We have seen over the last six years, to take only that period of time, proposals which have been made by Eastern European countries, large and small, to bring East and West Europe together, and we have seen them sabotaged over and over again. Always there are laid down more and more conditions which have to be surmounted before we are prepared to get round the conference table and talk. Proposals which were made six years ago are still being parried by the Conservative Party, which shows very little enthusiasm for them. Whenever Questions are put to hon. and right hon. Members in the Government about this whole question of a security conference we always get the same stonewalling replies, "We have got to wait till careful preparations have been made" or complaints that the Soviet Union has not allowed itself to be pushed into agreeing to talks about "mutual balanced force reductions" in Europe before N.A.T.O. can agree to sit down with the Soviets at a European conference. Then there was the pre-condition about the Berlin Agreement. The Berlin Agreement has materialised, but how much nearer are we to reaching a decision? Perhaps the Minister will give an up-to-date report on this and forecast a date when we shall sit down and talk the matter out.
  I would have thought that Governments were mature and sensible enough nowadays to do what their peoples all over the world are yearning for, and that is to bring about some sort of modus vivendi preceded by a conference between both sides with a view to ending the threat of nuclear war and so releasing the enormous resources that are now being spent on armaments for the benefit of the people by way of more productive expenditure.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: The hon. Lady has been frank with us this evening—
  Mrs. Short: As always.
  Mr. Cormack:—and, because she is always frank, she likes to explain her views with great clarity. Does she believe that the Government of the Soviet Union pose no threat whatever to the West? Does she believe that they are apostles of

  1625
  sweetness and light? Has she forgotten Czechoslovakia?
  Mrs. Short: Certainly not. I made a speech about Czechoslovakia—the incident occurred before the hon. Gentleman was elected to this House—in which I did not condone what happened there. On the other hand, I tried to understand it; and in mentioning Czechoslovakia the hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the position of the Soviet Union.
  Some hon. Gentlemen opposite are obsessed with the alleged threat of the Soviet Union. The hon. Member for Cannock is one of them. He takes part in all sorts of rather dubious activities in this direction to demonstrate that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"]
  Mr. Cormack: Would the hon. Lady explain that?
  Mrs. Short: I am answering the hon. Gentleman's interventions one at a time.
  There is a persistent unwillingness on the part of many hon. Gentlemen opposite to understand the position. The Soviet Union was invaded during the war and suffered greatly, far more than any country in the world. This makes Russia defensive rather than offensive—[Interruption.]—and I do not believe that it has offensive designs on the Mediterranean, as the hon. Member for Haltemprice suggested, or on Europe, as he also suggested.
  However, if hon. Gentlemen opposite take that view, perhaps they will explain why the Soviet Union has waited for so long before making any attempt to swallow up the Mediterranean or the whole of Western Europe. Their contention does not bear examination.
  I condemn any country's increased expenditure on armaments, East or West, and it is time that we showed a rapprochement to the proposals which have been made over the years for a security conference for disarmament talks. Only by this means will the vast resources and enormous amount of skilled manpower now being used to produce bigger, better and more horrific weapons of mass destruction be used to increase the standard of living of our people and help to achieve the sort of things for which people throughout the world are yearning and longing.
  Mr. Cormack rose—
  Mrs. Short: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Cormack: Will the hon. Lady give way once more?
  Mrs. Short: No. The hon. Gentleman cannot seduce me twice—[Laughter.]—into giving way.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) said yesterday that if the Amendment were accepted there would be a cut of about £600 million in our current defence expenditure. I would welcome that and I am sure that my right hon. Friend would, too. I am equally sure that many spending Ministers would welcome the opportunity to share in spending that £600 million on the things for which even their supporters on the benches behind them occasionally press. But I do not agree with my right hon. Friend when he says this would make it impossible for the Americans to postpone unilateral cuts. The Americans, of course, are increasing their armaments expenditure very considerably. Nor do I agree with him when he says this would bring about disarray in N.A.T.O. and would cause difficulties about the lowering of the nuclear threshold. He also said it would give powerful ammunition—and I do not at all follow the logic of this argument—to those in West Germany who have aspirations to nuclear status and whose voices have been silenced by the effect of Herr Brandt's Ostpolitik. His policy of Ostpolitik has been very successful from our point of view but he has not silenced the reactionary opponents in his own country who are demanding nuclear weapons and also opposing his Ostpolitik.
  My right hon. Friend must know there was recently a vote in the Upper House in West Germany which was lost by one; and the Bundestag is at present in process of having a three-day debate on the Ostpolitik and the treaties, and a vote is to take place tomorrow. We shall see what the strength of the Right in Opposition in West Germany is to Herr Brandt's policies. We support them, and the Government have said in this House that they support him. But I would have thought if we had shown some indication of being prepared to reduce our defence expenditure we would have supported those people in West Germany

  1627
  who are also anxious to see West Germany's defence expenditure reduced, even though it is lower than ours.
  The world arms bill had trebled between 1949 and 1968, rising from 51,000 million dollars in 1949 to 153,000 million dollars. By 1970 it had risen to 200,000 million dollars, and, if it goes on at the present rate of increase, by 1980—which is only eight years from now—it is expected that expenditure on world armaments will reach 300,000 million dollars. This is 150 per cent. higher than the total health services expenditure in the world and 50 per cent. higher than the total education expenditure. So here again it indicates that many countries, all those with increasing armaments expenditure, have got their priorities wrong.
  Vis-á-vis the Common Market, it is quite clear we are at a considerable disadvantage to them because of our rising defence expenditure. Militarists always claim—and this has been put forward from the opposite side today—that more armaments make us safer. They are always clamouring for more. The more defence expenditure we have the more they seek and clamour for. I wonder if anyone in the world feels safer because of the existence of nuclear weapons in any country. Do we feel safer because we have our Polaris submarines? [SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] The backwoodsmen over there think so, but I do not believe that that point of view would be shared by many people. Do we feel safer because America and the Soviet Union could blow each other to bits, and blow us to bits in the process? I do not think we do, and I do not think most people in this country or other countries, ordinary people, if they could express their point of view, would feel any safer.
  Nuclear weapons are no longer credible, and now that this credibility is declining this is surely a time when we ought to reconsider our whole position with regard to defence expenditure and our attitude towards Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, and not a time, as hon. Members opposite have been saying this evening, to spend more on more horrifying weapons of mass destriction, more sophisticated weapons.
  I hope that the reply we get from the Front Bench tonight is going to be a
  1628
  constructive, not a destructive, one, and one indicating that the Government are going to make a genuine and honest effort to meet what I and millions of other people believe is a genuine and honest offer to seek agreement on arms reduction.
  I am sorry this Amendment was not put down by the official Opposition nevertheless I shall go into the Lobby and support it tonight.
  9.55 p.m.
  Mr. David Walder: With five minutes at my disposal I think in the interests of statistics that I should put on record that I seem to be the only back bencher in the House who welcomes the White Paper. I regard it as a most reasonable document. Hon. Members on the Opposition side must recognise that peace has its price and that in this document that price is a moderate one. My hon. Friends must realise that it is not possible within our national budget to create the perfect defence force capable of taking on any enemies in any part of the world, in any desert or jungle. This is impossible even for the super-powers and it is certainly beyond our means.
  Perhaps the interesting thing which is dealt with in the White Paper is the dichotomy which now exists in our defence obligations as they affect people in the Services. On one hand they have to serve in and think about a sphere of operations in Europe where the danger is, in a sense, rather unreal—a possible danger but not one that is ever present in their mind or that of the public. At the other end of the scale we have the situation in Northern Ireland where the military danger is too real, where it is obvious and present at every moment. This is a central difficulty for the Government in terms of recruiting to the Services and, perhaps even more important, retaining people who are already in the Services.
  There are a number of matters in the White Paper on which I would like to spend more time on. Persons of my cast of mind inevitably, when considering Europe, tend to think of the future and of the next generation of nuclear weapons. The White Paper is silent on this, but I would like to see some indication in the coming months of Government thinking on this subject because we

  1629
  all realise that some day we as Europeans, as we then shall be, will have to face the situation.
  Mrs. Renée Short: What are we now? Eskimos?
  Mr. David Walder: The hon. Lady must speak for herself. We are Europeans and we must face the possibility at some time in the future that we shall not be able to profit from the American nuclear umbrella and the physical presence of American troops in Europe. I do not expect this to be found in a White
  1630
  Paper which is necessarily a limited document but I would welcome some indication of Government thinking.
  I rather like the document. No doubt the Minister of State was assisted by his three junior Ministers, all of whom are ex-media men. Perhaps it was their influence which put in the maps and the diagrams. I welcome them all and I regard it, in consequence, as a much clearer indication of Government policy than perhaps some White Papers have given in the past. Having said that, short of sycophancy I can say no more.
  9.59 p.m.
  Mr. John Morris: The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. David Walder), with his usual engaging frankness, told the House that he was about the only back bencher who welcomed the White Paper.
  We have had a wide-ranging and thoughtful debate, from the rather frightening picture—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That at this day's sitting, the Order of the day relating to Defence may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Eleven o'clock, and that the Harbours (Loans) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Fortescue.]
  Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.
  Mr. Morris: Before I was interrupted, I was saying that this has been a wide-ranging and thoughtful debate, from the frightening picture painted by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) to the well-studied speech of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Wr. Wilkinson). I am sorry the hon. Gentleman is not privy to the secrets available to the Front Bench, but I am sure that in the course of time that will be remedied. We had a characteristic and sincere speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), as usual making a well-informed and very pertinent and consistent speech, began with his concern about a White Paper which he found somewhat of a disappointment. I think that I correctly understood him—and I think the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) also did—to make a threat to vote against the Navy Estimates, a threat which I think was echoed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  Like hon. Members who have failed to catch the eye of the Chair, I regret the curtailment of the debate, and I hope that those who have not spoken will be able to make some of their points in the forthcoming Estimates debates.
  The White Paper boasts of good progress by the Government towards three
  1632
  broad objectives that we heard about in 1970.
  I shall deal with the last first. It says:
  "There has been a substantial increase in the number of recruits for the Services."
  That will be very welcome to the whole House, but the credit is not entirely the Government's. The introduction by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) of the military salary and the beginning of its implementation have been significant reasons for the increase in the number of recruits that was so badly needed. The Government would do well not to be so churlish as to try to ignore that point.
  The other reason, for which I can give the Government full credit, is unemployment. The best recruiting sergeant the Government could ever have is over 1 million unemployed. To bring a historic phrase up to date, the Prime Minister would need to be an organising genius to organise both a shortage of recruits and over 1 million unemployed at the same time.
  We are shown a graph of the rise in recruits for which the Forces hope in January, February and March this year. I hope the Government are right. I regret that they seem to be right about the large, rising graph of the unemployed, the peak of which seems not yet to be in sight.
  Secondly, the Government take pride in the successful pull-out of the Forces as formerly organised in the Far East and the withdrawal from the Gulf. Of course, the flag continues to be shown in the Far East, but not much more, because the leading rôle has rightly been taken over by the countries in that part of the world. I appreciate very much the anguish of many Conservative Members, those who were so anxious over the years to retain the posture of world policeman, as they see the great change in the situation. The flag-waving in ANZUK is confined now to a battalion group and rotating Nimrods.
  Of course, there are the ships. There is a force of ships said to do all sorts of things. Let me tell the House its task. It is on station east of Suez, first, to contribute to the five-power defence arrangements and the ANZUK force;

  1633
  secondly, to visit the Gulf; thirdly, to maintain the Beira patrol; fourthly, to maintain guardship at Hong Kong; fifthly, to provide a presence in the Indian Ocean and South-East Asia areas. This is a task, according to the wishes of some hon. Members opposite, for a veritable armada, a task which is being carried out by a force of six ships.
  Then, of course, there is the Gulf. Here the Government claim credit—and here we can congratulate them wholeheartedly—in that, first, all-British resident forces have been withdrawn, and, second, the Exclusive Treaty ended on 2nd December of last year. It would be churlish not to congratulate the Government on carrying on with the policy so rightly decided by my right hon. Friends in the Government in which I had the honour to serve. Of course, some advisers will be kept, and I note the toe-hold which they mention: British ships will visit the Gulf regularly. Well, they visit many parts of this country and many other parts of the world fairly regularly—and it will be no more than that because, despite all the gestures, the symbols, the reality of the situation is not much different from the policy we laid down. The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester said yesterday:
  " If the defence policy outlined in the White Paper had been served up to us by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East … we in the Tory Party would have been after him like a pack of foxhounds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 23rd February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 1340.]
  With the fox so near I cannot understand how the hon. and gallant Gentleman has desisted from that cruel sport. And I do not weep at the ceiling, which even the noble Lord the Secretary of State has confessed in the other place has been adopted and which was so criticised by the Conservative Party as a way of implementing defence policy.
  This debate has been dominated perhaps by the tales of woe on the other side of the House about the "Eagle". Perhaps the air is tonight full of chickens of this kind coming home to roost on the Front Bench opposite from all directions.
  I come to the Government's third claim—the further improvement in the British contribution to N.A.T.O. Here again I welcome the improvements that have
  1634
  taken place. They are part of the philosophy of ceasing to be the world's policeman, and rather concentrating on our task in Europe. Before I examine this particular item in the balance sheet I want to ask some questions on the effectiveness of the British contribution generally and of that to N.A.T.O. in particular. First, I will ask the questions on general effectiveness. Are we getting the best value for money? I know that my hon. Friends are deeply concerned whether the expenditure of all this money is necessary. One of our proud claims when we were in Government was to change the order of priorities, in that we spent more on education than on defence.
  Looking at the particular item—and I will come to one in a moment—I wonder whether Ministers are in charge of the Ministry of Defence, or are they pushed by whatever winds happen to blow strongest along Horse Guards Avenue?
  In this connection my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huck-field) raised the Linesman/Mediator problem. Perhaps we could have an answer in the course of this debate or the debate next Thursday.
  I question the colossal increase in the research and development programme, now running at £330 million, which is dismissed in two pages and 13 lines in this White Paper. Indeed, the only cheap thing about this Government's defence is the White Paper; at 47p it is the cheapest offering by way of White Papers that we have had for years. Unfortunately, because of sheer brevity, the impression gained from the way they have resisted, and desisted from, giving adequate information to the House is that some elements of the Ministry of Defence have sworn Trappist vows. In 1970, £222 million—
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the Linesman/ Mediator, he must recognise that he had a responsibility at least for Linesman if not for Mediator. If Air Vice-Marshal Crew is right, in 1969 the shortcomings of that system became apparent, but I do not remember the hon. Gentleman ever telling the House about its inadequacies.
  Mr. Morris: I do not recall the date when the hon. Gentleman came to this House, but be that as it may, I am

  1635
  deeply interested in what has happened to the Linesman /Mediator since my time, and I shall be intrigued by the answers which will be given in the course of the debate before eleven o'clock.
  When the Labour Government left office the figure for R. and D. expenditure was £222 million a year. We were able to say that this continuing reduction in the share of the nation's resources devoted to defence R. and D. was one aspect of the Government's policy which was actively pursued by ensuring that increased resources were available for R. and D. for civil purposes.
  In 1971 that £222 million had leapt to £264 million, and it has now gone up to £330 million, a straight 50 per cent. increase over two years. There may be some explanation for this, but at least we are entitled to an explanation and the matter should not be glossed over in a mere two pages and 13 lines. There may have been a shift of a departmental Vote, which would explain part of the significant increase. When there is a dramatic increase of 50 per cent. over two years—and no cost inflation on its own can explain the substantial increase—at least we should be given an explanation. The figures for military aircraft have gone up from £92 million to £122 million, guided weapons from £49 million to £56 million and "other research and development", whatever that may mean, has gone up from £19 million to £37 million. There will be a good deal of jealousy in other spending departments of the Ministry of Defence if R. and D. has been allowed to have the lion's share of this increase, unless there is a transfer of a Vote from another Department. I fear that the trend we set has been reversed. Is R. and D. out of control? Can Ministers tell us that they are satisfied that they are getting value for money?
  The dilemma before the Ministry of Defence is that if we buy British the cost of R. and D. goes up. If we take the other course—and I have been criticised time and again by hon. Members opposite for buying from abroad—that results in somewhat less expenditure on R. and D. I am aware of the problem, and I want to know, and be satisfied by, the explanation of this substantial increase.
  1636
  One matter which has been of particular concern to me and for which I had a responsibility is torpedoes. Hon. Members wending their way home on Christmas Eve will have seen the announcement that the final decision had been taken to purchase the Mark 46 lightweight torpedo from the United States. The greater part of torpedo development, regrettably, in recent years has been a series of non-events. I share some of this responsibility, and I put in train certain measures. I hope that some of the lessons of the past have been learnt.
  I ask Ministers why—if they have acted on advice, as I am sure they have—the advice given to the Government to purchase the M.46 is rather different from my understanding at the time of the value of this American solution? I choose my words with care, as hon. Gentlemen will appreciate. Secondly, is it still possible, and is it wise, to continue with the other long-term solution which is in train—I will not mention its number—at the same time as we are losing the value and the benefit of the work which has been done and is now being abandoned on the short-term remedy? That is the most serious question of all, as I am sure the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement will appreciate, and it is a continuing problem. We all appreciate that torpedoes are guided weapons, and we should like to know how close is the liaison, if any, between the Royal Navy and the remainder of guided weapons operations. I hope that Ministers are satisfied with the handling of naval research and development expenditure generally.
  When we were in Government we were criticised about ship strength. The hon. and gallant Member for Haltemprice was consistent in criticising our shortfalls. But have the present Government been less than frank in the figures they have placed before us? How right was the naval correspondent of the Sunday Telegraph—Mr. Wettern—last Sunday when he said:
  "The decline in the size of the Fleet is twice as large as indicated in the Defence White Paper published last week"
  indicating that some ships will not leave their fitting yards this year, and others will be scrapped earlier than is shown in the White Paper? It may be that Mr. Wettern is wrong and the Government

  1637
  are right. If he is right, so much for open Government. It will turn out once again to be one of the less attractive fables of our time.
  In the concern about H.M.S. "Eagle", the Minister of State knows full well that when he says to his colleagues on the Conservative benches that he and the Secretary of State will consider carefully the representations made, he knows—and the Government as a whole know—that the decision has been taken. Whatever may be said in this House today, or yesterday, or in the other place, they know full well that the decision will not be changed. When phrases like "considered carefully" are used in this House, it would surely be better if the hon. Gentleman would put his colleagues on the Conservative back benches out of their misery.
  The other claim made by the noble Lord was about the unprecedented rate of warship construction in peacetime. I reminded him that the rate of nuclear-powered submarine shipbuilding remained basically the same as in our period of office. After consultation with one of his colleagues, he confirmed this in the debate yesterday. These are the capital ships of today, and we were criticised in almost every defence debate on this score.
  What are the figures? In 1970 No. 6, No. 7 and No. 8 were being built and No. 9 was to be ordered shortly. In 1971 No. 7, No. 8 and No. 9 were being built and No. 10 was to be ordered this year. Now, in 1972, we are told that No. 8, No. 9 and No. 10 are being built and that No. 11 is to be ordered. The Government have not said whether it would be shortly, this year or at what time this will happen. It looks as if it is going at precisely the rate at which we were building and for which we were so criticised. No wonder the hon. and gallant Member for Haltemprice finds the White Paper disappointing. Perhaps it is the masterly understatement of our time.
  The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) raised the issue of Polaris. I do not want to embarrass the Minister more than is necessary, but he comes down to the House month after month to repeat like a barrel organ that he is keeping his options open. He dare not admit otherwise to his hon. Friends. He
  1638
  knows that there is no intention of building a fifth Polaris submarine. He knows that there is no money in the costings, if there were, he would tell the House for what year and for what amount. If there were any money in the costings, I suspect it would not pay for any increase in the present generation of Polaris. It would be much better to put his hon. Friends on the Conservative back benches out of their misery.
  In passing, having regard to the large figures of unemployment, I wonder whether there has been any change in policy about general purchasing. I do not mean purchasing pieces of equipment which we already buy in this country. Has there been a change in the balance between what we buy here and what we buy abroad?
  The hon. and gallant Member for Lich field and Tamworth (Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) wanted a bigger buy of Landrovers. Is there an option now that we might buy, say, lorries and trucks from abroad? What is the policy on foreign purchases generally having regard to the unemployment situation?
  Lastly, I turn to a matter which has dominated a great part of the debate on which we have had speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), Islington. South-West (Mr. George Cunningham), and others, and the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), who regrets, with his usual courtesy, that he cannot be here.
  I thank the Minister of State for Defence and his Department for the arrangements which were made for my right hon. Friend and myself and others of my hon. Friends to visit Belfast recently.
  Against this background, I want to probe the claim that there have been further improvements in Britain's contribution to N.A.T.O. Whatever has been done regarding equipment or infrastructure, our long and deep involvement in Northern Ireland has to be set against whatever effectiveness we have in Europe. Today we have more than 9,000 soldiers serving as infantrymen in Northern Ireland. I think the total is much greater. Some have been taken from B.A.O.R.—1,760, or whatever the

  1639
  figure is—and others are committed to B.A.O.R. if they can get away from Northern Ireland. The tragedy is that we never anticipated that British troops would be tied down in the United Kingdom on an open-ended commitment to keep the peace when their real rôle is denying those from outside who might want to wreck all that we value within our shores.
  The late Gerry Reynolds, presenting one of our Estimates a few years ago, said that not one British soldier had been killed on active service in that year. This year, 58 have made the supreme sacrifice. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join in paying tribute to them.
  I will not be drawn into discussing the whole of the Irish situation. As a Celt I have views on this matter, too. Last year, I gently reminded those who might be minded to throw a bomb, set a trap or throw a stone that they should sometimes think about the families of the boys at home watching television night after night and being deeply and passionately concerned about the treatment being meted out to our troops. I say with the utmost sincerity that the British public is rapidly getting more impatient with the treatment being meted out to our troops. That, and the Aldershot outrage, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Beckenham, is no help to the cause of those who want to see justice and equality in Ireland. That feeling will mount as the casualties are brought home. At our peril we in this House ignore the British public's feeling on this score.
  Our boys in Northern Ireland work long hours. They are cheerful and they behave with dignity, bravery and patience. However, I suspect that they are longing to get back to real soldiering, to be reunited with their families, and hoping that the distasteful tasks which they have to carry out will yield to the tasks for which they were originally trained.
  I welcome what has been done by the Government about cheap fares to the United Kingdom. For those troops who have come from Germany and left their families for four months, I wonder whether something might be done about a regular 72-hour leave plane to shuttle
  1640
  them backwards and forwards between Germany and Belfast. I hope that the Minister will consider that suggestion.
  Our soldiers in Ulster would not pretend to be angels. They are a cross-section of our youth. I had the privilege last September of taking a passing out parade at Crickhowell. There they were—young miners, carpenters, labourers; and they are expected to behave under the full gaze of the television cameras and all the media as if they were a combination of elder statesmen and probation officers.
  I have the impression that our Forces appear to be far too close and far too responsible to the Northern Ireland Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) mentioned that. I think that he carried with him the noble Lord, certainly in understanding his point. The truth of the matter is that the G.O.C. and the Chief Constable meet every Wednesday to formulate their plans. They report on the following Thursday to the Joint Security Committee. That committee consists of the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, two of his Ministers, the Chief Constable, one United Kingdom representative and the G.O.C. To all appearances, certainly in numbers, the committee is dominated by the Northern Ireland representatives.
  The House will recall what happened in August, 1969, when the G.O.C. was given full responsibility for all security operations in Northern Ireland. After October, when it became relatively quiet, it was possible to limit the nature of the G.O.C.'s responsibilities, from an overall direction of security to the co-ordination of the tasks with the R.U.C. But no one would pretend that the situation is today relatively quiet by any stretch of the imagination.
  I understand the difficulties in which our troops are placed. I understand, I think, a little of the tasks that they are called upon to carry, 18 hours a day—hours that no self-respecting trade unionist would dream of working—for the period of four months that they are there on active duty. The position is made more difficult by their serving, directly or indirectly, the Northern Ireland Government and, at one and the same time, maintaining the balance.

  1641
  The hon. Gentleman will press the point that they are responsible to this Parliament and to Ministers here. Whether they be so or not, the impression conveyed is that it may well be otherwise. The impression in Northern Ireland, as I understand it, is that they are serving two masters, and it is no easier to succeed in that in military operations than it is in theology. I am anxious that justice should not only be done but should also be seen to be done. Whether or not they are unduly serving the Northern Ireland Government, whether or not there is too great an influence by the Northern Ireland Government, the British Government should do something at the earliest possible stage—I think that the noble Lord understands this—to correct the situation.
  There is not time to look at all the points made during the debate. I support the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) when he commended the North Atlantic Assembly to the House, as he has done on other occasions, as a very useful and important forum for discussing the problems of European defence.
  Lastly, I join, as I hope the whole House will join, in sending our best wishes to British Forces wherever they are in the world.
  10.28 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Peter Kirk): I begin by expressing in advance apologies to a number of hon. Members if I do not mention particular points which they have raised. Owing to the peculiar nature of the debate yesterday, I find myself having to wind up almost one and a half days of fascinating discussion. Although I shall try to cover as broad a canvas as possible, I am comforted by the thought that within the next few weeks the more detailed points can be raised on the detailed Estimates and, I am sure, probably more powerfully dealt with them.
  I suppose I should start by expressing modest, almost shy, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. David Walder), who is, I think, the only hon. Member to have expressed a kind
  1642
  word in the debate for this White Paper. I am grateful to my hon. Friend beyond measure. But, though compliments have been few, discussion has been intense and interesting. Perhaps part of this is due to the fact that the White Paper is a good deal shorter than we have been accustomed to in previous years and, therefore, hon. Members on both sides have found it possible to "buff" it out with their own ideas, all of which we found interesting.
  There have been a number of themes, and perhaps I should turn to them first. Leaving aside the difficult and contradictory position in which the Opposition Front Bench found themselves in maintaining that our defence policy had not changed since June, 1970, and that what was now happening was outrageous, I pass to the general point with which both the right hon. Member for Dundee. East (Mr. George Thomson) yesterday and the hon. Member for Plymouth. Sutton (Dr. Owen) today opened the debate; namely, the relationship of our defence policy in the context of the general move towards détente.
  I was interested, though not altogether convinced, in the attempt made by both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman to depict the present Government as a lot of wild-eyed cold warriors only anxious to get back to the early 1950s. They had very little evidence for this. The right hon. Gentleman produced none. The hon. Gentleman produced one sentence from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State yesterday. When challenged by my right hon. Friend to say what more we should be doing to achieve détente, the hon. Gentleman said that he had nothing particular in mind, except a good deal more enthusiasm. My right hon. Friend is well known for the cool way in which he approaches these problems. I shall try to demonstrate a little more enthusiasm tonight, especially as the hon. Gentleman quoted from a paper of which I am the author, which represents the considered view of the Government, and with which, curiously enough, the hon. Gentleman seemed to agree. Therefore, I shall try to place this in perspective, assuming that we shall have no further attempts on the part of either the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Gentleman to place my right hon. and noble Friend

  1643
  the Secretary of State in the ill-fitting mantle of the late John Foster Dulles.
  I start from the point that there is no doubt that over the past few years Russian diplomacy has begun to show signs of greater flexibility on the arms question. There has been real progress in the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, and there has been the tremendous breakthrough over Berlin, which everyone recognises to have been a turning point. On mutually balanced force reductions, however, it is fair to say that the Soviet attitude has been much more unequivocal than on these other two matters. We have had talk about the desirability of mutually balanced force reductions. Mr. Brezhnev's speech at Tiflis was an outstanding example. But, at the same time, there has been a deafening silence in response to N.A.T.O.'s offer to send Signor Brosio to Moscow to find out whether there is a basis for further discussions.
  I think that, in part, this is explained by the extreme complexity of the problem. We have found in the last 18 months, and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members opposite found when they started looking at it after the Reykjavik Communiqué, there is no subject in which one can get so deeply involved, and one of the advantages of the last four years since the Reykjavik Communiqué is that we have come to have a clearer idea of our own force strengths as a result of an exercise that we have been doing in M.B.F.R.s and the way in which we might be able to cope with them. We are ready to meet the Warsaw Pact half way in any effort to reduce tension, and M.B.F.R.s would be part of that. But, as would be agreed by the Opposition, and as they have said, this must be done without jeopardising the security of the Alliance. It is our firm conviction that we shall never be offered the opportunity of satisfactory negotiations on M.B.F.R. unless N.A.T.O. makes it clear that the Alliance has the will and the means to defend itself.
  This was the point the right hon. Member for Dundee, East fairly made yesterday, that just at this moment when we are moving into a period of détente it is the worst possible time for a unilateral reduction of armaments on either side—not only our side but the Warsaw Pact
  1644
  side, too. For this reason we in Western Europe must continue to do our best through institutions like the Euro-Group to continue to contribute to the strengthening of the alliance and if possible to increase it.
  I must repudiate the idea that we are in some way going cool on détente or that we are anxious to stir up a cold war atmosphere or anything like that. What we have consistently done is to try to lay down as clearly as we can the nature of the threat as we see it, the complexities of reaching the détente which we hope to reach and the sort of timetable we have in mind for doing that. I do not believe that any Government or Defence Minister in any country can be criticised for stating the facts. The danger lies in his not doing so.
  This is what the Government have been trying to do. Hon. Gentlemen say it is pessimistic; I prefer to say it is realistic. I believe that what we are doing is soberly to set out the facts as they were set out in the White Paper without over-dramatising but without under-estimating what has happened—to set out what we want done in this area and to move as rapidly as we can to that.
  Mrs. Renée Short: I understood from the hon. Gentleman's nods when I suggested that perhaps he might give us some more information about this when he replied that he would do so. What he is doing is merely repeating what is in the White Paper and what Ministers have said before. Is he not now in a position to tell us when he will be likely to recommend some kind of meeting and what further conditions need to be agreed to before he is prepared to do that?
  Mr. Kirk: I knew it was a mistake to give way to the hon. Lady. I am now coming to just that point and we could have saved at least 30 seconds. Both the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. Freitas) asked when the Alliance should move towards preparations for the conference on both European security and M.B.F.R. Although the two need not necessarily go together, it will probably be more convenient if they do, although it is not essential that they should. We have consistently maintained the view, and it is

  1645
  shared by all our N.A.T.O. Allies, that we will enter multi-lateral preparatory talks only when the final quadripartite protocol which will complete the Berlin agreement has been concluded.
  Equally, the Soviet Union has insisted on linking this with ratification by the Federal Republic of Germany of the Moscow and Warsaw Treaties. There has therefore been a delay because conditions have been imposed on both sides, reasonable conditions if looked at from everyone's point of view. However we can now hope that the ratifications will take place within a few months. If that is so, we expect multi-lateral preparation to take place in the second half of this year and we hope to see the conference take place in the first half of 1973.
  If the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton regard us as over-pessimistic it is a pity they were not here to listen to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). If he is a realist we are Pollyanna compared with him! It was an apocalyptic speech which ended with the recommendation that we ought to create little "Dad's Armies" in our Empire all over the world and batten down against the Armaggedon which is to come. I am not making fun of the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has kindly said that he is unable to be with us at this point.
  It is true that the strength of the Soviet bloc has increased particularly in the naval sphere in the last 10 years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) reminded us. We have laid great emphasis on this in the Defence White Paper and have been severely criticised by hon. Members opposite for doing so. We are also fully alive to the deficiencies on our side. The gap is uncomfortably wide. But I do not believe that the solution which the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, that we can in some way turn our backs on Europe and scuttle back into the shelter of the United States, is a rational, practical or viable one for any British Government at the moment. Although I appreciate that he is as strongly opposed to our entry into Europe on military as on economic and ideological grounds, I do not believe that the sort of proposal that he put forward, of trying to save ourselves almost at Europe's expense, is one which
  1646
  we have any right to consider in this House.
  We have certain tasks to do. The Soviet achievement of creating effective nuclear parity with the West has in itself created a new situation, but we began to respond to that five years ago when the previous Administration agreed with our N.A.T.O. Allies to the strategy of flexible response. What we have to do now is provide the conventional capability which is needed to back that strategy. The efforts which we in Europe and in the Euro-Group have so far made in this direction have been welcomed by the United States Administration, even if the hon. and learned Member for Northampton is not terribly impressed with them.
  That leads me to the consideration of the balance of power, which underlies the negotiations which we have been discus. sing in this two-day debate. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison), who is Chairman of the sub-committee, will know that we have given them our best estimates—classified, I agree—of the strengths of both N.A.T.O. and the Warsaw Pact. These are not far out of line with the conclusions of the I.I.S.S. annual military survey.
  This leads into a discussion of what we mean by "parity of manpower Various related figures have been bandied about. I stand by what I said at Munich, which the hon. Gentleman quoted, that so far as pure manpower goes—head counting—the balance is not greatly to our disadvantage. But when one analyses that into divisions and equipment on both sides, I believe that the balance is to our disadvantage on the central front.
  The trouble is that, in this sort of area, when one gets into the "numbers game", as the hon. Member said, there are so many other factors to take into account—such as who takes the initiative, who has the interior lines of communication, is there political pressure or is there not, is there Press censorship, for instance? We believe that in this respect there is a clear advantage lying to the Warsaw Pact, which is one of the reasons why no one is now talking about a general reduction of armaments—"knock for knock"—on both sides, there is talk of

  1647
  a mutual balanced reduction of armaments, which is much more difficult to achieve.
  When the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton mentioned the McNamara estimates, he seemed to forget the analysis of those estimates made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) on 25th July in the House.
  The right hon. Member for Kettering mentioned Anglo-French nuclear collaboration, and, in particular, questioned what the Prime Minister had in mind when he referred in his Godkin Lecture to nuclear forces held in trust for Europe. The concept of nuclear forces committed to the defence of Western Europe, as our Polaris force is at present, is clear enough. What we cannot say at present is what precise policy we should have to work out with our Allies to achieve that aim, because this involves consultation with Allies—and with more than one—which have not taken place and are not likely to take place in the immediate future.
  That is why responsible statements on both sides of the Channel have repeatedly emphasised that any question of Anglo-French nuclear collaboration is a problem for the future and not the present. Both we and the French Government agree that it would be premature to engage upon it now.
  So far I have been talking generally about Alliance problems and the approach of the Alliance to détente. Allied with the Alliance, if that is not a tautology, is a question which I know is very much concerning a number of my hon. Friends. I want to put it in the Alliance context because far too much of the discussion about the proposed phasing out of H.M.S. "Eagle" has been carried on in a purely national context, and of course, the whole of this discussion about air power can be effectively carried on only if we bear in mind that we expect to operate in close co-operation with the carrier-borne and shore-based fixed-wing air forces and the navies and air forces of our Allies.
  My right hon. Friend explained at some length yesterday the Government's decision on "Eagle" and reminded the House, as it has been reminded again, that my right hon. and noble Friend the
  1648
  Secretary of State had said that he would consider carefully the arguments which had been deployed in this debate. It would, therefore, be only proper for me to comment briefly on the detailed suggestions made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) in the debate yesterday.
  I do not want to misinterpret my hon. and gallant Friend's remarks, but I understood him to argue that "Eagle" should be refitted, possibly on the Clyde, by a private shipbuilder and placed in reserve for operation in some unforeseen emergency, manned perhaps by reservists and carrying Buccaneers, Sea Kings and possibly Harriers.
  As for refitting her on the Clyde, let me first remark that I am not at all certain that the necessary technical skills and expertise would be available. But, assuming they were, and assuming that the extra money could be found—extra money because it has always been found that putting a ship out to contract docking is far more expensive than docking in the dockyards; for this reason we try to avoid putting ships out to contract docking whenever that is possible—a major disadvantage would be the time and extra staff that would be needed to draw up a specification for the refit by which the private shipbuilder could do the work.
  I am informed that even more would be involved and that it would be more complex. Apparently this process could take up to a year to complete; and if one then added on the time it would take for the refit, it would be almost two years before "Eagle" would be ready to enter the maintained reserve. With the cruisers and the new naval weapons that will be beginning to be deployed in the late 'seventies, I personally do not believe that it would be a cost effective course of action.
  But, even if "Eagle" were put in reserve, I have to confirm once again that, despite what my hon. and gallant Friend said, it is an extremely expensive and difficult business, in money and manpower, to maintain a ship of this size and complexity in reserve in any degree of readiness. After all, what would be the point of having it in reserve unless we could get it out and into action quickly?

  1649
  We could reduce the manpower figure of between 350 and 400 people, which my hon. and gallant Friend rightly said I had told him was the figure for keeping her in readiness, but the penalty for reducing it would be a significant lowering in the state of readiness of the ship, and, therefore, an increase in the length of time needed to bring her forward to meet the unforeseen contingency which he postulated. In other words, if we were to cut the manpower figure too much, the likely consequence would be that the emergency would be over before she was ready for service, and then, to borrow my hon. and gallant Friend's graphic phrase, we would look "proper Charlies".
  As for manning the ship, my hon. and gallant Friend mentioned the Fleet Air Arm presently becoming redundant. I am afraid that it would be no use for the ship's company. It would be useful only for flying the aircraft. Nor would reservists be available in the numbers we need; and, in any case, they would not have the training or expertise. I doubt whether we could divert them to this task without considerable penalty to their present duties.
  Mr. Wilkinson: The unforeseen emergency which worries us most is the 35 per cent. of the time—this is planned and admitted by the Minister—when "Ark Royal" will be going through planned refits. That is the sort of factor that could and should be allowed for and should not be obscured by a smokescreen.
  Mr. Kirk: But that is a foreseen emergency, one that we know about and for which we have planned with our Allies.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: My hon. Friend is arguing only about the difficulties. I was somewhat astounded to hear from a friend only this evening that he had said to a chum of mine in the Smoking Room the other day "You wouldn't recognise Eagle ' in three weeks' time." However, the Minister said that the Government's mind was not closed on this issue. May we please be told what is happening on board "Eagle" now? Are plans for scrapping her going ahead? If so, a shindig should be made about it.
  The Speaker: Order. I did not hear anything about the Smoking Room.
  Mr. Kirk: I am as deaf as you are, Mr. Speaker.
  "Eagle" is being de-stored at the moment. I have made it quite clear all along that the problem is purely a question of priorities within the defence budget. We shall certainly consider the points my hon. and gallant Friend has made, and my remarks tonight are merely my own preliminary reactions to them. It is all very well for him to say that we are arguing the difficulties, but this is precisely what the Opposition Front Bench have said about the M.B.F.R.s. If someone does not look at the difficulties we can get into an awful mess.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) and Haltemprice asked about V/STOL. The "Ark Royal" trials proved the practicability of operating this type of aircraft from ships, but they did not provide all the answers. The plain fact is that no V/STOL aircraft exists at the moment with the developed capability for maritime operations. The present versions of the Harrier have been developed for close support work and ground operations. So if we are to use the Harrier in a maritime rôle some development of this capability will be necessary to allow it to operate effectively in its new environment.
  The alternative to developing the existing Harrier would be to design a new aircraft altogether. A new design would give a better performance than the Harrier but would take longer to get into service. The "Ark Royal" trials have, therefore, left us with something of a dilemma. We have to consider the choice I have just described and compare all the operational advantages that a new design might provide with the disadvantages of the length of timescale and the extra costs that might be involved.
  We have to consider what priority can be given to investment in maritime V/STOL capability as an interim measure as opposed to going for a more long-term measure which might have better export prospects. I am sure my hon. Friends will realise there is no easy and quick answer to this dilemma. We are pressing ahead as far as we can.

  1651
  The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are working closely together on this. The studies will, I am afraid, continue for some months yet and I cannot say when they will be completed. But as soon as they are I will inform the House.
  I should like to say only a quick word about Northern Ireland, not because I underestimate the importance of the subject but because the Under-Secretary for the Army said something about this last night and we have had a large number of debates on the subject. The Army welcomes the information given by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) that the Mayor of Aldershot is to launch an appeal, and the Under-Secretary would like to talk to him about the most effective way in which the Army can contribute to it.
  On the vexed question of the Joint Security Committee, both the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary for the Army made the point that I would like to stress again that the Committee has no executive functions and is purely a consultative body. The executive function remains where it has always been, with the General Officer Commanding, who is responsible to Ministers, who are in turn responsible to the House.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) asked about the Parker Report. It has been received and will be published very shortly. I ask hon. Members to be patient. The Government must consider their attitude to the report.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) raised the question of Malta. There is still no further news. We are in communication with the Maltese Government, which have received an offer from our N.A.T.O. Allies which is fair and reasonable. We are clarifying the precise details of the offer in the hope that we shall receive a satisfactory agreement.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South-West also referred to the question of seconded personnel, on which he has asked a number of Questions lately. He will know as a result of those questions that about 870 men are serving in this capacity, under arrangements some of which, though not all, are confidential
  1652
  between the Government and the country concerned, and some of which have not been set out in formal, published agreements. These men have been provided at the request of the country concerned, and because it was regarded as in the interests of the British Government to do so. In some cases the borrowing country pays the full cost, and in others costs are shared between the Government and the borrowing country. All but a small proportion of the costs are recovered to the Defence Votes.
  My right hon. and noble Friend has given as much information in reply to the hon. Gentleman's Questions as he has been able to give without prejudice to the confidentiality of these arrangements with other Governments. That is all I can say on the subject tonight. At least the hon. Gentleman will notice that I have answered him, as he requested.
  I should like to say a quick word to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) about the report of his sub-Committee. We have not had much time to study it yet, but we shall do so with great interest. I take the point about classified information and the large number of asterisks, which excited the attention of the Daily Mirror this morning in an editorial which might have been referring to something else. There is a problem here. We have made more information available to hon. Members than has ever been made available by the Ministry of Defence before. The need to classify the information does not reflect any lack of good will towards the sub-Committee or the House, but there must be a difference between information which we can give to the sub-Committee and information which we think is suitable for publication without damage to the national interests. There could always be a disagreement between the committee and the Ministry about this. We are anxious not to over-classify. This is the first shot. We may well have got it wrong. We are quite prepared, for that reason, to consider the report and its recommendation with great care, and we shall wish to consult my hon. and gallant Friend.
  Linesman, I think, could best be dealt with in next Thursday's debate, when we shall have a little more time to explore exactly what happened in this rather complicated case.

  1653
  I turn to the Amendment, which I thought in the course of a long day would receive no support at all. But at the last minute it received massive support from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short), to which obviously I must pay attention as I always do to anything that comes from that great city.
  There is very little I need say about the Amendment, because the arguments against it were effectively deployed by the right hon. Member for Dundee, East yesterday afternoon and again this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. All I would say about it and about the general debate is that what proportion of our G.N.P., or how much in cash terms, we
  spend on defence is and always will be a matter of judgment. It cannot be anything else. Our judgment is that the proposals that we have put forward in the White Paper are about right. Some of my hon. Friends disagree and say we should spend more. Of one thing I am absolutely certain; no one who has any responsibility for the effective defence of this country could possibly suggest that we should spend less. It is for that reason that I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 41, Noes 168.

  Division No. 65.]

  AYES

  [11.0 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Evans, Fred

  Lipton, Marcus

  Atkinson, Norman

  Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham, Ladywood)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Meacher, Michael

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mendelson, John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Orme, Stanley

  Booth, Albert

  Hardy, Peter

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Horam, John

  Silverman, Julius

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Skinner, Dennis

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Deakins, Eric

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Kerr, Russell

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Kinnock, Neil

  Mr. Robert Hughes and

  Driberg, Tom

  Latham, Arthur

  Mr. John Prescott

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. -Gen. James

  Hornby, Richard

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Dean, Paul

  Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Dixon, Piers

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Astor, John

  Drayson, G. B.

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hunt, John

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Eden, Sir John

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

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

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Jessel, Toby

  Benyon, W.

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Biffen, John

  Fidler, Michael

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Kirk, Peter

  Boscawen, Robert

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Knox, David

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Foster, Sir John

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Braine, Bernard

  Fry, Peter

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McLaren, Martin

  Bryan, Paul

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Carlisle, Mark

  Gower, Raymond

  Maddan, Martin

  Channon, Paul

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Green, Alan

  Mather, Carol

  Churchill, W. S.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Clark, William (Surrey E.)

  Grylls, Michael

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Gummer. J. Selwyn

  Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)

  Clegg, Walter

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Molyneaux, James

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Cooke, Robert

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Coombs, Derek

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Morrison, Charles

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hay, John

  Mudd, David

  Cordie, John

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Neave, Airey

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hiley, Joseph

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Critchley, Julian

  Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

  Normanton, Tom

  Crouch, David

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Nott, John

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Holland, Philip

  Onslow, Cranley

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

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

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Sheldon, William (Clapham)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

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

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Soref, Harold

  Waddington, David

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Speed, Keith

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Spence, John

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Sproat, Iain

  Wall, Patrick

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Raison, Timothy

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Redmond, Robert

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

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Wilkinson, John

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Tebbit, Norman

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Temple, John M.

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Younger, Hn. George

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Scott, Nicholas

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Mr. Tim Fortescue and

  Sharples, Richard

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Mr. Oscar Murton

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House approves the Statement on Defence, 1972, contained in Command Paper No. 4891

  DEFENCE

    HARBOURS (LOANS) BILL
    Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
    Motion made and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

    HARBOURS (LOANS) BILL
      ADJOURNMENT
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adojurn.—[Mr. Speed.]

  POLICE, BIRMINGHAM (UNDERMANNING ALLOWANCE)
  11.10 p.m.
  Mr. Denis Howell: I wish to take this opportunity to raise the subject of the undermanning allowance to the Birmingham City police force. This is a matter of considerable importance and raises no small matter of principle.
  The question of paying an undermanning allowance to those forces which have to contend with rising crime rates and with a difficult manning situation
  1656
  was first determined by the Police Council in 1965. It occurred as a result of an arbitration award. This principle was accepted by the Home Office and as a result of that award in 1965 the Police Council, which is the national joint negotiating body for pay and conditions, set up a special sub-committee to determine which forces, in its judgment, qualified for payment of undermanning allowance.
  One of the first forces to be considered was the Metropolitan force, and in 1965, after a recommendation by the then Home Secretary, it was accepted that the Metropolitan force should have this additional undermanning allowance. In 1967 the Liverpool force was recommended for a similar claim and in 1968 Glasgow and Birmingham were so recommended. Liverpool and Glasgow both had their claims accepted by the Home Secretary of the day.
  I do not wish to make any party issue of this matter, and much of my criticism is levelled against the Home Secretary in the Government in which I served. I regret that the deplorable practice of not accepting the recommendation of the national joint council started in that era and has continued through the period of office of the present Government. In 1968 the claim of Birmingham was turned down.
  This brings me to the first main question of principle that I wish to raise. I raise this matter both as a Birmingham Member of Parliament and also as the national president of a trade union. I always thought it was a sacred practice that when a negotiating committee for a body of workers recommended a pay

  1657
  deal it was automatically accepted, unless there were some overriding circumstances of national emergency to prevent it.
  I shall deal presently with the three grounds on which my right hon. Friend the former Home Secretary turned down the award. Two of the three grounds were based on the proposition that there was at that time a national economic emergency. Whatever one may think of those reasons, they were the reasons given at the time. It is a matter of serious concern that a properly negotiated national award should be found to be unacceptable. It is even more regrettable, indeed lamentable, that such a recommendation is not accepted in the case of a disciplined service such as the police. If it were any other body of trade unionists there would be hell to pay if such a nationally negotiated award between employers and employees were not accepted. For such an award not to be accepted when it is known that the people to whom it applies are members of a disciplined force and, by the very nature of their service and agreements, cannot and would not wish to take any industrial action makes the position even more unacceptable.
  Therefore, I ask the Minister of State to apply himself to the question of principle. Are there any circumstances today in which such a recommendation from the national joint negotiating committee would not be accepted? I do not believe there are. Whatever circumstances obtained in 1967 or 1968, they certainly do not exist today.
  I have a copy of the reasons given for the Secretary of State's decision on 18th March, 1968, rejecting the recommendation that an undermanning allowance be paid to the Birmingham police force. Two of the reasons were concerned with the economic situation. First, it was said that a limitation on recruitment had been imposed. We know that a limitation on recruitment had been imposed because of the serious economic situation prevailing at that time. The second reason was that an incomes policy was in force. As those of us who had responsibility in those days recall, there was indeed an incomes policy in force.
  1658
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend, if he were here, would not mind my saying that I expressed privately to him at that time that in my view, notwithstanding the economic emergency, it was wrong to set aside the recommended award of the national joint negotiating committee. Indeed, I think that the position now is untenable.
  The third reason was that there had been an increase of 130 in the Birmingham police force in 1967 and that that had been achieved without the payment of such an allowance. My right lion. Friend was right about those figures. However, that was not an argument which he could have used in 1969; it was an argument which could be used only in 1968 because that was a freak year. I think I am right in saying that it coincided with a rather substantial wage award for the police in that year compared with other industrial workers. That, therefore, brought about the tremendous leap of 130 in recruitment for that year. The figures for the next year showed, however, that just as the graph had dramatically gone up in 1967, so in 1968 it had gone down even more dramatically below the point at which it was in 1966. Therefore, the then Secretary of State took his decision in the middle of what was a freak year in recruitment.
  Whatever the argument about this matter today, that argument which the former Home Secretary used in 1968 has no validity in the terms and conditions now facing us. I do not need to emphasise that the principle of applying this award to Birmingham has not only been reaffirmed by the Police Council on one or two occasions, and as late as July, 1971, but has been unanimously accepted by the Birmingham police authority.
  My second question to the Minister of State, if he does not concede the case this evening—that is perhaps asking too much on an Adjournment debate; I had to answer Adjournment debates many times when we were in office, so I know the difficulties—is: what are the principles today which apply regarding the payment of undermanning allowances and how do they apply to the Birmingham situation? As London, Liverpool and Glasgow policemen get this payment, I

  1659
  am at a loss to understand why it is not paid in Birmingham.
  I will give the deficiency figures at the time the original decision was taken. The deficiency of the police force in Birmingham in 1967 was 23 per cent., in Glasgow 16 per cent., in Liverpool 22 per cent. and in the Metropolitan area 20 per cent. So when the decision to exclude Birmingham from this payment was made Birmingham had a greater deficiency in its numbers than any of those other forces.
  The Minister and I are both busy at present in the Standing Committee on the Local Government Bill. In two years' time it is very likely that the Birmingham police force will be turned into a metropolitan police force—the West Midlands metropolitan police force. It will be even more incomprehensible if such a force is affected by these great deficiencies, with the great difficulty of policing the area caused by its geographical and social nature, if the award is not payable then but is still in force, as it undoubtedly will be, for the London Metropolitan Police.
  The Birmingham case is that the workload of the Birmingham City police force is fantastic. Although there has been some increase in the strength and some recruitment in the last year or two, I am sorry to have to tell the Minister that the latest figures I have show a further deterioration in the position in the first two months of this year. Although there was a deficiency of 416 in the force in 1971, today, two months later, the deficiency is 444, which is a considerable deterioration. In considering the workload of the Birmingham force, obviously the figures ought to be considered against the background—and the figures bear this out—that the force is one of the most efficient forces, if not the most efficient, in Britain.
  The number of crimes reported in 1961 was just under 25,500 and 10 years later, in 1971, the figure was just over 49,250. There has been almost a doubling of the amount of crime in Birmingham in the last 10 years. The extraordinary thing is that the force has cleared up double the number of crimes. The percentage of crimes cleared up shows only a marginal change, from 37 per cent. in 1961 to 36 per cent. in 1971, although the amount
  1660
  of crime and police work, and the burden on the force, has doubled in those 10 years. That is a remarkable achievement, and I am sure that the Minister of State would agree. It is a great tribute to the Birmingham City police force. This has been achieved because Birmingham has pioneered mechanisation, the Panda system and the Birmingham project, about which the Minister knows, and is constantly in the forefront in trying to apply new, sensible, efficient methods to the policing of our city and to crime detection.
  A most serious situation is the fact that 137 men of the Birmingham force have now completed 25 years' service. They are men who came into the force immediately after the war. It is this above all else which muses great concern to all of us in the city who have any responsibility. Those 137 men are now eligible to retire and could retire. The incentive of the last award, a year or two ago, is obviously wearing off, as is apparent from the figures I have given about the deteriorating position.
  I want to give the Minister adequate time to reply to the debate. I think I have deployed the case reasonably adequately and raised the principles which should be raised.
  In conclusion, I return to my main point as to the rôle of the national joint negotiating committee and the Police Council in this matter. I understand that that committee, which was set up as a result of arbitration, is to meet again on 7th March. I know that the Minister is a reasonable man and will answer the debate in a reasonable manner.
  A most important point to make is that we have record unemployment figures in Birmingham, as we have had during the last year. If there was any force in the argument that the numbers in the police force tend to increase when labour is available, that has been seen not to be the case in Birmingham. That is not happening, despite record unemployment figures. The numbers joining are not as great as we should wish to see, and the deficiency has gone up even in the last two months, whereas the contrary position would be the normal expectation.
  The special sub-committee is due to meet on 7th March. It will review the

  1661
  rise in crime in Birmingham, the recruitment situation, the wastage now occurring and the unemployment, figures, details of which the city and, no doubt, the Home Office will supply. If the subcommittee decides to reaffirm its view that the Birmingham police force ought, on any fair consideration, to be paid the undermanning allowance. I hope that the Minister of State will say that the case has been made, that it has been considered again in the light of the circumstances and that the Government will not on this occasion wish to interfere with a proper, voluntarily negotiated award which has the support of all the authorities in Birmingham.
  11.27 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), as one would expect, has made his case with force but with fairness. I am grateful to him for that. As we both know, this is not a party political matter. A great deal of the history that the hon. Gentleman has recounted refers to the period in office of the last Government, of which he was a member.
  I do not dispute what the hon. Gentleman says about the history of the case. Before turning to the main point of the argument, however, I join with him in paying tribute to the efficiency of the Birmingham police.
  I have had representations on this matter from hon. Members on both sides of the House who have pressed hard because of the campaign launched by the Birmingham branch of the Police Federation on behalf of its members in the Birmingham City police.
  Undermanning allowance was introduced as a temporary measure in 1966 for the Metropolitan and City of London forces on a recommendation by the Police Arbitration Tribunal. Later this was extended to Liverpool and Bootle and to Glasgow. The tribunal also recommended that a sub-committee or panel of the Police Council should examine the conditions upon which payment might be made to forces outside London and should re-examine them after a reasonable period of trial.
  In November, 1967, the Police Council published the criteria which it intended to take into account and invited police
  1662
  authorities to submit proposals for payment of the allowance. The council stated that it would submit recommendations to the Secretary of State, to whom the final decision would be reserved, and that it would review all cases of payment of the allowance whenever a police pay review took place—that is to say every two years, in September, 1968, 1970, and so on.
  The Birmingham police authority submitted a proposal to pay the allowance in November, 1967, and the Police Council recommended payment in March, 1968. The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), declined to act upon the recommendation, as he was quite entitled to do. The hon. Gentleman has outlined the reasons which led the then Home Secretary to turn down the award at that time. There was a later recommendation, again to the previous Government, in February, 1970, but no reply had been given to it by the time of the General Election in June, 1970. It was still outstanding when the present Government took office. There was pressure upon my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to act upon it.
  It was quite clear at that time that the Birmingham force was not alone in facing manpower problems. Many forces were failing to attract an adequate number of recruits. More serious, far too many trained and experienced officers were being lost to the service prematurely by resignation. There was broad agreement within the Police Council that the first priority in the 1970 pay negotiations was to get the general level of pay right and to introduce a new national pay structure designed to strengthen the police througout the country, rather than attempt to deal piecemeal with local problems. That was the view at that time of the Police Council. A recommendation for a national pay award was made by the Police Council in February, 1971, after lengthy negotiations, and this award was approved by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
  That pay agreement provided for substantial general betterment. It provided for improvements in the scales designed to improve recruitment and particularly to reduce the loss of experienced officers. The problem of wastage particularly

  1663
  relates to the man who leaves the service after about seven years' service. He is probably one of the most valuable persons in the force. The Police Federation agreed that, except for the increase awarded after the Royal Commission report in 1960 this settlement was the best increase in pay ever negotiated and it published this opinion in the March, 1971, edition of the magazine Police published by the Federation—which I always read—under the heading:
  "A Significant achievement."
  Meantime the claim of the Birmingham force for payment of an undermanning allowance was being pressed by the local branch of the federation. I am sure the hon. Member recalls coming to see me with a delegation of Members of Parliament from both sides of the House in September, 1970, to discuss this question. As I said then, undermanning allowances had produced no significant improvement in manpower in the four forces in which it was being paid. There were 12 other forces in England and Wales which were below establishment to a greater degree than Birmingham, of which only three were receiving the allowance. Negotiations were already in progress in the Police Council which the Home Secretary had reason to hope would result in an improved pay and manpower situation. Moreover the Police Council was itself committed to a full review of the under-manning allowance.
  I return to the question of the pay award agreed in February, 1971. It clearly offered hope to the undermanned forces. That was certainly the view of most police authorities. All but one of those which had submitted proposals for payment of the allowance either withdrew them or advised the council that they could be regarded as shelved for a period. Birmingham shelved its proposal until the end of 1971. The police authority has now resubmitted its proposal to the council, which will consider it on 7th March and decide whether a new recommendation should be made to the Home Secretary.
  We have taken measures to increase police strength, such as the pay scales of 1970, since topped up by an increase from September, 1971, and the recruiting drive undertaken by the Home Office and chief officers of police. These must
  1664
  be allowed time to work before considering whether any local problems call for special attention. I am glad to say that the position throughout England and Wales is much more encouraging than it was a year or two ago. For example, during the calendar year 1968 the total gain in police strength in England and Wales was only 142. In 1969 it was 980, in 1970 it was 1,986 and in 1971 it was 3,108. In January alone of this year the provisional figure was a net increase in strength of 599.
  I know that Birmingham has its own special problem. The comparable figures for Birmingham show that in 1968 there was an increase of 42, in 1969 an increase of 38, and in 1970—a very bad year—there was an increase of only 15. Since then, however, the situation has improved. In 1971 there was a net increase of 86 and in the month of January this year alone there was an increase of 33. So whatever may have been the situation in the past, the trend is encouraging.
  Mr. Howell: The Minister gave an answer the other day which showed that the deficiency had risen from 416 at the end of 1971 to 464. This hardly bears out the statement that in the last month at any rate the position has been as good as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  Mr. Sharples: My last figure was that there was an increase in January, 1972, of 33, which is good. I do not have the figures for February, because the month is still only halfway through, but I have no reason to think that there is any change in the situation.
  I would not pretend that police manpower problems are solved, whether in Birmingham or nationally. There are still deficiencies in Birmingham, as there are in many other places, but the fundamental problems of Birmingham are common to many other police forces. Their solution is likely to be found, so far as it depends on rates of pay, in coordinated action on a national basis rather than piecemeal. Recent trends are encouraging, particularly in the reduction shown in premature wastage of experienced police officers.
  This matter is due for discussion at the forthcoming meeting of the Police Council on 7th March. I would not like to forecast any recommendations

  1665
  which the council might make to my right hon. Friend. As I said to the hon. Member when he came to see me, my own view remains that it is the general level of police pay and conditions of service which count rather than special allowances for particular forces. Nevertheless, any recommendation from the
  1666
  Police Council on this or any other matter is important and whatever it puts forward will be seriously considered by my right hon. Friend and myself.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Twelve midnight.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Picketing
  Picketing
  Immigration Officers
  Immigration Officers
  Holloway Prison
  Holloway Prison
  Brixton Prison
  Brixton Prison
  Police (Undermanning Allowance)
  Police (Undermanning Allowance)
  Race Relations Act (Scottish Accountants)
  Race Relations Act (Scottish Accountants)
  Arrested Persons (Legal Advice)
  Arrested Persons (Legal Advice)
  Police (Vetting Clearance Withdrawal)
  Police (Vetting Clearance Withdrawal)
  Derek Bentley
  Derek Bentley
  Alimony
  Alimony
  United Kingdom Passport Holders (East Africa)
  United Kingdom Passport Holders (East Africa)
  Murder
  Murder
  Cannabis
  Cannabis
  Racial Discrimination
  Racial Discrimination
  Police (Rent Allowance)
  Police (Rent Allowance)
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Capital Punishment
  Capital Punishment
  Committal Proceedings (Reporting)
  Committal Proceedings (Reporting)
  Disused Airfields
  Disused Airfields
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Police (Security Standards)
  Police (Security Standards)
  Parker Committee (Report)
  Parker Committee (Report)
  Nuclear Defence
  Nuclear Defence
  Inflammable Material Storage (Thurrock and Purfleet)
  Inflammable Material Storage (Thurrock and Purfleet)
  Electoral Arrangements
  Electoral Arrangements
  After-Care Services
  After-Care Services
  Cannabis (First Offenders)
  Cannabis (First Offenders)
  Cannabis, Tobacco and Alcohol
  Cannabis, Tobacco and Alcohol
  Murder (Confessions)
  Murder (Confessions)
  Lancashire Police (Allegations)
  Lancashire Police (Allegations)
  Hartley Baird Limited
  Hartley Baird Limited
  Remand in Custody
  Remand in Custody
  Race Courses (Security)
  Race Courses (Security)
EMPLOYMENT
  Sunderland
  Sunderland
  Monmouthshire
  Monmouthshire
  Mergers (Redundancies)
  Mergers (Redundancies)
  Scotland
  Scotland
  Wage and Salary Increases (Council Rents)
  Wage and Salary Increases (Council Rents)
  Industrial Dispute, Co. Durham
  Industrial Dispute, Co. Durham
  Robens Committee
  Robens Committee
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Newport, Monmouthshire
  Newport, Monmouthshire
  Manchester and North West
  Manchester and North West
  Training Centre (Monmouthshire)
  Training Centre (Monmouthshire)
  Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents
  Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Museums and Galleries (Charity Status)
  Museums and Galleries (Charity Status)
  Museums (Admission Charges)
  Museums (Admission Charges)
  Class Sizes (London)
  Class Sizes (London)
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
  Schools (Manchester)
  Schools (Manchester)
WALES
  Education Establishments (Official Visits)
  Education Establishments (Official Visits)
  James Committee
  James Committee
  Play Groups (Carmarthenshire)
  Play Groups (Carmarthenshire)
  Teachers' Conferences
  Teachers' Conferences
  Lake Vyrnwy (Water Extraction)
  Lake Vyrnwy (Water Extraction)
  Health Services (Ombudsman)
  Health Services (Ombudsman)
  Honiton (Hospital)
  Honiton (Hospital)
  Contraception
  Contraception
  Health Centres
  Health Centres
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Suicide
  Suicide
  Vasectomy
  Vasectomy
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Local Authorities (Social Services)
  Local Authorities (Social Services)
  Owner-Occupiers (Supplementary Benefit)
  Owner-Occupiers (Supplementary Benefit)
  Strikes (Supplementary Benefits)
  Strikes (Supplementary Benefits)
ENVIRONMENT
  Brent
  Brent
  National Parks
  National Parks
  Road Construction
  Road Construction
  Public Transport (Free Travel)
  Public Transport (Free Travel)
  Roundabouts, Flyovers and Underpasses
  Roundabouts, Flyovers and Underpasses
  Port of London Authority
  Port of London Authority
  NEASDEN
  NEASDEN
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  HUMAN TISSUE ACT
  HUMAN TISSUE ACT
  COAL INDUSTRY
  COAL INDUSTRY
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (INTERVENTION)
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (INTERVENTION)
AGRICULTURE. FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Farm Capital Grant Scheme
  Farm Capital Grant Scheme
  Fisheries Research and Development Organisation
  Fisheries Research and Development Organisation
DEFENCE
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Nuclear Deterrent
  Nuclear Deterrent
  Early Warning System
  Early Warning System
  Anti-Ballistic Missile System
  Anti-Ballistic Missile System
  Aldermaston
  Aldermaston
  Worthy Down, Winchester
  Worthy Down, Winchester
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Environmental Information (Advisers' Meeting)
  Environmental Information (Advisers' Meeting)
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
  Technical Education in Overseas Countries
  Technical Education in Overseas Countries
  Overseas Diplomatic Estates Board
  Overseas Diplomatic Estates Board
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Postal Stamps (Pre-Decimal Issues)
  Postal Stamps (Pre-Decimal Issues)
SCOTLAND
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Hypermarket (Bellshill)
  Hypermarket (Bellshill)
  House Building (Lanarkshire)
  House Building (Lanarkshire)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Uranium Refinement
  Uranium Refinement
  Vehicle and General Insurance Co. (Tribunal)
  Vehicle and General Insurance Co. (Tribunal)
  Aviation Industry (Manchester)
  Aviation Industry (Manchester)
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Jute Textiles
  Jute Textiles
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Prices and Incomes
  Prices and Incomes
  Sons of Scotland Friendly Society
  Sons of Scotland Friendly Society
  Hansard
  Hansard

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

ART COLLECTIONS: CONTROL OF LOANS AND SALES
LORD STRABOLGI: 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 intend in future to assume the direct responsibility for the lending or disposal of works of art from the national collections.]
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES): My Lords, no.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Following it, may I ask why in that case his letter to the Trustees last December, as quoted in the Press, said that the freedom to dispose or lend from the collections is one of the strategic areas within the control of the Government? Is he proposing to usurp the Trustees' powers? Is he not aware that in the case of the British Museum, lending and disposal are matters for the Trustees and not for the Department, and that in the case of the National Gallery the right to sell from the collections was abrogated in the 1954 Act?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I wrote in confidence to the Chairmen of the Trustees of certain of the national museums and galleries inviting them to discuss ways in which the Government could hand over to them more responsibility in the management of their affairs. They are all well aware that this is our intention. As regards the powers to lend or sell objects, these vary very widely from one museum to another. Clearly, in those cases where these powers are not already defined by Statute we shall, when
666
devolution takes place, have to be sure what the powers are. The exercise of those powers will, as now, remain with the Trustees.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply which I am sure will give great relief.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it would be a great relief to everyone seriously concerned with the Arts if there were a clearer demarcation between the responsibilities of the Minister and the responsibilities of the Trustees? Is he aware that his Ministry appoints the Trustees and there is then the arduous task of raising the maximum amount of financial support from every source? Would it therefore not be better if there were fewer of those instances where Trustees were either resentful or bewildered? Would it not be better if there were a clearer demarcation of duties, the Minister not interfering in the way that I am afraid has happened recently?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, when I was Chairman of the Trustees of the British Museum that is exactly what I wanted. The noble Baroness was then the Minister. Now I am in a position to make this demarcation. It has always been my view—it was so long before I came back to Government—that the Department's interference with our great institutions over small matters promotes inefficiency. Therefore we are now going to discuss together such topics as a three-year budget, the employment and use of the people on their staff and many other matters which will make for more efficiency inside these great institutions. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for pointing out how necessary this is.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, may I respectfully disagree with the Minister? Does he not remember that when his Trustees did him the honour of suggesting that he should be Chairman I at once agreed, because I knew of his great interest in the affairs of the museums? But may I repeat that there has been resentment and confusion about the lack of clarity in the respective duties of the political Minister and of the Trustees which did not occur before and which I do not believe to be in the interests either of the museums or of the Minister?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I am glad to have the support of the noble Baroness thus late in the day.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, when the Minister answers Questions on these subjects, will he differentiate between cases in which the Trustees have freedom to act and cases in which they have freedom to act but will always act in a particular way because the Government pay them the money, as in entrance charges to museums and galleries?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, it is exactly that that I wish to do: to get some uniform system which is clearly understood by the Trustees of all these museums.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, since the noble Viscount referred to a confidential letter which I have not seen but which clearly the newspapers have seen, may I ask whether his Answer, which was "No", was consistent with the reported version? Can he say whether it is correct that the Government will retain control in strategic areas, with the basic conditions, and so on, for disposal? Or is this newspaper report a false one?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: No, my Lords, the report is correct. In the case of certain museums the power to lend or dispose is already laid down by Statute. In the case of others it is not, but they are so much controlled by the Department that in fact it comes to the same thing. When we give devolution of power to these other museums we must surely, in the public interest, define whether or not they have the right to sell objects in their collections. I cannot imagine that any noble Lord would wish the Government to hand over to Trustees the absolute right to sell anything from their collection. It is therefore necessary to define the position in one way or the other, and that is what we intend to do.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the concern is that the Government should be taking this over when in most cases, in fact in every case, they have not the power, except in the case of Departmental museums? With the others, particularly the British Museum and the National Gallery, this is a matter for Trustees or for Parliament,
668
and not for the noble Viscount's Department.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I wish I could make this point clear. These negotiations are concerned solely with giving more power and more responsibility to Trustees. No power which they have to-day will be taken away from them. In fact, in respect of certain of these museums they will enter on a new regime of liberty.

OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT PROSECUTIONS
3.13 p.m.
LORD BALOGH: 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 how many persons have been proceeded against under the Official Secrets Act as a result of the defection of Mr. Lyalin; what their professions were; and, if civil servants, their rank.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, it is not the practice to disclose the source of information which leads to criminal proceedings, particularly in cases which involve national security.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his characteristic Answer. Does he believe that the cost/benefit ratio in prosecutions as against expulsion works out in the interests of this country?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to members of diplomatic missions in this country who are asked to leave, I do not think that that subject arises on this Question.

HOUSE PRICES
LORD GARNSWORTHY: 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 they intend to do to curb the continued and exorbitant increases in the price of houses offered for sale.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, the best hope for an easier market lies in increasing the supply of houses for sale. In 1971 completions in the private sector were nearly 13 per cent. up and starts about 26 per cent. up on 1970. There is every reason to hope for continuation of this rising trend.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that prices should have risen in 1971 by 21 per cent.? Do they think that this helps in the fight against inflation?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, my information is that prices of new houses rose by 12·6 per cent. and that the increase in earnings was 11·2 per cent.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the report by the Nationwide Building Society which was issued, I think, at the beginning of this month? Do the Government accept the forecast by Mr. Stanley Morton that a three-bedroom semi-detached house now costing £8,500 could be worth £18,000 in five years?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I should like to look into that matter and write to the noble Lord.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, would the noble Lord analyse the figures a little more and tell us what the rise would be in the so-called more desirable areas in the South-East as against the more depressed areas of the country?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, perhaps it would be best if the noble Lord would write to me and say exactly what questions he wants answered, and I will then do my best to supply the answers.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what proportion of the increase in the price of houses we may attribute to the rise in the price of land?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords, but not without notice. I will write to the noble Lord.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the Question asked the noble Lord what the Government intend to do to curb this trend of increasing prices. Are we to
670
understand that the answer is, "Nothing"?
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords, the answer is that we intend to encourage the supply of more houses for sale.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, does not the Minister consider that the so-called "fair rents" Bill, the Housing Finance Bill, is likely to exacerbate the position rather than improve it?
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords. The purpose of the Housing Finance Bill is to introduce fair rents as between landlord and tenant and at the same time to apply housing subsidies to the tenants who need them most and in the housing areas where they are most needed. A side-effect may be to increase the demand for owner occupation, but that is a trend which both the noble Lord's Party and mine want to see encouraged.
LORD GISBOROUGH: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the price of land in the North-East has shot up, and that it started to do so at the time of the establishment of the Land Commission?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that may well be so.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the undoubted rise in the price of houses is to be regarded principally as a consequence and not a cause of inflation?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think that is very likely so.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, if the noble Lord agrees with his noble friend that the price of land shot up when the Land Commission was established, why has not the price gone down in the same measure now that the Land Commission has been abolished?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, there are no doubt several reasons, but I think one of the most significant is the one mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, can the Government really sustain their norm of an incomes policy when outgoings in respect of housing are rising, as a result of their policy, as rapidly as they are at the present time?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that takes us into wider matters which do not arise on the original Question.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that most noble Lords do not appear to have heard him say in his Answer that the rise in earnings was 11·2 per cent. in the same period?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, is it not a fact that the price of land has risen more steeply since the Land Commission was abolished than before?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that may be so, but there are a number of factors at work, and one of the most significant is the one mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: The only factor not at work, my Lords, is Her Majesty's Government.

PARLIAMENT: CONTROL OF MASS LOBBIES
3.20 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: 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 is the law controlling assemblies of persons in the vicinity of the Houses of Parliament while Parliament is sitting; and whether the law is being enforced.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, the Sessional Order of your Lordships' House and of another place requires the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to facilitate the passage of Members to and from both Houses during the Sittings of Parliament. The Commissioner has been in communication with Black Rod and with the authorities in another place about the control of mass lobbies, and consultations are continuing.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble Leader for going so far as he has, but is not the Sessional Order only part of the story? Has not Parliament in fact passed two Acts of Parliament, both of which I think I am right in saying are still in force, which
672
lay down very strictly the control of assemblies near the Houses of Parliament? The two Acts to which I refer are the Tumultuous Petitioning Act 1661 and the Seditious Meetings Act 1817. Under these two Acts, which, as I say, are still in force, the Commissioner of Police has no discretion whatsoever.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am not sure that I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for that supplementary question. I am afraid I must add to his two Acts the Metropolitan Police Act 1839, which is also relevant in this connection. More seriously, I think we should all recognise that there are occasions when there is a conflict between the Commissioner's duty to ensure free access and the natural and understandable desire of large numbers of people to lobby Members. Recently there was a considerable mass lobby, on February 15, by the National Union of Mineworkers when, without any real disorder, some 3,400 persons were admitted to the Palace of Westminster in small groups in order to be able to speak to their Members of Parliament. But there are practical problems here. All I can do is to assure your Lordships that both in another place and here this matter is under earnest consideration at the present time.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I ask my noble Leader this final question? If the two Acts I have mentioned are not enforceable under modern conditions, would it not be better to have them repealed?
EARL JELLLICOE: My Lords, I think that my noble friend might conceivably have a point there.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that whatever consultations take place the right of the populace to demonstrate and see their M.P.s will not be abolished?—because when we get into the Common Market they cannot go to Brussels; they will still have to come here.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I must congratulate the noble Lord on his ingenuity.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that we are grateful for his Answer concerning the National Union of Mineworkers, especially in view of an article which appeared

673
in a widely read American magazine this week and which gave a completely different impression; namely, that there was disorder and anger and irritability on the part of the police?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I have no responsibility for what may appear in English magazines, and I have even less responsibility for what may appear in American magazines. However, this matter is being examined by the Services Committee in another place, and it will shortly be looked into by our own Administration Committee. I can once again assure noble Lords that it is the desire of everyone who is looking into this question to try to balance these two factors. It is not easy to do so.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is the noble Earl the Leader of the House aware that the moderate and practical approach he has referred to is one that I am sure commends itself fully to Members of both Houses of Parliament? The degree of control that may be necessary, while as little as possible, none the less does occasionally have to take into account some extremist factions which join in these marches.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I would say in reply to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that I always agree with him when he says such agreeable things.

BUSINESS
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the proposed relaxation of electricity restrictions at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. It may also be convenient to your Lordships to know that snacks will be available to-night.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Heavy?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am told that, in new of the extremely good effort of the Refreshment Department last night at short notice, the snacks may not be quite so heavy as your Lordships may wish.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his Statement, I should like to echo the gratitude
674
of the House—or at least those Members of the House who were here at a quarter past two this morning.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition.

OXFORDSHIRE AND DISTRICT WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
SAINT ANDREW'S, HOVE, CHURCH YARD BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

IRON AND STEEL BILL
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment, or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be dscharged.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOCIAL WORK (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.28 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Social Work (Scotland) Act was brought in by the previous Government in 1968 and has since been carried on by the present Government, and with local authorities throughout Scotland. I think it is a very good Act of Parliament, and as Chairman of the Social Work Committee for the County of Roxburgh I strongly approve of the Act and what it has done both in dealing with juvenile delinquency and with general social work.
There is however a matter which is causing some concern, and the Bill which

675
I am introducing to-day is designed to deal with it. In April of last year Part III of the Social Work (Scotland) Act came into operation abolishing the juvenile courts in Scotland and setting up in their place a system of children's hearings. From then on all children under the age of 16 (with some minor exceptions) who may be in need of compulsory measures of care have been referred to an official in each local authority known as a reporter. His duty is to decide on the facts available to him whether a child should be brought before a children's hearing for consideration of his case. The function of the hearing is to decide what should be done in the best interests of the child. The hearing has no powers to adjudicate on the grounds on which the case has been referred to them. If there is any dispute about the grounds of referral, the child and his parents have the right to ask for these grounds to be established by the sheriff. Once the grounds of referral have either been accepted by the child and his parents, or established by the sheriff, the hearing then decides whether the child should be made subject to a supervision requirement or whether his case should be discharged.
Most cases brought to a hearing are disposed of within a month of being notified to the reporter; but if a case has to go to the sheriff, this will of course protract the proceedings, and occasionally it may take up to three months before a case can be disposed of by a hearing. When such a delay arises in the case of a child who is approaching his sixteenth birthday, there is a possibility that the hearing may not be able to dispose of the case before the child attains the age of 16, and this is where the difficulty has arisen which the present Bill is intended to remedy.
As the 1968 Act stands, a children's hearing has no power to impose a supervision requirement on someone who is over the age of 16 unless he is already subject to a previous supervision requirement. In this event he is regarded as a child until he reaches the age of 18 at which point any supervision requirement ceases to have effect. If, for example, a child of 15 years 11 months who is not already under supervision is charged with committing an offence and is brought before a children's hearing, he or his
676
parents have the right to ask that the alleged offence with which he is charged shall be proved against him before the sheriff. The case must therefore be sent to the sheriff, who will decide whether the facts are as alleged. By the time the sheriff has established the facts and the child has been brought back to a fresh children's hearing he may well have passed his sixteenth birthday, and the hearing has no power to impose a supervision requirement on him. The child could not therefore be dealt with for the offence. This is clearly an unsatisfactory situation and it has been necessary to make an administrative arrangement, which my noble friend the Minister of State for the Scottish Office may wish to describe, to deal with such cases until the 1968 Act can be amended.
I am sure that your Lordships will agree that this is an unsatisfactory situation, and the Bill which I am at the moment introducing will remedy this defect that has come to light since Part III of the 1968 Act was brought into operation last year. It continues the jurisdiction of a children's hearing over a child whose case has been referred to them and who is not already under supervision until they have disposed of his case, even though he may have passed his sixteenth birthday before the conclusion of the proceedings. I think your Lordships will agree that it is unsatisfactory if this axe, as it were, comes down at the age of 16 while the case is still under jurisdiction. I therefore beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
3.32 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I should like to extend our support to the Bill introduced by the noble Baroness. This is the second day in succession on which your Lordships have been engaged in correcting defects in the law. The only difference between to-day and yesterday is that it has not taken the Scots fifty years to find out where the mistake was made, and for this we are grateful to the noble Baroness. I think that the case she has made is absolutely unanswerable and we are delighted to be able to support it.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, on behalf of the Government I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood on introducing this very useful measure, which will remedy the defect which she has so ably described to the House. I would only say that I think it is a little early yet to see the result of the hearing, but I understand that a great many parents and children do feel that much time and study is being given to their problems. I think the House would wish to join me in paying tribute to all those who give up their time voluntarily to serve on these panels, and I have very much pleasure in supporting my noble friend.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, for his support from the Opposition Benches and also my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir. I trust that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—[Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1. [General duty of Secretary of State.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I took this opportunity, which seems to be
678
the right moment on whether the clause shall stand part, particularly having regard to the words
"effective provision of an integrated health service",
to make a brief statement about a Health Service Commissioner in Scotland, because, as has been made clear in a Statement by my noble friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in another place and my noble friend the Minister of State here to your Lordships, the Government have decided that there should be a Health Service Commissioner as part of the arrangements for dealing with complaints in the National Health Service. So far as Scotland is concerned, the present Bill provides a suitable opportunity to include the necessary provisions. These will take a little time to prepare and it will therefore be our intention to introduce new clauses when the Bill reaches another place.
LORD HUGHES: I am grateful that the noble Baroness has taken this early opportunity to make that statement, because, as she will recollect, it deals with one of the points I raised on Second Reading. Having read only Press reports of what was said about this subject, I cannot say that I am happy about the way in which the references to the Commissioner are being circumscribed. But I have no doubt that if these clauses are to he introduced in another place we shall hear a great deal more about them and shall have something to work on when they come back to us for reconsideration in due course. I am glad that, in whatever form the Health Commissioner's function may be carried out, the Government have reached this decision in time for it to be incorporated in the Bill.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2. [Provision of accommodation and medical, etc., services]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 25, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").
The noble Lord said: My first Amendment refers to Clause 2(c) which reads:
"medical, nursing or other services, …"
In the 1947 Act the reference was:
"medical, nursing and other services …"

679
This may seem a small point, but Parliament and its draftsmen are very particular about the meaning of "and" and "or" and I wondered whether there was any significance in the change of wording on this occasion. I must say that the use of the word "and" in this connection is preferable, because there can be cases when all the services are needed. The use of the word "or" almost connotes that there would be a choice and that one might be provided instead of another—a nursing service might be provided instead of a medical service or some other service might be provided instead of a medical or nursing service. It ought to be made perfectly clear that the duty of the Secretary of State is to cover the whole range: I think there is no doubt on that point. May I say at this early stage that in putting down Amendments to this Bill I have not, with one solitary exception to which I shall refer in due course, sought to make any political points whatever. All the Amendments are Amendments which can be discussed on their merit and for which support will not necessarily fall upon one side of the House or the other. This is a typical example, and in moving this Amendment I should be glad to hear what the noble Baroness has to say in reply.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Perhaps the noble Lord will be glad to hear that I think his Amendment is an improvement on the present situation, and I am very glad to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.40 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 5, leave out from ("as") to end of line 5 and insert ("may be prescribed").
The noble Lord said: That is a very good start, but I am very suspicious of good starts. It is much better to get a "No" on the little things and to get a good answer on the things that really matter. I hope the noble Baroness will continue with the good work. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I spoke to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together. This Amendment is that in page 2 we should leave out from "as" in line 5 and insert the words,
680
"may be prescribed". Subsection (2) concludes:
"… shall be made available for those services on such terms and conditions as the Secretary of State may determine."
The Amendment which I am moving would make that subsection read:
"shall be made available … on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed."
Noble Lords will recollect that on Second Reading I referred to the fact that this Bill was largely a skeleton and that in due course there would follow many regulations and orders. All the regulations which are made will be subject to Parliamentary procedure, mostly by Negative Resolution procedure but, in a few cases, by the Affirmative Resolution procedure; and some of the orders will be subject to Negative Resolution procedure. The great majority of the orders which are to be made under the Bill will not be subject even to the Negative Resolution procedure.
When I queried this position, I was informed—and I did not disagree with what the noble Baroness said—that the Parliamentary procedure was being reserved for what could be regarded as the more important of the orders. The benefit of orders being made, even though they are not subject to Parliamentary approval one way or another, is that Members of both Houses can be made aware of what is taking place. I am not certain that it is nearly so easy for Members either of another place or of your Lordships' House to become aware of things which the Secretary of State may determine. My reason for moving this Amendment is that these are important decisions which may be made. It is right that Parliament should be made aware of what is being done so that if someone is not satisfied, or does not have sufficient knowledge about the position, they will be in a position to ask a question in Parliament about it, although they will not be able to debate the order itself; whereas, if it is as laid down in the Bill at the present time that the Secretary of State may determine it, quite a long time might elapse before any Member of either House of Parliament knew anything about it.
These are important points and it is right that when we legislate in this skeleton form as much as possible of the subsequent decisions should come automatically to the attention of any Member

681
of either House who is interested in the matter, and he should not have to go ferreting out what the Secretary of State might quite legitimately have determined but which, in the ordinary course of events, would not come to the notice of Parliament. The next Amendment follows exactly the same lines. I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I appreciate the point which was made by the noble Lord on Second Reading. I am afraid that he was right in that I cannot accept all his Amendments. I suggest to the House that the reasons why these two Amendments are not suitable for the Parliamentary procedure which the noble Lord had in mind are these. The provision by means of a determination for charging for the use of National Health Service premises has already been precedented in Section 15(5) of the 1947 Act. This deals with the availability of facilities at health centres for family practitioners to carry out Part IV services. It provides for charges to be fixed by the determination of the Secretary of State. The same arrangements apply under Section 15(6) of the 1947 Act which deals with the use by practitioners of health centre facilities for private practice. Over the years—and it is a long time now—these provisions have not given rise to any difficulty. There are a considerable number both of regulations and orders in this Bill as a whole which are subject to Parliamentary procedure; but we feel that the purpose of the Bill overall is to simplify the administration. The terms and conditions which have already arisen for use by general practitioners of particular premises which have not already been subject to any difficulty in the previous Act, and where there is no issue of principle, would only add to the complexity of the Bill. I hope that on reflection the noble Lord will feel that this is so.
LORD HUGHES: I cannot say that I am absolutely convinced on this matter at the moment. I should prefer to study what the noble Baroness has said when I read it in due course in the Report of these proceedings. In view of what I have said, I do not want to add needlessly to the complexities of the legislation, but I want Parliament to have the
682
fullest opportunity of considering important matters. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment but I may come back to it at the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Provision of medical, dental, etc., services]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: Clause 3 is a simple and short clause about which my noble friend Lord Hoy commented on Second Reading. I have a number of points to raise and it will become apparent to members of the Committee that I have come under the influence of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, because I am querying points of language rather than points of law. This matter might well come into this category. The clause reads:
"It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to secure the provision of general medical, general dental, pharmaceutical and general ophthalmic services …"
Reading this, the thought occurred to me why the word "general" should be used in regard to three of the services but not of the fourth. I have no doubt at all that this will be precedented in the 1947 Act, and I have no doubt at all that there is a sound reason for it, but quite honestly I do not know what it is.
It will be perhaps for the convenience not of the Committee but the noble Baroness if I continue my remarks for a few minutes longer so that her colleague may furnish her with material which will enable her to make a suitable reply, provided that it does not take too long to work out the answer. The longer it takes to find the answer the more doubtful I shall be about the reason for it being there at all. I must apologise to the noble Baroness, I cannot keep speaking any longer; but I see that the noble Lord is on his way back.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Happily I can observe that under Part IV of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947, from which this particular clause is modelled, it is described as "general medical and dental services, etc."
LORD HUGHES: That I have no doubt about. What I want to know is why it is not necessary to talk about "general pharmaceutical services". I thought that that was the answer that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, would be bringing back to the noble Baroness.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: If I may speak again, I suppose that the noble Lord is correct. One could say—and it may be better language—"medical, dental, pharmaceutical and ophthalmic services". The only reason why "general" is in the Bill is, as I have said, because it is modelled on the 1947 Act which, if I remember rightly, was the responsibility of the Party opposite.
LORD HUGHES: But we are discussing a Bill after 25 years of operation of the Act and we are agreed that there are certain ways in which even that wonderful Act can be improved by 1972. I cannot therefore accept that in those cases where an answer is not readily forthcoming the obvious one is that in 1947 perfection was achieved and we cannot do better. I will let the point rest at that, but it makes better sense—or it removes undue suspicion—if there is not an apparent differentiation against the pharmaceutical services; and I shall put down an Amendment for the next stage, which I hope the noble Baroness will either accept or give good reasons for rejecting.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Care of mothers and young children]:
3.51 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 2, leave out ("to meet all reasonable requirements").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing Amendment. The clause as it stands says:
"It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to make arrangements, to such extent as he considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements …"
and so on. I do not think words should be in legislation unless they serve some useful purpose and, quite frankly, I cannot see what is gained by adding the
684
words "to meet all reasonable requirements", particularly as that phrase follows the words "as he considers necessary". Presumably if the Secretary of State, having looked at the matter in his nice room in St. Andrew's House, or in his equally nice room in Dover House, has come to the conclusion that it is necessary to do something, no one, in Scotland at any rate, would suggest that the Secretary of State was considering it necessary to do something which was not reasonable or was intended to meet unreasonable requirements. For that reason, it seems to me that the words are quite needless, and if there are fewer words to print it must at the end of the day contribute to a certain amount of economy in all the subsequent reprinting. I therefore beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: This particular form of words is used elsewhere in the Bill and is precedented. However, I am always anxious to try to improve the English of Bills and am therefore glad to thank the noble Lord for his contribution and shall be glad to accept his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Medical and dental inspection, supervision and treatment of pupils and young persons]:
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: On Clause 6 I wish to raise two points which might be termed "Conesford points". The noble Baroness will probably be able to give a satisfactory explanation on the first. The Bill refers to:
"medical and dental inspection, at appropriate intervals, and for the medical and dental supervision …".
I am wondering exactly what are the differences between "inspection" and "supervision". It seems to me that in the ordinary use of language either of these words would cover the whole field. One possibility of course is that "inspection" refers to the actual work on an individual child or a number of children, whereas "supervision" might be general overseeing arrangements. If an explanation of that kind applies, then I am not unhappy about it.

685
With regard to trying to put into Bills language of the kind people will understand when they read them, I wonder why, when we read the proviso, we find this language:
"if the parent of any child or young person gives to the authority notice …".
Who on earth would ever speak or write like that—"gives to the authority notice"? Why cannot it be the more simple, ordinary, everyday language: "gives notice to the authority"? It does not make a ha'penny worth of difference which way it is done, but over and over in the Bill we find phrases such as this. I know that it is not always possible in legislation to put matters in ways which are immediately understood by people: a matter may be complicated and some form of legal wording may be necessary. But this seems to me to be a case of being awkward for the sake of being awkward. Perhaps the noble Baroness will tell me what she thinks of these two points.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I would agree with the noble Lord on the second point concerning the words "gives to the authority notice", which I must confess I had not particularly picked up. But the phrase is copied from Section 61 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962. On the noble Lord's first question regarding the difference between "inspection" and "supervision", this wording also is used merely because it replaces the relevant provisions, Section 58(1) and (2), of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962.
LORD HUGHES: I take it that if at the next stage I seek to tidy up the language relating to the second point the noble Baroness will be able to make another early start in accepting an Amendment from me. On the first point, it seems to me that it is not necessarily the best way of going about things just to go to the old Act with a pair of scissors and a pot of gum, and to cut out the bits and paste them into new legislation and say, "Well, we now have the start of a new Act." There is something to be said for trying to achieve the results in fewer words. However, I am not certain in my own mind that "supervision" and "inspection" are in every case identical, so I will not come back on that point. But I will put down an Amendment on the other point, and I am
686
grateful to the noble Baroness for her indication.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Educational and research facilities]:
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: I have another point in connection with language. Clause 9 states:
"It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to make available such facilities, in any premises provided by him under the Health Service Acts, as appear to him to be reasonably required for undergraduate and postgraduate clinical teaching and research and for the education and training of persons providing or having it in contemplation to provide …".
Who on earth thought up that phrase, "having it in contemplation"? First of all, what is "it"? Why cannot the phrase be "providing or comtemplating to provide services under those Acts"? It seems to be an absolute nonsense to use a phrase such as that in the Bill, and I am quite certain that if I put down an Amendment to alter the words here, or if the noble Baroness herself will do so, the Committee will be happier about Clause 9.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: May I say to the noble Lord that I am most grateful to him for his points concerning the English language. Perhaps we can get together afterwards and see whether we can improve it.
Clause 9 agreed to.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: May I move that the House do now resume, to hear a Statement.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

COAL STRIKE: ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES
4.0 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, if it is for the convenience of your Lordships I should like now to repeat a Statement

687
that is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister for Industry. The Statement is as follows:
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told the House on Monday last that the situation on electricity supplies had improved as a result of a number of factors, particularly the withdrawal of pickets from the power stations. He added that the immediate priority would be to get industry back into full production as soon as possible. Since then the recovery programme for getting fuel supplies to power stations has made very good progress and substantial quantities of coal and essential supplies have been delivered and much more is on the way.
"On the assumption that there is a favourable outcome to the miners' ballot, it is my intention to revoke with effect from midnight Sunday the directions prohibiting the use of electricity by industry on certain specified days. I must, however, point out that on their two high risk days they will still be subject to rota disconnections. Those large consumers who have received directions to restrict their demand and consumption to 60 per cent. of normal will be permitted to increase their consumption to 85 per cent. of normal.
"There are some points which I must emphasise. The most important is that this relaxation, which will only be made if there is a favourable outcome of the miners' ballot, assumes there will be a full and rapid return to work in the pits. It assumes, too, that all classes of consumers will co-operate to exercise maximum economy in the use of electricity. If consumers do not exercise economy, and of course if weather conditions are abnormally bad, the resulting overload on the generating system could lead to disconnections on what are at present medium risk days. There is, therefore, an element of risk in the proposed relaxation, but against the background of heavy unemployment and the full co-operation from the public so far the Government think this risk should be accepted. Following discussions with the C.B.I., this particular measure
688
of relaxation has been chosen in order to enable industry to begin getting back towards full-time working as soon as possible.
"For the time being the other restrictions must remain. But I have the position under constant review and shall introduce further relaxations as soon as circumstances permit."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for making that Statement. And as I think this is the first official occasion since his new important appointment was made, may I offer him the congratulations of your Lordships' House and, in all sincerity, wish him Godspeed in the really important task which rests on his shoulders? Whatever the circumstances have been, we are at one in wanting the fullest employment by industry and by employees at the earliest possible opportunity.
Arising out of the Statement, I should like to ask the noble Earl one or two questions. Having regard to the statement which was made publicly, I think to-day, by the Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers that they would co-operate in any way in providing extra working in order to restore normal conditions as soon as possible (that was the spirit of Mr. Daly's statement, although I have not the exact wording), and also having regard to the very reasonable assumption which is made in the Minister's Statement that the ballot is likely to be favourable in its conclusion, can the noble Earl tell us when he expects full working to be resumed by industry? Can he also tell us when, if things go reasonably well, normal conditions are likely to be restored on the domestic front?
Finally, inasmuch as the Statement refers to consultations and discussions with the C.B.I., may I ask the noble Earl whether any discussions have taken place with either the T.U.C. or the National Union of Mineworkers, and whether it is his intention (as I very much hope it is in pursuit of repairing fences with the maximum rapidity) to resume consultations with the National Union of Mineworkers as soon as the ballot is over?
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Earl for

689
making the Statement and at the same time to express to him my congratulations and those of my noble friends on these Benches on the new and important appointment which he holds and in which we all wish him success. I am sure that everybody will do his best to help him towards achieving that success. I am interested in what has been said about the future supplies of electricity to industry, but I wonder whether the noble Earl can tell us anything more about the supplies to domestic users than is said in the Statement?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Lords for what they have said about me personally, which I very much appreciate. I also recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has done—and I appreciate it—that, whatever our feelings may be about the origins of this dispute, there is an assential unity of purpose which I am sure we all share at the present moment.
Secondly, in answer to the question put to me by both noble Lords opposite in regard to time factors, a number of imponderables are involved here. The first imponderable is the result of the ballot, but I agree that we are all optimistic in that respect. The second imponderable involves the expectation of a good return to work on Monday in the mines, and here again I think we all have a reasonable degree of optimism on that score. The third imponderable is the as yet unknown factor: the degree of damage that has been incurred in the mines as a result of the strike. In that connection, I have not seen the full text of the statement made by the Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers, to which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, referred, but I have seen a short "potted" version and I very much appreciate the terms of that statement. The fourth imponderable is our old friend the British weather, and that is something that none of us can really adequately predict. The fifth is a very important imponderable which I hope in practice is not an imponderable, and that is the degree of self-restraint and economy which the domestic consumers, including
690
noble Lords opposite and noble Lords on this side of the House, will exercise from now onwards. This is a very important factor indeed.
But, my Lords, given a reasonable run, given a reasonable break with those imponderables—to use the jargon, if I may—it is our expectation that normal supplies to both the industrial consumer and the domestic consumer should be available within a period of two to three weeks. I am deliberately being vague because we are updating the position almost from moment to moment, and there are these imponderables. I think that is the best indication that I can give noble Lords at the moment. In response to the third question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, I hope to see Mr. Victor Feather this afternoon and I have noted what the noble Lord has said about consultations with representatives of the N.U.M.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is there not another imponderable; namely, the extent of the damage that may be found when the mines are actually opened? May I ask the noble Earl whether, within his new authority, he will have some powers of activity in the provision from industry of the spare parts and engineering equipment needed in order to put the mines into full operation?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the matter to which the noble Lord has referred was in fact my third imponderable. I note the suggestion which he has made, and so far as my own responsibilities are concerned I should like to make one thing quite clear. I must say that I was rather flattered to see myself described in a famous organ of the Press to-day as a "Supremo". It is very nice to live just for a moment in the company of the "Monties" and the "Mount-battens" of this world. But may I say that I visualise my task as being somewhat different, which is to give what assistance and what back-up I possibly can to those Departments and Ministers and organisations who are grappling, and grappling with a very real measure of success, with the present situation.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
4.10 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Health Boards]:
On Question, Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: There are a number of questions that I should like to ask about this clause on which I think it would be appropriate for the noble Baroness to elaborate. This is the clause setting up Health Boards. The White Paper gave certain indications as to what the Secretary of State's thinking was in this matter, the number of Boards which might be set up and the size of the Boards. I wonder whether the noble Baroness is in a position to tell the Committee if it is still the Secretary of State's intention to set up the number of Boards with, roughly speaking, the boundaries which were indicated in the White Paper last year?
Secondly, there has been a certain amount of disquiet about the proposed size of the Boards. I recognise that in this matter there are difficulties in both directions. If you make a Board with the wide range of responsibilities that these Boards are going to have sufficiently wide to enable all the sorts of interests that might reasonably expect to have a right to be included in the membership of the Boards, there is a danger that they may be too unwieldy. On the other hand, if you want to make them very workable Boards with a number that makes for smooth working in what will be a very important and sometimes difficult task, then it becomes terribly difficult to give the breadth of experience that is desirable on the Boards. I think a figure of a possible membership of 15 was mentioned. Having looked at the proposed areas in the White Paper, with some of the Boards I think a membership of 15 would be very suitable looked at from almost any point of view. But there will be others, particularly in some of the more populous areas, where a Board of
692
15 would be unduly small. I would like the Minister, if she finds it possible, to give us some indication of the kind of variation in size of the Boards that the Secretary of State might have in mind.
Finally on Clause 13, subsection (6) reads:
"Regulations … may make provision requiring Health Boards to submit to the Secretary of State a scheme for the exercise of their functions, and enabling the Secretary of State to approve, with or without modifications, any such scheme and to make such a scheme in the event of the failure of any Health Board so to do."
Can the noble Baroness give us some idea of what kind of scheme the Secretary of State has in mind should be put forward by the Health Boards, the kind of things which these schemes would cover? I have put down no Amendments to this clause because on the face of it it seems to be reasonable, but whether or not anything needs to be done would depend to a certain extent on what the noble Baroness has to say in reply to the questions that I have put forward.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: In answer to the noble Lord's first question, if he will look at the Appendix to the White Paper he will see that the 14 proposed Health Boards there set out give an estimated population in thousands in each area, and they are also compared with the corresponding local government regions and districts. The noble Lord spoke particularly of the very populous areas. Taking Argyll and the Clyde, Glasgow, Lanarkshire and Ayrshire and Arran, those four Board areas are part of the proposed West Region in local government. We have tried in this very populous area to divide up the numbers more than was proposed under local government, and I will not go into the reasons why the Western area under local government is so very large.
But I would take this opportunity to say that we propose now to have a fifteenth Health Board and this will be in the Western Isles. This is because since the White Paper on Local Government was issued—and we had considerable consultations, as the noble Lord will remember—we announced last December that for local government purposes the Western Isles would be given "most-purpose" status, and for these reasons we feel that the balance of advantage lies in giving an extra completely separate

693
Health Board to the Western Isles. We have already proposed that there should be a separate Health Board for the Orkneys and Shetland, and both those and the proposed Board for the Western Isles will have smaller populations and Health Services resources; a Western Isles Health Board will need to keep close links, like the Orkney and Shetland area, with a large mainland Health Board. From comments received on the White Paper, this decision to create a fifteenth Health Board is, I understand, likely to be very acceptable to local interests.
On the second point which the noble Lord raised, subsection (6) of Clause 13, we have recently circulated discussion papers—and I think he has received a copy—to all those concerned on area and district management structures, and until we have had comments on those papers I do not feel I can say more here. They are very long and considerably detailed, and we feel that we should have the advice of those who are likely to have to manage these particular schemes.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Baroness has, I think, jumped from point one to point three; she referred to my point three as the second point. My second point was the number of members on the Boards. May I take it that her reference to the creation of a fifteenth Board for the Western Isles means that as at present advised it is the Secretary of State's intention to proceed with Boards along the lines indicated in the White Paper, because there is nothing in the Bill to indicate that? I take it that this means that the scheme which will go forward in due course will be for 14 Boards, plus one, with the necessary amendment, the creation of that fifteenth Board.
I should like to have some information about the range of members, because in the case of the last Board, for instance, it might be a little difficult to find 15 suitable members for a Board for the Western Isles. I hope that remark does not get undue prominence in any paper circulating in the Western Isles or I shall be in difficulty. However, finding 15 members could be a very different proposition in one of the four Boards in the Western Region. Therefore, could the noble Baroness say something about that?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I regret that I did not
694
refer to the second point that the noble Lord raised on the number of members; I was concentrating on the number of Health Boards. We said in the White Paper that so far as the number of members on the Health Boards is concerned we would propose that it should be of the order of 15, but I believe I also said on Second Reading that the number would obviously vary according to areas. As the noble Lord rightly said, in the Western Isles, for example, there would probably be fewer, while in a highly populated district there could be more. "Of the order of 15"as to give some kind of indication.
LORD HOY: May I raise one point with the noble Baroness in regard to subsection (6), under which Health Boards have to submit schemes to the Secretary of State who may approve them with or without modification? In the concluding lines it says:
"and to make such a scheme in the event of the failure of any Health Board so to do."
Could the noble Baroness tell us why this is necessary? I have no doubt that she will say that this provision was included in the 1947 Act or the 1962 Act, but if that is so then she will be able to tell us on how many occasions the Secretary of State had to resort to these powers. There may be some good reason for it, but I simply cannot see it, because I cannot imagine that any Board would refuse to submit to the Secretary of State a scheme with regard to their functions, and carry their refusal to such an extent that the Secretary of State had to impose a scheme on them. I should be grateful to know the reason for this provision's inclusion in the Bill.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: It is really only what one would call a "default power". I should think it would be very rare indeed—in fact, probably never—that a Health Board would not produce a scheme. As the noble Lord rightly said, it is based on previous legislation about these schemes. I think it is merely a default power, and if it were not included it would probably not be necessary, but it is put there just to make it sure and definite that under the Bill a scheme must be submitted.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Local Health Councils]:
4.23 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 7, line 25, after ("with") insert ("a local authorities in or for the area or district concerned and")
The noble Lord said: The Bill brings forward this concept of local health councils, something which is new to the National Health Service and which is perhaps a necessary thing in view of the concentrating of executive control in these new bodies called Health Boards. It seems to me that in the concept of these local health councils the Government, in the way the Bill is framed, appreciate the fact that local authorities are the sort of bodies who are going to be particularly interested in membership of these local health councils.
The first Amendment on the clause which I make is at line 25, and if my Amendment were incorporated it would read:
"Where, on representations made to him by a Health Board, the Secretary of State is satisfied, after consultation with local authorities in or for the area or district concerned and with such interests as appear to him to be concerned, …"
It seems to me to be of particular importance that if the Secretary of State is going to accept the position that in any particular Board it is not necessary to have a health council, he should be under a particular obligation to have asertained the opinion of the local authorities in the area, because I am quite certain that if they are concurring in the arrangements, whatever form they may take, which would make it unnecessary to have a health council, he will not be in any difficulties with anybody else in the area. But if he accepted that there was not a scheme and the local authorities had not in fact been consulted, it might cause a lot of needless trouble. I am quite certain that the Secretary of State would not deliberately fail to consult all or any of the local authorities in the area, but it has been known to happen that when somebody is looking at a piece of legislation, by mistake someone can be omitted. I do not say that if my Amendment were inserted it would ensure that everybody who ought to be consulted would be, but it would at least make it certain
696
that none of the local authorities concerned would be omitted.
While this Amendment is going against the general trend of my Amendments so far, which has been to exclude unnecessary words, I do think that it is a useful inclusion. If it did not do anything else, it would at least get the health council off to a good start with the local authorities concerned, because by putting it in the Bill the fact that it was the intention of Parliament that local authorities in the area should have a special interest in these health councils would be emphasised. I beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that it is most important that the local authorities should be brought into consultation on these matters. The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be to ensure that local authorities were always consulted. If he looks at the following subsection he will see that as some of the members of the local health councils will be appointed by the local authorities, it is difficult to conceive of the present obligation to consult not being held to apply to those authorities. On the other hand, I agree with him that it is very important, and perhaps is reassuring to people, that they should know that this really is the intention of Parliament. Therefore I have great pleasure in accepting his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.28 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 7, line 34, after ("prescribed") insert ("such number being not less than two thirds of the total membership,").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment relates to the next subsection to which the noble Baroness has just referred. The subsection which we have just amended deals with the situation where a local health council was not to be appointed. This subsection (3) deals with the case where local health councils are to be appointed. I have stressed the importance of local authorities in this field. The difficulty is that the way in which the Government have decided to go ahead with these bodies means that they are not elected bodies. None of these bodies is

697
elected. The Health Boards themselves are going to be creatures of the Secretary of State and will all be appointed by him. On the other hand, the health councils are going to include people who, though not elected and not chosen by the consumers, in so far as they are local authority members are the next best thing; they will be members chosen by the elected representatives in the area. I think it was the position in previous legislation that in certain directions a minimum number was laid down, and a maximum number laid down in others. In regard to the Regional Hospital Boards, for instance, I remember that it was laid down that the number of medical practitioners should not exceed a certain part of the total membership of the Board. I have suggested that it would be reasonable to include a minimum proportion in the composition of these Boards and my Amendment calls for two-thirds. I would not necessarily die in the last ditch for two-thirds, but it is perhaps reasonable that at least half of the membership of these councils should he chosen by local authorities in the area. But in the context of the job that these councils will have to do, I think that two-thirds is perhaps the reasonable figure. I beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I regret having to say to the noble Lord that I do not really feel that I can accept this Amendment. The effect of it would be to limit the freedom of tile Health Board in appointing other members of the local health council; for instance, after consulting voluntary bodies such as patients' organisations, the Red Cross, the W.R.V.S. and groups which represent special interests in a certain area. Under the Amendment, membership reflecting such interests would need to be outnumbered at least two to one by local authority appointees. I accept what the noble Lord said about two-thirds perhaps being too high but, as I tried to make clear on the previous Amendment, the importance of local authority appointment of some members is simply not in question. That is why subsection (3) states that local authorities, as elected bodies, will have an obvious job to do in providing members who are in touch with local opinion. It is for that reason, and because it is necessary to recognise the interests of both
698
regional and district authorities when a local health council is formed, that the number of places to be filled by them will be given formal expression in regulations, but will not necessarily be tied to a certain proportion. But of course their importance in nominating is without question, and in order to leave them with some freedom of action I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: I should like to make it quite clear that this is a field of activity where we ought to be trying to proceed as much as possible by agreement, and it is certainly not my intention to-day to divide the Committee on any of the Amendments which I have put forward. I should be content to withdraw this Amendment if I could get an assurance from the noble Baroness, not on any figure of membership, but that the Secretary of State accepts that a major part, or perhaps I should say an important part, of the membership of these councils would come from the local authorities. It is reasonable that such members should be in a majority, but there might be cases where bodies are small and even to give them a majority might be to exclude somebody from the Red Cross, the W.R.V.S. or some such organisation, who could serve a very useful purpose in a certain area, not merely because of the body from which he comes but because of his own suitable qualifications for being on a council of that kind. If the noble Baroness will assure me that the Secretary of State accepts that, in the ordinary course of events, the local authority field is the most important to which he would look for membership of these health councils, I shall be content and will not only withdraw the Amendment but will not feel it necessary to come back to it.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I always hesitate to use words like "major" or "important" because that often leads to a considerable debate on their interpretation. But I can certainly give the noble Lord an assurance that it is quite clear, as indeed is stated in subsection (3), that the local authorities will have very important work to do. But I think we want to leave freedom to vary the membership of these councils from area to area for the reason which he himself gave; that in some

699
areas there might be more voluntary workers with much to contribute, while in other areas there might not be such people. But certainly local authorities are very important.
LORD HUGHES: I can envisage the noble Baroness moving the Amendment which I have moved if the Election had gone the other way, and I can equally envisage myself giving the answer which she has just given. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.36 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 8, line 1, after ("for") insert ("additional expenditure incurred or").
The noble Lord said: On Second Reading the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, and my noble friend Lady White raised the question of women serving on committees, and mentioned the difficulties in which they might find themselves because they were not entitled to compensation for loss of remunerative time. This Amendment proposes to make subsection (6) read:
"… including compensation for additional expenditure incurred or loss of remunerative time".
I believe that this is a form of words which exists in relation to local government. It does not go so far as the noble Earl or my noble friend wanted, but at least it goes a little further forward and by using a form which is similar or identical to local government procedure it at least keeps in step. I beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: While I naturally wish to see as many married or single women as possible taking their part in the National Health Service, I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment for the very good reason that it is unnecessary. If the noble Lord will look at the words in subsection (6) immediately preceding those which he wishes to amend, he will see that they make possible the payment of "other allowances", of which compensation for loss of remunerative time is only one example. This wording is precedented in Section 37 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968,
700
which provides for the payment of allowances to members of the present health authorities. It also provides for
"… any additional expenses to which he"—
or, in this case, she—
"would not otherwise have been subject being … incurred by the member for the purpose of enabling him"—
or her—
"to perform his duties".
I am glad to say that the power would cover—as it does in the Local Government (Scotland) Act—expenses for baby sitters and, where absolutely necessary, for home helps. Therefore the same arrangements would continue in the future. Because of the way subsection (6) is drafted, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: I find that a completely satisfactory explanation, and I am very happy to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 [University Liaison Committees]:
On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HOY: May I ask one question in connection with Clause 15? Under present legislation we have medical education committees, but under the proposals in this Bill these committees will go out of existence and will be replaced by university liaison committees. I understand that with this change the terms of reference of the new committees will be somewhat wider. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could explain to us just why the change has to take place and what in fact the widening of the terms of reference really means.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: There was a Working Party which recommended the procedure which is set out in Clause 15. This clause should also be read with Part II of Schedule I to the Bill, which perhaps gives a rather better idea of the sort of members who would be appointed to these committees. They will concern not only those who are in the medical schools but also, for instance,

701
Strathclyde University, which is bioengineering. For that reason, the arrangements which now exist are, of course, widened.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16. [Local Consultative Committees.]:
4.42 p.m.
LORD PLATT LORD PLATT moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 10, line 2, leave out from ("Committees") in line 2 to end of line 3.
The noble Lord said: In proposing this Amendment I should like to assure your Lordships that there is nothing particularly sinister about it. It is not the thin edge of any wedge, or an attempt to have the Health Service ruled by the medical profession. But it seems to me that the words on page 10, in lines 2 and 3, which I suggest should be omitted, are unnecessarily restrictive, have no particular purpose and could be a considerable nuisance. Your Lordships will know, of course, that Clause 16 deals with the recognition by the Secretary of State of certain area committees, of which one, of course, is the medical committee, though others are no doubt of equal importance. It seems to some of us that the area medical committee might, for instance, consist of seven or eight doctors of different kinds—perhaps from health services, from preventive medicine and public health, and from general practice—and that it might be wise for such a committee to have a sub-committee on, shall we say, general practice. Subsection (8) allows such a sub-committee to be formed, but then says that this subcommittee should be
"composed as to a majority of members of the committee".
That is of the main committee. That seems to me unnecessary. As I say, it might be a fairly small committee on which there are only perhaps three general practitioners, and if you want a sub-committee of general practitioners containing perhaps seven or eight you are not allowed to do it because of these rather unnecessary words. I beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, that we have had
702
representations on this matter. In fact, only last week the reservations which the noble Lord has put before your Lordships' Committee were given to us very explicitly. On further consideration of the matter I think that perhaps there is substance in what the noble Lord says, and I would be glad to accept the Amendment.
LORD PLATT: I am grateful to the noble Baroness.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 16, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: Subsections (1) and (2) of this clause deal with the setting up of five different consultative committees, and then subsection (3) goes on to say:
"Where, after consultation … a committee formed … is representative of any other profession engaged in the provision of care …"
I do not see a definition of "profession" anywhere in the Bill. I think noble Lords will be aware that the use of this word "profession" is more widespread now than it used to be. The word "profess-fession" was once used within a comparatively narrow range. Shall I say that 20 or 30 years ago it would not have been accepted that nursing was a profession, whereas no one would dare to dispute that to-day. The committees listed—the medical committee, the dental committee, the nursing and midwifery committee, the pharmaceutical committee and the optical committee—seem to cover all the very obvious professions, and it may be that the Secretary of State is just playing safe when he talks about the possibility of "any other profession". But if there is not some sort of indication of what is meant by "profession" we might get into certain difficulties. For instance, I am quite certain that, say, the domestic or catering staff could make out a very strong case that they have interests which might be represented. But would anyone suggest that the domestic staff was a profession? It might be argued that the catering staff was. It might even be argued that the domestic staff was a profession. But either we ought to have some indication of what other possibilities are in mind or, alternatively, we ought to have some attempt to define a profession.
BARONESS TWEE DSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: If the noble Lord will look at the subsection (3), he will see that it says that the persons concerned must be
"engaged in the provision of care or treatment under the Health Service Acts …"
That is designed to narrow the definition down to such professions, as I think one would now call them, as radiographers or physiotherapists, but it would in fact exclude, for example, the engineers in a hospital. It is those who are engaged directly in the provision of care or treatment, and the two particular professions of radiography and physiotherapy were what we had in mind.
LORD HUGHES: I am rather surprised that at this particular period of history the noble Baroness should use that one. We are all very conscious of how uncared for we are during periods of electricity cuts, when we have no heating. It cannot he said that the engineers responsible for the heating of a hospital have nothing to do with the care of the patients. In fact, if they made a mess of their job everybody else might be wasting their time completely. One of the things which was so often raised during the miners' strike was the special problems of hospitals, and the need to ensure that they were adequately heated, and so on. But I did not have those particular people in mind. I was thinking of those people who assist when there is a shortage of nurses. There are so many duties which fall on other people now who are in the category of assistants, and so on. It may be that that counts as part of the nursing profession; I do not know. But take, for example, the people who keep the hospitals clean. It certainly could not be said that they are not concerned with the care of the patients, because if the places were not kept clean the patients would very soon be uncared for. This, I think, points to the very difficulty that I have been referring to: the absence of some sort of guidance does not automatically limit it to people like physiotherapists and the like.
I will not press the matter because I know that perhaps the unfairest way in which one can deal with a Minister is by raising points on the Question, Whether the Clause shall stand part?, when they have had no previous oppor-
704
tunity to investigate the matter; and there is a limit to the comings and goings from one part of the House to another in the transmission of information. I would be content to leave it that the noble Baroness might have a look at the matter. In the interval before the next stage she might care to drop me a note on this point. I am not quite happy about the way it stands. If she were not going further than she is at the present time, I might find it necessary to put down an Amendment at the next stage. But I do not want to do this if it can be avoided.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: May I perhaps clarify another point on subsection (3). I agree with the noble Lord that anybody engaged in the hospital is helping in the "care or treatment". Where does one draw the line? This is the point that he was putting before the Committee. But subsection (3) begins:
"Where, after consultation with the Health Board concerned, the Secretary of State is satisfied …"
The Health Board may say, for example: "We feel that radiographers should come into this category." So there is, in the subsection, a kind of double check that the people concerned are directly, absolutely directly, concerned in the "care or treatment".
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Scottish Health Service Planning Council]:
4.52 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 10, line 26, leave out ("after consultation with") and insert ("with the agreement of")
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 stand together and I attach perhaps a little more importance to these than to some other Amendments. This clause deals with the Scottish Health Service Planning Council and, as so often is the case with bodies of this kind, it lays down that they shall produce an annual report which the Secretary of State will lay before Parliament. The clause makes provision for the Secretary of State to exclude part of such a report when he lays it before Parliament. A question on this point was posed by Lord I Hoy and in answer the noble Baroness

705
said that there may be subjects referred to in the report which it was not in the public interest to disclose—for example, a dispute with a contractor (which is the sort of thing that one sees at the present time) details of which it might not be in the public interest to disclose. That, I think, could well justify the exclusion of references of that kind from what is placed before Parliament. But I cannot envisage any circumstances in which it could be considered reasonable that a report annually placed before the Secretary of State by such a body should be suppressed in its entirety. I cannot accept that that is a reasonable thing to do.
So far as exclusion of part of the report is concerned, the Bill as it stands provides that the Secretary of State may suppress the whole or part of the report after consultation with the body which has made the report in the first place. I do not think that that goes far enough. I am conscious of the fact that I am using an emotive word in "suppressed" rather than "deleted" or "not published"; because once a report which is ordinarily published is made, and once you decide that part of it should not be published, then you are deliberately deciding to suppress—though perhaps for excellent reasons in certain cases.
The Amendments oblige the Secretary of State not merely to consult with the Scottish Health Service Planning Council about the deletion of part of the report but also oblige him to get their consent. After all, it is their report. I do not think that it is good enough for the Secretary of State to say, "No, I am not going to let Parliament know that you have said such and such a thing." I am quite sure that a body of this kind would never refuse to delete from the published version of their report something which it would not be in their interests or in the public interests to have published; but I cannot believe that any self-respecting body of this kind would ever agree that it was in the public interest to suppress the whole of their report. In circumstances of that kind they should never have made a report of that nature in the first instance; they should have written a letter marked "Confidential" and then have produced a lot of innocuous material for the annual report. The three Amendments therefore serve the double purpose of obliging the Secretary
706
of State to get the consent of the Council to the deletion of part of the report and so to make it possible for part of the report to be left out, but to make it impossible for the whole of the annual report to be suppressed.
LORD PLATT: Before the noble Baroness replies, may I say that I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, very strongly on this Amendment. I was going to ask what was the purpose of the lines and whether there was a very important reason for leaving them in; and even to suggest that they might be looked at again and deleted. But I think Lord Hughes has suggested a way round which is wiser than either leaving the words in as they are or deleting them altogether, which is what I might have suggested. I think that his wording, "with the agreement of", is very wise and I hope that the noble Baroness will accept his Amendment.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I understand that we are discussing Amendments 9, 10 and 11 together. Both noble Lords have asked me why these words are here at all. Once again the explanation is that they have been copied from the National Health Service Scotland Act 1947, Section 2(5). Over all these years, these words have never caused any difficulty; but I must say that so far as we are aware the powers of the Secretary of State have never been used. I have given some considerable thought to these questions and I should like to say to the Committee that I do not feel I can accept Amendment No. 9, because the Secretary of State who has the final responsibility must himself take that responsibility and of course must he prepared to justify it subsequently in Parliament.
On the other hand, I should like to accept the following Amendments, Nos. 10 and I, which make it quite clear that the report must be laid before Parliament but that the Secretary of State may himself take the decision that a part of the report should not be laid before Parliament. This is for the reason I gave on Second Reading. It is true that such instances are rare, but there might, for example, be a case that was the subject of litigation and it would not be advisable to publish it. I feel that the final responsibility must lie on the Secretary of State because he must justify it.

707
I am glad to accept the last two Amendments.
LORD HUGHES: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. She has accepted the most important part of the Amendments. I am quite satisfied in my own mind that if the Secretary of State did consult the Council about leaving out a part of its report which they felt strongly should be kept in and if, nevertheless, he went ahead with the publication omitting that part, it would be a very strange world and very strange circumstances in Scotland if it did not leak out that there had been disagreement of this kind. I am prepared to accept that the first few words should remain, and therefore beg leave to withdraw my Amendment No. 9.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 28, leave out ("any such report or").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 30, leave out ("report or").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [National Consultative Committees]:
5.0 p.m.
LORD PLATT LORD PLATT moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 11, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: Clause 18 deals with consultative professional committees, and again they are not executive committees. As we see in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must be satisfied that a committee which has been formed is representative of
"some or all of the professions engaged in the provision of care or treatment under the Health Service Acts, and that it is in the interests of the health service to recognise the committee…"
It would seem to be quite reasonable that, having been so satisfied, he should
708
accept the committee and that there should not be appended a sort of postscript, which is subsection (3), saying that he can appoint additional persons, unnumbered—they may number twice as many as are already on the committee—if he so wishes. A good many acts of faith are required in this Bill on behalf of the professions. A great deal of power is left in the hands of the Secretary of State. A great many decisions are left to him, and I think this is a case where a little faith should be displayed on the other side; and that a committee of reasonable people whom the Minister has accepted as representative of their profession might be allowed to elect their own members. This would not in any way preclude a friendly Secretary of State from saying to such a committee, "Would it not strengthen your commitee to have so-and-so or such-and-such added to it?" But, as I say, to add this kind of postscript seems to me undesirable and unnecessary.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I was aware before the noble Lord, Lord Platt, put down his Amendment of the feelings of members of his profession on this matter, as they had made representations. Perhaps I should explain why subsection (3) appears in the Bill in this form. It is left to the profession to decide whom they wish to have on this committee, but it might be helpful if the Secretary of State had the power to appoint, for example, someone—for whom I personally would have great sympathy—such as a member of the nursing profession or a consultant for a particular issue. I should have thought the power would be rarely used. I do not feel able to accept the Amendment to delete the whole of subsection (3), because I think it would be valuable to the committee were it possible for the Secretary of State to have the power to appoint one or two members. On the other hand, if the noble Lord will leave the matter with me, I should like to consider whether we could redraft the subsection and include the words, "after consultation with the profession" or something of that nature. I understand what the noble Lord has in mind, and I hope that he will understand what the Government have in mind. If he will leave it like that, I will reconsider the matter.
LORD PLATT: I think that will go a long way towards meeting the difficulties of the profession. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: We have had Clause 11 dealing with local consultative committees and Clause 18 dealing with national consultative committees. I wonder whether the noble Baroness could give us some further information about these committees. To a certain extent there is a possibility that the same sort of things may be discussed at local and also at national level. What sort of field of activity is contemplated? Is there some automatic way of saying that one matter shall be discussed locally and another nationally? Obviously, certain things have only a local connotation. They may refer to a particular hospital or to services in a particular area, which would be a matter to be discussed at a local committee. There are other matters which are obviously of a national character and would be for consideration at a national consultative committee. But there are so many things which do not fall neatly into either one category or the other. Is it to be left to the good sense of these committees at local and national level to work out the way to do things? Or does the Secretary of State have in mind giving some sort of guidance, particularly to local committees, about the field of their activities?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Regarding national consultative committees, the idea was on the lines of a report of a working party on medical integration which was called Doctors in an Integrated Health Service and which was published in July, 1971. I prefer to call it a united Health Service. The working party considered the means whereby a national structure could be evolved apart from the local professional committees. The functions of a national committee would be to advise the Scottish Health Service Planning Council on the provision of health services with which that Committee was concerned, but it would not concern itself with questions of remuneration or conditions of service. The Council, on its part, would be obliged to consult the committee. There are
710
some matters which I think are much better described in the national context than they are locally, and it is because the Secretary of State is most anxious to have professional advice that we have created both local and national committees.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Common Services Agency]:
5.10 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 11, line 34, leave out ("shall have power to") and insert ("may by order").
The noble Lord said: This clause, setting up a Common Services Agency, is a major departure from the present system. I incline to the view that it will be a change which, generally speaking, will be advantageous for the working of the Health Service in Scotland and I do not dissent from it at all. But just because it is such a major change I think it absolutely essential that Parliament should be made aware of what has taken place. This Amendment and the succeeding Amendments to the clause merely have the effect of ensuring that Parliament is made aware of it; because they require that the orders should be made. I do not even suggest that these orders should be included in those which should be subject to Negative Resolution procedure. They will be in the category of those which Members of Parliament or noble Lords can follow up if they feel inclined to, but they will not automatically be brought before them for consideration.
The one thing I was not quite certain about on Amendment No. 13 was whether it was the right procedure. I know it is perfectly correct for the Secretary of State to make an order when he is referring to functions that are carried out by other people. I am not certain whether it is correct Parliamentary procedure for the Secretary of State to make an order when it is his own functions that are involved. The first Amendment refers to the fact that the Secretary of State may transfer to the Common Services Agency certain functions which are carried out by him in a central department and controlled by his own civil servants. If it is not a permissible procedure, then we are stuck with the way it is in the Bill: "shall have power". But if it is possible to make an order on this particular part of

711
it, then this case is particularly important, because there are certain services for which the Secretary of State has been responsible and which he has operated out of monies provided by Parliament. In that case, in one way or another Members of another place in particular have a direct opportunity at different times of the year of querying what may be done. Once the functions are transferred to an outside body such as the Common Services Agency, it is not quite the same thing. I think it would be better to have an order made by the Secretary of State rather than for the Secretary of State just to take a decision. I beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I think the noble Lord is addressing himself only to the first Amendment, No. 13, and not to all of them together.
LORD HUGHES: I can assure the noble Baroness that I will talk to Amendments Nos. 14 to 23 together.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I thank the noble Lord. Therefore, while Amendment No. 13 has been moved, we are in fact discussing the principle behind Amendments Nos. 13 to 23 inclusive.
LORD HUGHES: No, not really. I deliberately addressed myself only to Amendment No. 13 because that referred to the Secretary of State's functions. The other Amendments relate to functions which are carried out by Regional Hospital Boards, boards of management and so on. The doubts that I expressed about the correctness of the procedure certainly cannot arise in connection with the other Amendments, and I should like to talk to them separately.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I thank the noble Lord for clarifying the situation. I can quite understand his wishing that Parliament should be aware of the actions of the Secretary of State in delegating to the Agency some of the functions under the Health Service Acts, but I think it is more suitable that the Secretary of State should have power to delegate than that he should do it by order. Perhaps I should say what kind of function it is thought that he might delegate. Under
712
subsection (2) there would be, for example, those matters which come under health education. It is not a fact that just because a matter is not brought before the House by order, even without the Parliamentary procedure of the Negative Resolution, Parliament is not aware of what is happening, because of course there is the annual report, and the Secretary of State has to be accountable to Parliament for his actions in this respect. I should have thought, therefore, in view of the large number of regulations and orders that there are already, that in this Bill we should consider it wise not to tie the Secretary of State down to take this action by another order.
LORD HUGHES: I should like the noble Baroness to have another look at this matter. It is an important part of a new procedure. While it is undoubtedly quite correct that the Secretary of State could be questioned in Parliament about it, it would be after an interval of perhaps more than a year, whereas if the order were made the subject might be raised in Parliament, not when it was old but when it was fresh. Having regard to the enormous number of regulations and orders which are going to be made under this Bill once it becomes an Act, I would very gently suggest to the noble Baroness that if she can swallow the camel that she herself is creating my few little gnats are not going to cause her much inconvenience. When one thinks of the number of orders and regulations required by the Bill, there is really no comparison between them and what I am suggesting.
I feel quite strongly on this subject. I do not propose to divide on the Amendment; I prefer to act on the basis that Divisions should be left to another place if we cannot reach accommodation with each other on these matters in this House. But I am quite certain in my own mind that in another place they would not be content to let the matter go on the basis that an order should not be made on an important matter of this kind just because the Secretary of State was already making a number of orders in other directions. It might well be that we could suggest other places where he could better do without them than in this case. I think it is right that at this stage I should withdraw the Amendment, but I intend to re-table it at the next stage of the Bill,

713
and I ask the noble Baroness to consider the matter further in the interval because, as I say, I attach importance to it. If I do not get a satisfactory answer on the next stage I may think it appropriate to register disagreement then, but not today.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Perhaps I can assist the noble Lord in his consideration of this matter before the next stage. I suggest to the Committee that when we are considering whether to make new procedures under this Bill subject to order we should also consider those matters which are not subject to order. I hope that this will not give the noble Lord ideas, but if he will look back to Clause 13 (1), for example, he will see that the Secretary of State has to determine by order a considerable number of matters concerning the Health Services, and that the Common Services Agency is really acting collectively. If the noble Lord has accepted that the Secretary of State is entitled to determine without a formal statutory instrument what functions may be handled by a Board, I should have thought that he would also be entitled to determine, after consultation of course, what functions could be conferred not on individual Boards, but on the Agency which acts for them in a collective capacity. I think that this perhaps might be borne in mind when the noble Lord is considering this matter later.
LORD HUGHES: Yes, I certainly will take that into account, but I am afraid that what the noble Baroness is accusing me of is an error of omission rather than commission. I will certainly look at the point to which she was drawing my attention. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.21 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 11, line 39, leave out ("may")
The noble Lord said: There are three sets of Amendments which are identical: 14, 15 and 16; 17, 18 and 19; and 20, 21 and 22. The form of wording gives what is necessary to ensure that the Secretary of State proceeds by making an order rather than that he may direct. I feel that this Amendment is just as
714
important as the previous one and if I may just talk generally about my ideas on this it will save my making another statement at the end on the Question, That the Clause stand part.
We have not had a really exhaustive statement on the kind of services which may be transferred to this central agency. Sonic things have been mentioned, for instance, the Blood Transfusion Service and the Drug Accounts Committee: those are obvious matters for handing over to the agency. There was reference to major building projects. This is a field where it is terribly important that everybody should have the best knowledge at the earliest opportunity of what is envisaged. Each of the hospital boards at the present time has its own architectural and engineering staffs and these staffs are sufficiently highly qualified to undertake a very wide range of services for their boards and for the hoards of management at, I think it almost goes without saying, a great deal less cost in fees than if the services had always to be put out to private consultants. There are a number of projects where they do not do the whole work (for instance, the Ninewells hospital project at Dundee was put out to a very distinguished architect), but even so there were very considerable functions falling to the regional architect, the regional engineer, and so on, in these matters.
If everything of importance in this direction is going to be handled by the Common Services Agency, the matters which are left may be of such comparatively trifling importance that it would be almost impossible for the Health Board to recruit staff that would serve any useful purpose. Yet it is quite obvious that the whole of the activities to be carried out which would require architectural or engineering supervision are not going to be carried out by the Common Services Agency. These are two examples: one where it is obvious that the services will go to the central body, and the other the extent to which they would be taking over functions which have been carried out over the last twenty-five years by the staffs of the Regional Hospital Boards and boards of management and also, in the same way, by the staffs of local authorities in so far as they relate to the health functions of local authorities which will be taken

715
over. I think that public opinion, and certainly Parliamentary opinion, would be happier about this clause of the Bill if it was quite clear from the beginning that whatever was decided was going to be put in an order which could be placed before Parliament. I toyed with the idea of putting in another Amendment on this point and I have not finally made up my mind on the matter. But this should be one of the orders which should be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, because I do think it is a very important part of the Act. At the moment, I am certainly confining my attention to suggesting that it should be an order instead of just directions. If I may offer a little bait to the noble Baroness, it may well be that if it were accepted in this form here, it might be found acceptable when it gets to another place. But if it leaves here in the form in which it appears in the Bill I doubt very much whether my colleagues in another place would proceed in the modest way which I am doing in these matters. I beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I hardly dare to speak after having given the noble Lord ideas on Clause 13(1). I have listened with care to what he said about this question of orders. I think that what he said about Clause 13(1) is relevant because in fact the Agency will derive its functions from a very wide range of sources such as the Health Service central bodies, Regional Hospital Boards and the Scottish Home and Health Department. It will need to be available, as necessary, to help the new Health Boards which themselves will have very different levels of resources in specialised management skills such as work study. We know that from the earlier discussion we had on the range and size of Health Boards; and I would suggest to the noble Lord that we really need a great deal of flexibility here.
Paragraphs 33 to 38 in the White Paper, which concern the Common Services Agency, contain I think a pretty clear description of the kinds of matters which will become in fact the responsibility of the Common Services Agency. Now if we were to give a rigid definition of the functions—because it would be more rigid if you have an order, and even more so if it were subject to Negative
716
Resolution procedure—I think that Health Boards would tend to undermine what is perhaps one of the main objects of the Agency, which is to make it possible to vest substantial local authority management in Health Boards which need not themselves be self-sufficient in all management matters.
The Committee might be interested to know that we are about to circulate a discussion paper on the functions and organisation of the Agency and also that there will be a separate discussion paper on the building division of the Agency. As I think I explained on Second Reading, there will be such matters, as is made clear in the White Paper, as the Dental Estimates Board, the Drug Accounts Committee, the Central Legal Office for the Hospital Service and some of the functions of the ambulance and blood transfusion services. There might be most of the work of the Department's Research and Intelligence Unit, for example. I therefore feel, as I expect the noble Lord has gathered from the tenor of my remarks, not very anxious to accept his Amendments because we need a great deal more flexibility. I did not entirely accept what he said earlier, that one had only to wait for an annual report, for example, for Parliament to discover what was happening. I think all of us know the ease with which Members of another place are able to put down Parliamentary Questions, and indeed very up-to-date Parliamentary Questions. Therefore there is always recourse to Parliament to try to find out the extent of what is happening. However, I think that if we are to make the best of the Common Services Agency—which I am sure is what the noble Lord wishes to do—I suggest to him that we do not want to tie it down too much to have everything done by Order.
LORD HUGHES: I must confess that I do not at all follow the reasoning of the noble Baroness. It is too early nowadays to talk about "this late hour", so I cannot give that as an excuse. There is no question about making an Order requiring less flexibility. Let us look at what is contemplated in the Bill. The Secretary of State may direct that certain things may be done. Surely it is not being suggested that the Secretary of State flips lightheartedly into the office one day and says, "We had a brief talk

717
yesterday about the Common Services Agency doing certain architectural works. Let us issue a direction about it". If the requirement was for an Order, the Secretary of State would say, "We have to consider this matter seriously over the next two or three months to decide what we are going to put into the Order". I suggest that there is nothing in an Order-making procedure that in any way inhibits the Secretary of State's need for flexibility in these matters. I accept that there is need for flexibility. What from the Parliamentarian's point of view the noble Baroness says in defence, is that if it is done in the way suggested in the Bill there is nothing to prevent the Member of Parliament, by stealth or cunning, finding out what has taken place instead of it being directed to his notice by the publication of an Order.
It seems to me that this is not a matter in which we should rely on the leakage, proper or improper, of information to Members of either House of Parliament, but that it should be openly dealt with. Therefore I cannot accept the argument of the noble Baroness. She has been helpful in certain directions and has persuaded me in others; but I am afraid in this case she fails most lamentably. I hope she will give the matter consideration. Unless she does so I am afraid I will have to pursue it further.
LORD BALERNO: I find it difficult to follow the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. The whole tendency of modern legislation is to have too many Papers and too much bureaucracy arising from the time taken for the consideration and the drafting of Papers. When these Orders come to Parliament whoever reads them? Whoever discovers what they have in front of them? How many of your Lordships study the lists of the Orders as they are issued? If they see something about Scottish health, and they are interested in Scottish health, how often do they remember to ask for the Order at the Printed Paper Office? If they were to get the Order, because it was written in "orderese", they would find it rather difficult from the jargon of the Order to discover what the Order was all about. I am all for a simple approach so that alterations are carried out on the initiative of the Secretary of State, who can be trusted not to suddenly think up an idea such as, "Let us have a change in the plan to-day and issue an
718
edict of some kind", but who would ensure that it would come up through the Department. I am all for making the simple approach and having the maximum flexibility that comes from it.
LORD HUGHES: I do not understand hat for one moment—this must be my dim afternoon. What the noble Lord is saying is that because some noble Lords may not read the Orders and, when they do read them some noble Lords may not understand them, that this is a good reason for simplifying things. The best way of simplifying things is not to tell anybody anything. That is a very good reason for not coming here at all. We could simplify the whole matter in its entirety by staying at home and leaving it to half a dozen people on the Government Front Bench to rush things through. Instead of yesterday being the extraordinary procedure, it could become the normal procedure of Parliament. The Front Bench opposite could sit for three weeks and then rise for the rest of the year. I have never previously heard such a suggestion ever being made: "Let us simplify things by not letting people know what is happening, because if we let them know they will not read it, and if they do read it they will not understand it." I am quite certain that the noble Lord has not consulted his son in another place, because when he was in Opposition he did not treat Orders made by the previous Government in the lighthearted way that the noble Lord is prepared to deal with them here. I think I will let the matter rest at that.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER): The Question is, That this Amendment be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the Contents have it. Clear the Bar.
Tellers for the Contents not having been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 51, a Division cannot take place. I therefore declare that the Not-Contents have it.
Amendment negatived.
5.39 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: May I say that it is not my intention to move Amendments Nos. 15 to 23, and it was not my intention to have a Division.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Co-operation between Health Boards and local authorities]:
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 12, line 36, after ("another") insert ("and with adjacent authorities in England").
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Inglewood, who is not here. I do so because I live absolutely on the edge of the Border and on many occasions I have noticed in connection with health services that if one lives, as I do, in Roxburghshire, or in, say, Dumfriesshire, it is important that there should be some co-operation across the Border with, perhaps, Carlisle or Northumberland. This question covers the use of hospitals, ambulance services, accident services, infectious diseases and so on. I hope that we may somehow or other get into this Bill a phrase—I do not know whether the noble Baroness can accept the wording of Lord Inglewood's Amendment—to cover a method of cooperation between the Border counties and the English counties. Often events take place which have a bearing on both, and if there are water-tight compartments and a frontier which is never crossed a lot of time can be wasted and occasionally the result can be very unsatisfactory. Therefore I should like to see the words, "and with adjacent authorities in England" added to Clause 20 in Part IV of the Bill.
LORD FERRIER: I should like to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, has said. Had she not spoken for my noble friend Lord Inglewood, who is engaged up in Cumberland, I would have done so instead, and would have been referring to the Second Reading debate, which the noble Baroness on the Front Bench will recollect. I believe there is good substance in this proposal and I hope that she will give it favourable consideration.
LORD HOY: I should like to say a word on this particular Amendment. I had some discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, about a similar proposal which dealt with animals in relation to the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and the treatment of the disease of brucellosis. It was accepted there that of course there should
720
be cross-Border consultation as between counties North and South of the Border. I do not know, however, that this Amendment puts the matter in quite the right way, and that is why I should like an explanation. The clause reads:
"In exercising their respective functions, Health Boards, local authorities and education authorities shall co-operate with one another"—
and then if we put in the words of the Amendment the provision will continue:
"and with adjacent authorities in England in order to secure and advance the health of the people of Scotland."
I should have thought that that was rather strange wording and that it was obvious that this Amendment did not fit into this Bill. But I thought it only right to say that I see the intention behind what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, was attempting to achieve; and it may well be that, even without having such an Amendment in the Bill at all, the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, can give us an assurance that what is sought by the Amendment is in fact taking place.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: For the exact reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, has adduced from reading the Bill, I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment, although I certainly accept the spirit behind it and the reasoning of both my noble friends Lady Elliot of Harwood and Lord Ferrier. Happily this Amendment is unnecessary, because in fact co-operation between health authorities over the Borders takes place quite considerably. It is really a matter of administration. If there was ever any real difficulty the Secretary of State could in the last resort use his powers of direction. However, to give some examples, there is a co-ordinating committee covering the relevant areas of the Newcastle region and Dumfries, and the senior administrative medical officer of the Western Regional Hospital Board is a member of this committee. In 1969, the last year for which figures are available, around 400 persons from Cumberland and Northumberland received in-patient treatment in Scottish hospitals. Therefore, there is co-operation. It is for this reason, and because Clause 20 is specifically designed, as the noble Lord said, to advance the health of the people in

721
Scotland, that I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, will withdraw the Amendment.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I have much pleasure in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment. I am glad to hear that the noble Baroness believes in co-operation over the Borders.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: I do not intend to say very much about this clause. It seems to me. however, that this is just one of these pious declarations which do not mean anything at the end of the day. The clause says:
"In exercising their respective functions, Health Boards, local authorities and education authorities shall co-operate with one another in order to secure and advance the health of the people of Scotland."
No machinery of any kind is laid down for co-operation and there are no penalties. If any local authority does not pay any attention to this provision it does not make the slightest difference, unless we can be told that the Secretary of State would direct. What was said in relation to the Amendment which was withdrawn was helpful, because the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, was able to point out the degree to which co-operation existed and the extent to which the Secretary of State might exercise powers if necessary. But there is no question, apparently, of any powers in relation to this provision. It is just an expression of something which is right. It is right to say that people should co-operate with each other in order to further the health of the people of Scotland. But will it go any further than that, or is there any means of ensuring that this provision becomes operative, rather than being simply something which ought to be operative?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: This provision is put in the legislation in order to draw attention to the imperative need for co-operation. We have a joint Working Party comprising officials of the Scottish Office and members who are nominated by the local authority associations, dealing with three main areas in which co-operation is necessary: public health, social work, and
722
school health. The Working Party were glad that this particular provision was put in the Bill because it lays a duty on those concerned to co-operate and it is not just left to practice, although it is true that the relationship between those concerned is usually very good. This provision does make it a statutory duty.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Designated medical officers]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 13, line 2, leave out ("designated").
The noble Lord said: At the last stage the noble Baroness referred to the fact that one of the unfortunate factors about this co-ordination and joining together of services was that the long-established and highly respected title of "medical officer of health" would disappear. I cannot say that I am happy with what the Government propose to put in its place. In Clause 21 there are a number of references to the man who will be the successor to the medical officer of health, and he is to be known as the "designated medical officer". It is only a year since the Government brought in another piece of legislation to get rid of the nonsense which had persisted for half a century or more of having a sheriff called a "sheriff substitute", and in the end they took out the word "substitute" and the sheriff is now known legally, as everybody has regarded him as being throughout the years, as "sheriff". To call a man a "designated medical officer" is just to introduce another of these terms. It is almost as if one were saying, "He is not the real thing. We do not have it now, but he is a man whom we shall call a medical officer. He is the 'designated medical officer'." I do not think that that would be proper. My first intention was to table an Amendment along the lines that any such medical officer shall be known in any enactment as "the medical officer of health", just to preserve the old title; but it seemed to me that perhaps it was wrong because the job is not the same as it was before and the medical officer of health at the present time has duties which hear no relationship to what the medical officer of health might have done 25 or 50 years ago. However this is a major change and I

723
think it is perhaps regrettably necessary that the title should be dropped, but I can see no reason for giving the man what in effect is an insulting title and calling him the "designated medical officer of health". My Amendments numbered 25 to 29 and a subsequent consequential Amendment are designed just to leave out the word "designated" so that this officer shall be known as the "medical officer". I beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: If only the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, had known, I seized on the word "designated" very early on because I agree with him that it is an unlovely word and I asked why it was used here. As the noble Lord has rightly said, the traditional medical officer of health will alas! disappear under this Bill and the reason why the words "designated medical officer" are used to identify clearly the officer concerned is not only because of this Bill but, as subsection (2) of Clause 21 makes clear, for the purpose of any enactment, and Part II of Schedule 5 of the Bill inserts references to the "designated medical officer" in a variety of Statutes which are mainly in the field of public health; and merely to leave the term "medical officer" I suggest would cause a great deal of confusion. For instance, a medical officer is defined in the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 as "any duly qualified medical practitioner employed by an education authority". Therefore we need a precise definition.
While I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendments at the moment because they merely delete the word "designated" and leave the words "medical officer", if he or any other member of the Committee can suggest a better name I would consider such an Amendment because I think it would be a big improvement. I cannot accept the Amendment as it is now.
LORD HUGHES: I think I can offer right away in manuscript form a simple alteration which would meet the purpose; namely, to leave out the word "designated" and move the inverted commas from in front of the word "medical" to in front of the word "the". There is quite a difference between
724
"the" medical officer and any medical officer, because this specialises him. If that is not acceptable then I would submit that the noble Baroness has conceded the point that the title suggested in the Bill is objectionable and ought not to persist. She has at her disposal resources very much greater than mine. Their imagination is just as fertile as mine and I would suggest that in this case they apply their fertility to an effort to produce something lovely instead of something which is the very reverse. If the noble Baroness will give me an undertaking that she will find an alternative I should be quite content if she tables an Amendment at the next stage. But if she comes along to me two or three days before the next stage of the Bill and says, "We are at our wit's end; we have not been able to think of a suitable alternative", then I will endeavour to assist her.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I think that is a very fair offer, but I must leave the word "designated" in the Bill at the moment because I must have a precise definition of this particular medical officer and of the duties that he will have to perform. I will certainly look into the matter because I do not like the name myself. I do not say that it is wrong because in fact it achieves its purpose. I will "have another think", but I cannot promise to be successful.
LORD HUGHES: May I make another suggestion for consideration? While it may be that in any enactment he should be known as the "designated medical officer" could there not be added some other forms of words for the purposes of the Health Boards, or whatever it may be, such as "the such-and-such medical officer" or simply "medical officer"? I can see the need for this wording in relation to other Acts, and that I do not mind because people will not go round with copies of the Act showing that they are called "designated medical officers". What is important is that they should have a title which would be in every day use and would be recognised by the Statutes. However, I now beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Supply of goods and services to local authorities, etc.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 22 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: In subsection (1)(a) of Clause 22 there is provision for purchasing and storing, and so on,
"such equipment, goods or materials as may be prescribed".
The first question I want to ask is whether the Minister can give some indication as to what sort of equipment, goods or materials are contemplated as having been provided under the law as it stands at the present time and pressumably would be continued, and to whom they are to be supplied?
Secondly, coming back to a "Conesford" type of point, what is the need to talk about "goods or materials"? In what way do they differ from each other? I should have thought either one of these words would serve the same purpose. Having started on this track my curiosity led me into this clause and I wondered why it was necessary to put it in three words instead of in one.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: The equipment, goods or materials described in paragraph (b) of Clause 22(1) are such things as disposable sterile syringes, needles (which must continue to be supplied to family doctors) or any other item where central purchasing may save expense. This is where "equipment" has been added to this provision and I should perhaps say that only prescribed items can be supplied and the regulations here would, in terms of Clause 53, be subject to Negative Resolution.
LORD HUGHES: What about the goods and materials?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Materials, for example, would consist of bedding; and goods would consist of needles or disposable syringes.
LORD HUGHES: Could not the noble Baroness just as easily put it the other way round? I do not think it matters. Could not all the items which she has described be classified as goods or materials? Presumably none of them comes into the category of being spiritual.
LORD CAWLEY: I think the noble Baroness has forgotten the Mechandise Marks Act, where all those items are defined as goods.
LORD HUGHES: I doubt whether the noble Baroness has ever even heard of it.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I really must refute that suggestion.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Assistance to voluntary organizations]:
On Question, Whether Clause 23 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: Clause 23 deals with assistance to voluntary organisations, and I think was generally welcomed at Second Reading. It makes provision for assistance,
"by making available furniture, vehicles or equipment (whether by way of gift, loan or otherwise)".
The thought occurred to me why does it not go the whole hog? Why are the voluntary organisations not given the opportunity, which might well be a useful way of assistance, of being given goods, and even materials?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR or BELHELVIE: This is exactly what this clause is designed to do. For instance, the W.R.V.S. would be a particular voluntary organisation that could have furniture, vehicles or equipment, either by gift, loan or otherwise—"otherwise" being a commercial transaction—and it is in order to help the voluntary organisations that this clause is here.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Baroness has missed my point. Why should they not be eligible also to receive by way of gift, loan and so on, goods and materials? Furniture is a special type of thing; vehicles are a special type of thing. "Equipment" is not intended to include goods and materials, because in the previous clause equipment is mentioned in addition to goods and materials. It seems that as Clause 23 stands an organisation can be given furniture, vehicles or equipment; but it might well be that the best way of helping a voluntary organisation at a particular time would be to give them certain articles which could not come into any of these

727
three named categories. It seems to me this may have been an accidental omission, rather than a deliberate intention to confine assistance to those particular items. I wonder whether the noble Baroness would like to have a look at this point, if she is not in a position to answer to-day.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I can say why the goods and materials in which the noble Lord is interested are not included here. It was because it was thought unlikely that there would be any need for the Secretary of State to have a general power to supply goods and materials for voluntary organisations. But he has power under Section 32 of the 1968 Act, as amended by paragraph 36 of Schedule 5 to this Bill, to supply generally goods produced by him in the course of providing health services. He could do it, but not actually under this clause.
LORD HUGHES: On that basis he could provide them with the furniture and vehicles and equipment also. Why, if he can do this under the other power referred to is it necessary to specify them here? It seems to me that it is not going to mean a general supply of furniture, vehicles and equipment to voluntary organisations; some of these organisations will get nothing of this kind. It is only an enabling power that may be exercised, and it seemed to me there was no reason why goods and materials should not be included. I shall probably put down an Amendment at the next stage along those lines, because I cannot imagine that the Secretary of State would not want to have this power. There is nothing to compel him to exercise it. An Amendment to this effect would carry what is otherwise a very admirable clause in relation to voluntary organisations the whole way along the road instead of stopping when 90 per cent. of the journey has been accomplished.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Dissolution of Boards, etc.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 24 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.4 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: Clause 24 deals with the dissolution of existing bodies, and I
728
will read a note on the point which has been drawn to my attention:
"Executive Councils concerned with general practitioner services are to be dissolved and the powers transferred to the Health Boards. In earlier consultations the Regional Hospital Boards were given to understand that it was unlikely that the same procedure would be followed as proposed in England; that is, that a separate committee for the purpose of considering general practitioner matters would be set up within the Health Boards. There is little or no reference to this in the Bill as it stands, but the adjustments and amendments referred to in the Schedules do not make it clear that the provisions in the 1947 Scottish Act dealing with the affairs of general practioners are being repealed. Consequently, it would still be possible under regulations for a General Practices Committee to be instituted."
I must admit that I do not know anything about this subject. This is a representation which has been made to me. I wonder whether the noble Baroness would care to comment on that extract I have read from a letter which I have received.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: In actual fact the Scottish Medical Practices Committee will remain as an independent body, and that is why it is not referred to in Clause 24, which concerns the dissolution of various bodies that are named. Perhaps I should also mention, to clarify the matter, that the Scottish Dental Estimates Board will also remain, as will the National Health Service Tribunal.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Rights and liabilities of Regional Hospital Boards and Boards of Management]:
On Question, Whether Clause 25 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: This clause deals with transfer of property rights and so on. I am also looking at Clause 26, and I am seeking information. Clause 25 transfers the rights and liabilities of a Regional Hospital Board or Board of Management to the Health Board. Clause 26 transfers all interests in property, heritable or moveable, and all rights and liabilities of Executive Councils to the Secretary of State. I wondered about the omission of property from Clause 25. Is it the case that the Regional Hospital Boards and the Boards of Management do not in fact exist as owners of any property? Is the property at the present

729
time of Regional Hospital Boards and Boards of Management in its entirety already the possession of the Secretary of State? Is that the position?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: The position is that all hospital property is already vested in the Secretary of State, and that is why it is not included.
LORD HUGHES: I am grateful to the noble Baroness.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clauses 26 and 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Staff Commission]:
On Question, Whether Clause 28 shall be agreed to?
LORD HUGHES: Clause 28 refers to the setting up of the Staff Commission, and this follows the practice that has already been followed in connection with other Acts of Parliament. May I have some information as to the sort of body which this Staff Commission will be? From what sort of people will its membership be drawn; and what size of body is contemplated here? I must admit that if I had more time I probably could have obtained the answer by finding out about other Staff Commissions, but time did not permit. I thought that many people would be interested in this point, and perhaps the noble Baroness can answer it. It would be useful to have it on the Record.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: It is thought that the body, like other similar bodies, would be quite small, probably with about three persons. As we are discussing it on the Motion, That the clause stand part, I should like to take this opportunity to say that the great majority of staff will continue to perform the same duties as before in the same place, and that the united service (or integrated service, to give it its correct name) will, I think, also give a chance for many officers to develop and perhaps to hold more senior posts later on. I wanted to say this because I did not want there to be any feeling of unease. We are taking a great deal of care over the whole question of the position of staff, and this is why the Staff Commission is being established.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clauses 29 to 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Transfer of staff employed for purposes of public health]:
On Question, Whether Clause 32 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: In Clause 32(5) we read:
"In this section, 'public health functions' means the functions specified in Schedule 4 to this Act, and 'local authority' means a county council, a town council or a port local authority."
In other clauses of the Bill there is a reference to
"a local authority in or for the area or district concerned",
which seemed to me to be a rather useful way of referring to local authorities, because it could cover the authorities that exist at the present time, such as county councils or town councils, but it would equally cover the new authorities which may be set up if the legislation for the reorganisation of local government takes effect. It would cover a regional council, or a district council, under whatever name they may become known, and there would not need to be any subsequent amendment. I wondered why in this particular connection a local authority is defined in terms which can apply only to an existing one. The answer that has occurred to me is that this is a once-for-all thing. This transfer will take place before reorganisation comes about, and therefore any change in local government that may take place in the future has no effect on this clause at all. Am I right in assuming that that is the way it has been done? Having said that, I now know I am right, because of the nodding in the Box as I was asking the question.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: The brief answer to that is that the noble Lord is correct.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clauses 33 and 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Supplementary order making powers]:
6.13 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 21, line 1, after ("Any") insert ("direction or").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 31. It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we could discuss Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 together. These are drafting Amendments to Clause 35, which empowers the Secretary of State to make supplementary provision for various matters in connection with the transfer of staff from existing health authorities to the employment of Health Boards or the Common Services Agency. Matters of this kind are the determination of questions about the work on which a member of staff is wholly or mainly employed in the preservation and continuity of service for pension and other purposes. As at present drafted, such supplementary matters are to he covered in an order made under Clauses 29 to 34. There is, however, no order-making power under Clause 29, which provides for the transfer of hospital staff, or Clause 30 which provides for the transfer of Executive Council staff. In both cases the Secretary of State's relationship with the authorities concerned seemed to make it better to confer a direction-making power. That being so, the supplementary matters for which Clause 35 makes provision will, in these cases, be dealt with by a direction. It is therefore for this reason that it is necessary to refer to "direction or order" in Clause 35, and the Amendments add references to direction at the correct points in the clause. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Baroness has been helpful from time to time, and I look forward to favours yet to come, so I will not be awkward on this.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 21, line 6, after ("the") insert ("direction or").
Page 21, line 7, ("Any") insert ("direction or").
Page 21, line 8, at end insert ("direction or").
Page 21, line 12, after ("any such") insert ("direction or").
Page 21, line 16, after ("the") insert ("direction or").—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Compensation for loss of employment, etc.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 36 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.18 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: Another part of the letter which I have received from the Regional Board refers to Clause 36, the compensation arrangements. I think it would better serve the purpose if I were to read the relevant part of the letter.
"An invitation has been extended to Regional Boards to comment on the proposed compensation arrangements to he utilized in connection with the National Health Service reorganisation, which it is understood is to be dealt with under the conditions of the Crombie Code.
"The Crombie Code is applied generally to public service bodies in matters of compensation, but the Regional Board is representing to the Secretary of State that while such a Code may be reasonable in application to persons found redundant in a specified sphere of occupation, it may be unfair to certain employees in the National Health Service where they may be called upon to accept a post elsewhere than in their present Region, failing which they may jeopardise their entitlement to compensation.
"This may particularly be so in the case of architectural and engineering staff whom it is at present proposed to place under the Central Services Agency sited in Edinburgh. Although some of the staff may well remain in their present locality others may be offered posts elsewhere beyond their present Region and if, for their own good reasons they do not accept, their rights to compensation may be prejudiced. It is contended that such officers entered into a contract of service providing for their employment within a Region, whereas they may now be required to enter into a National Service with employment beyond their present boundaries. The Regional Board feels that special consideration should be given to officers placed in this position."
I wonder whether the noble Baroness would care to comment on that.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: We hope that Clause 36 makes it clear that we are being very careful over the whole question of compensation. The regulations which on compensation will be made will be subject first of all to the Negative Resolution procedure. Perhaps I should say here that in practice most staff will be transferred with their present jobs, and we hope there will be hardly any redundancy at all. It is true that some people, particularly in the administrative posts, may have alterations, either upwards or downwards, in their duties or in their grading.

733
That is why this clause makes provision for compensation, and it follows the provision made by Section 35 of the 1968 Act for persons affected by executive council or hospital board reorganisations within the present structure. It is not possible to fix the final staff establishments or to assess compensation by the appointed day, and that is why power is given to make the regulations retrospective, because we are determined that no individual shall suffer adversely. I hope that that assurance will give some assurance.
LORD HUGHES: So it would be possible for full consideration to be given to the position of an individual who, for reasons which were very good from his personal point of view, did not wish to accept a post which meant his travelling to another area altogether. He would not necessarily suffer in his compensation terms, through leaving the Service rather than taking that other appointment. It that the posiion?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Yes.
LORD HUGHES: I am grateful to the noble Baroness.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clauses 37 and 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Transfer of Rights held under the Hospital Endowments (Scotland) Act 1971]:
6.21 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 23, line 11, after ("of") insert ("rights in relevant").
The noble Baroness said: This is a drafting Amendment. Clause 39 is concerned with the transfer of rights in certain endowments from existing hospital authorities to Health Boards. These endowments were transferred by virtue of the Hospital Endowments (Scotland) Act 1971 to the Scottish Hospital Trust which will manage the capital and distribute the income to hospital authorities. Existing hospital authorities technically therefore hold rights in such endowments but not in the endowments themselves, and the opening words of Clause 39(1) recognise this fact. However, subsection (2),
734
which deals with the case where areas of existing hospital authorities are divided between one or more Health Boards, ought to refer similarly to "rights in relevant endowments". The reference to "income" is however correct, because income (including accumulated income) becomes the property of the hospital authority. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 40 to 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Extension of definition of infectious disease]:
On Question, Whether Clause 45 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: The rubric to this clause is, "Extension of definition of infectious disease. 1889 c. 72." It seems a wholly unexceptionable clause apart from its length, which is probably necessary, but I wonder whether we can be told what it means. What is the extension?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Clause 45 substitutes a new provision for the present Section 7 of the Infectious Disease (Notification) Act 1889. This enabled a local authority in their area to apply the Act to a disease other than those which are specifically listed in the Act as infectious diseases. As local health authorities will disappear with this Bill, it is necessary to re-allocate the function of adding to the list of infectious diseases. That is the aim of this clause.
LORD HUGHES: It has arisen only from the creation of the new bodies? The title appeared to mean that some diseases which at the present time are not regarded as infectious are going to become so. But I understand that that is not the position, and that it is simply a question of the new structure.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: That is correct.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Power of Secretary of State in an emergency]:
On Question, Whether Clause 46 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: Clause 46 seems to be giving a very extensive power to the Secretary of State, although it may be a very necessary power. It states:
"If the Secretary of State is of the opinion that an emergency exists, and thinks it necessary in order to secure the effective continuance of any service under the Health Service Acts, he shall have power to direct that any function conferred by or under those Acts on any body or person shall, during the period of the emergency, be performed by such other body or person as he may specify in the direction."
That is a very wide power indeed. It enables him to supersede any of the arrangements which are being made in the Bill for the carrying out of the health services. I am not prepared to say that it is not an essential part of a Bill such as this, but I should like to ask what sort of emergency might call into being the exercise of a power of this description?
LORD PLATT: Before the noble Baroness replies, may I say that I was going to ask whether this clause is really necessary, because I suppose that any Secretary of State has powers for a time of emergency and that they can be very widely used. I assure your Lordships that, with slight reservations, I have implicit faith in the wisdom of the Secretary of State, but I do not like giving my assent to what I think is absolute nonsense. Speaking as a legal layman, it appears that the Secretary of State can direct an engineer to perform an operation for a hernia or something of that kind. I do not think that is really what it means, but if that is what it means I do not want to vote for it. That is all.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: The reason for this clause is to try to fill what is at present a gap in the powers of the Secretary of State. Under Section 56 of the 1947 Act, which is being kept with some modification, he has power after an inquiry to declare a Health Service body to be in default or to authorise any person to act in its place until a new body is appointed. We felt that this was really much too blunt and unnecessary, and in that respect I have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Platt. But the Secretary of State has no power, for example—and this is the reason behind the clause—to take quick action where health services are temporarily in danger of break
736
ing down. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, asked me to give an example. It is very difficult to foresee a certain kind of emergency, but, alas!, one which comes to us sometimes is a major civil emergency caused by widespread flooding, which we have had in Scotland. In such a case it might be necessary to put all the National Health Service rescue services under the control of a particular body or persons, or to put some of the services run by a small Health Board under the control of a larger one. Or following a breakdown in communications, perhaps after a serious fire with destruction of buildings, it might be necessary to transfer control of an ambulance depot from a common services agency to a Health Board. Obviously, we hope that this power will never need to be used, but we feel it is necessary that the Secretary of State in a reformed National Health structure should have this power only for an emergency.
LORD PLATT: Is it not a fact that, under conditions of emergency, the Secretary of State could act in that way without Clause 46? If it is not a fact and if some such clause must be put in the Bill, may I make a plea that it should be re-worded, so as to make it mean some sense instead of nonsense?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I shall look to see whether it needs rewording. It seemed to me that it was fairly clear, but I will take into account what the noble Lord has said.
LORD HUGHES: May I ask one other question in connection with this matter? Assuming that a situation arose of, say, the kind which unfortunately we have had on at least two occasions in the North of Scotland, of extensive flooding which has interfered with the ordinary and smooth operation of services, presumably the cause would be of such a nature that the Secretary of State would be making a Statement about it anyway in Parliament, and if this were the case he would presumably be making a reference to any such action that he was taking under this clause. I would prefer, as the noble Lord, Lord Platt said, if it were worded a little better than it is. Perhaps it is rather unfortunate that we should be considering this at a time when we have been invoking the awesome machinery of

737
Regulations under the Emergency Powers Act 1920. Obviously it is not that kind of thing which is in mind, but something which is perhaps a halfway house towards it, perhaps with the same seriousness but only in a particular area. I would prefer a better form of wording if it were possible to make it a little clearer what is meant, rather than the suggestion of a wholesale collapse, or even the dreadful thought which occurred to the noble Lord, Lord Platt. What did not occur to him and what might be even worse is if a surgeon had the job of trying to stoke the boilers. The results might then be even more disastrous. In any event, I assume that the least we can expect is that there will be confirmation of the fact that, if such powers were exercised, it would not be done by stealth but would he the subject of part of a Statement which would be made, in the course of which the Secretary of State would refer to what he was doing by virtue of the powers given by Clause 46.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clauses 47 to 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Regulations, orders and local enactments]:
6.33 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: This Amendment is to correct a minor misprint in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 30, leave out ("39(1)") and insert ("39(2)").—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belihelvie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 53, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: I have a feeling that I ought not to be asking this question because, as a former Minister, I ought to know the answer—but I do not. I have often wondered about it, but have never asked it before. Subsection (5) of the clause reads:
"Any power to make regulations under this Act shall, if the Treasury so direct, not be exercisable except in conjunction with the Treasury"—
the sort of thing which is the bane of all Ministers' lives. What exactly does "the Treasury" mean in this connection? Does it mean tile Chancellor of the
738
Exchequer or a financial official? Or does it mean the denizens of some building who issue instructions, and more frequently embargos, from time to time? Who are "the Treasury" in legislation?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I think that everybody would like to know who are "the Treasury", but in actual fact this is an exactly similar provision to that which is contained in Section 73(3) of the 1947 Act, which was of course designed by the noble Lord opposite. It is a formal expression which is always used in such a Bill.
LORD HUGHES: I know. It has appeared in hundreds of thousands of Bills: but what does it mean? Are they Ministers or are they officials? We all take it for granted. Every time it appears we say, "Yes, it is always there; we have seen this before, and we shall see it again and again". But I have never spoken to anybody who could tell me exactly what it means. Perhaps it is unfortunate that my noble friend Lord Diamond has gone, although I did not tell him that I was going to ask about this.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: As I understand it, when it says that it must be exercisable in conjunction with the Treasury it is perfectly clear that it could not be just officials, because the decision as to whether these shall be public expenditure is of course a decision made by Ministers. Therefore, virtually it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or his Ministers acting on his behalf.
LORD HUGHES: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I wonder whether she would carry it a little further. Would she in due course write to me, giving a very nice explanation of the answer to this point in writing so that in due course, when other people ask me, I shall be the only person other than herself who can give the answer?
LORD CAWLEY: I think I must call attention to this subsection. It is the most terrible piece of "gobbledygook". What it ought to have said is:
"Any power to make regulations under this Act shall not be exercisable except with the leave of the Treasury."

739
What on earth this is all about—"if the Treasury so direct"; "not be exercisable"—I do not know. It seem to me that you could say it in half the number of words.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I am always willing to listen to an improvement of English, but this was in fact taken out of the 1947 Act, as I think I explained.
LORD HUGHES: That does not alter the fact that it might have been wrong and bad in 1946.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Health Boards and University Liaison Committees]:
6.37 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 33, line 10, at end insert ("and of these other members not less than one third shall be members of local authorities in or for the area or district concerned and not more than one third shall be medical practitioners").
The noble Lord said: If we insert the words printed in this Amendment, it would mean that the paragraph would read:
"A Health Board shall consist of a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State and such number of other members so appointed as the Secretary of State thinks fit and of these other members not less than one third shall be members of local authorities in or for the area or district concerned and not more than one third shall be medical practitioners".
It was laid down in the 1947 Act that not more than a certain proportion of the members of a Regional Hospital Board should be medical practitioners, and that is the reason why I have included that particular provision, but I must admit that my main object was to ensure that a specified part of a Health Board should be members of local authorities. There have been very considerable representations (as the noble Baroness will know because she met the local authority associations there) that should have the right to nominate members of Health Boards. This I think was the second line of attack or approach from the local authorities, because the first idea was that Health Boards should be elected bodies. For reasons that I need not go into, I do not think any-
740
body regarded that as a point seriously to be pursued having regard to the other bodies being elected and other bodies which may fall to be elected if reorganisation takes place.
The second point—and this was particularly stressed, I think, when she met the Counties of Cities Association—is that the four cities were all strongly of the view that they should have the right to name a member or members of the appropriate Health Boards. I have never disguised the fact that I do not agree that the Secretary of State should be obliged to accept nominations of membership from particular bodies. These Boards in some cases will cover wide areas and may include in their memberships a large authority and a number of smaller authorities. All the experience of the past goes to show that where there are rights of appointment to bodies, they nearly all fall to the big authorities, with the smaller ones either getting no share or figuring in the list only once in a very long time. Yet the noble Baroness knows as well as I—and it would be invidious to mention names—that some of the most effective members of the present Regional Hospital Boards come from small authorities. They are there really by virtue of the service they have given to small local authorities; and this is what has brought them to the notice of the Secretary of State in the first place. If they had had to depend upon getting a nomination from the Local Authorities Association then almost certainly they would not be members of the Regional Hospital Board.
I think it better that the Secretary of State should receive from local authorities nominations to be considered for membership of these Health Boards so that he should have the widest possible choice. But I think that we can go a certain way to meet what I believe the local authorities undoubtedly regard as a legitimate position for them to adopt. If we do not give them the right to name the actual members we should make it quite certain that a specified part of the membership will come from local authority nominations. I have suggested one-third. I am certain that if I had consulted the local authorities about this matter they would probably have argued for a much higher proportion. While my own experience shows

741
that some of the most effective members on a body of this kind are undoubtedly those with local authority experience, the fact remains that there are also some exceedingly good members from other bodies.
I should not like to tie down the Secretary of State to the position that even a half of the membership should come from local authorities; but considering that a membership of fifteen may be the average for these Boards (the figure might be between ten and twenty) this means that from four to six members would be local authority members. Almost all the organisations cover an area with a fair number of local authorities in them, county councils and town councils, at the present time, regional councils and a number of district councils; so it would be difficult to stipulate what would be considered an adequate membership from the local authorities. I do not want to use the phrase "adequate representation" for they are not there as representatives of their local authorities. A figure of less than one-half does not circumscribe the activities of the Secretary of State in any unreasonable way; but I think that it will give an assurance to the local authorities which they at present do not have. We must remember that this is not just a case of switching from Regional Boards, boards of management and executive councils to the new Health Boards but also of transferring some of the oldest functions, and some comparatively new ones, of local authorities to these bodies. I think it would be helpful if they could be satisfied that when the new bodies were set up, while they would not know who the members were going to he and had no right to say that "X", "Y" or "Z" should be a member, they should know that a given proportion of the membership would be people elected to public office in the area; so that, indirectly perhaps there would be people who in some way might be held to be in the public eye. It does not always work like that; people do not always associate Councillor "X" with membership of another body; but sometimes they do.
For that reason I want the first part of this Amendment to be accepted. The second part is just a continuation of the existing procedure; because these bodies
742
are engaged in so wide a field of activity concerning the general public. One speaker during the Committee stage said that one of the extraordinary things about this Bill is that nowhere in it does the word "patient" occur. After all, the Bill is for the purpose of the patients; not for the doctors and the nurses. If the patients were not there we should not be needing the legislation. It was felt in 1947 that these bodies (the Regional Hospital Boards, for instance) should not be dominated by the medical profession. It should be made equally clear in this case that the same position exists. A Bill of this length may possibly contain a restriction to that effect which perhaps is carried over from the old Act. If so, I apologise for having raised the matter; but I have not seen it. I think it desirable that there should be these two figures, one laying down the number of local authority people who should be in and the other restricting the number of medical people who should be in.
LORD SEGAL: Before the noble Baroness replies, can she clarify the position where one of the elected members of the local authority happens to be a general practitioner? It has occurred quite often. One hopes that it will not entail his prior removal from the medical register. Would it not be more in keeping with the intention of the Amendment if it stated that not more than one-third shall be nominated medical practitioners?
LORD PLATT: I hope that we shall not agree with this Amendment. I am sorry to say this to Lord Hughes. On principle, I am against all this laying down that "there shall be three" or "there shall be four" or "there shall be two-thirds". What about half the Health Board being women?—nobody has suggested that yet. If we go on from Paragraph 2 to Paragraph 3 of the Schedule we see that the Secretary of State makes these appointments after consultation with the county councils, the town councils, the universities, the nurses' profession and other professions that he considers appropriate and such other organisations. If at the end of those consultations he has to fill at least one-third of the places with local authority people, his hands are being tied. What is more—I do not know what happens in Scotland and perhaps I have no right to

743
talk about; but I do know something about what happens in England—most prominent citizens in many English towns are not members of local authorities at all but are citizens in various walks of life—in the law or, for that matter, in medicine.
As to the second part of the noble Lord's Amendment, in general I would hope that a Health Board would have no more than one-third of its members as medical practitioners. I do not think it is the intention behind the Bill or the original National Health Act that a Health Board should consist largely of medical men. For the same reason as I am against saying that at least one-third of the members should be local authority people I am against saying that not more than one-third should be medical men. If we leave this to the Secretary of State I think that we shall get a much better result. Having read this clause and found that there is no duty on the Secretary of State to appoint a single medical man to a Health Board I would ask the noble Baroness for some assurance that there will be some likelihood of adequate medical representation; and that is almost the opposite of what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, seems to desire.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I am very grateful to noble Lords who have spoken. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Platt, exactly described the reason why I fear that I cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. Our White Paper on The Reorganisation of the Scottish Health Services stated in paragraph 17—this specifically refers to our thinking on the appointment of members of the Health Boards:
"Although members will be appointed for their personal qualities and not in a representative capacity, it is clearly desirable that they should be drawn from a wide range of experience including the health professions and local government." Therefore I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, that certainly there will be representatives from the health professions and from local government. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in a discussion on an earlier Amendment, said that he realised that in certain parts of the country there would be difficulty in getting
744
sufficient members from, for example, local government. But we have made a firm commitment to include as members persons with experience in local government and with the right personal qualities for this job. I suggest to the Committee that we should leave the flexibility as it is now in Schedule 1, because I am sure that in the end it would be in the interest both of the local authorities and also those representing the professions.
LORD HUGHES: I must admit that I am disappointed, particularly as in this case the Government are leaving out of the new Bill something which is in the present legislation. There is a limit on the number of medical practitioners who may be members of a Regional Hospital Board. I think it equally important that they should not even begin to give the impression of being professionally dominated bodies. Obviously, I must agree that it is inconceivable that any of these Boards would he appointed without a medical man on them, and even more inconceivable that they should be appointed without any members of local authorities on them. That was not the situation I sought to guard against. I wanted by the Amendment to ensure that every Board would include a reasonable number of local authority people as members. We expect that just as a Member of Parliament is the person most in touch with what is going on in national affairs—and a good Member of Parliament is also in touch with opinion in his constituency—the elected member of a local authority is generally the person in the best position to know about the feelings of the general public in matters of this kind. It does not follow that he will always do what the public want. Sometimes what is being proposed is the best thing to be done, but not the popular thing. Sometimes these Boards will do things which the general public may not want done at that time, and it would, I think, be more helpful if there was a fair sprinkling of local authority people in the membership.
I have no intention of pressing this Amendment any further, either at this or the next stage in the progress of the Bill in your Lordships' House. But because of the many representations made on this point—and undoubtedly they will continue to be made—and as I did not agree with the main point that local

745
authorities should have the direct right of naming members of the Boards, I felt that I should state the extent to which I think it reasonable that the Secretary of State should be bound. The noble Baroness will not be surprised if I say that although I am not pursuing the matter further in your Lordships' House, that does not mean the end of the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.57 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 33, line 22, leave out ("and") and insert—
("( ) the Scottish Trades Union Congress and").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple Amendment. Page 33 of the Bill gives a list of bodies which should be consulted. It includes local authorities, universities and various professions and
"such other organisations as appear to the Secretary of State to be concerned."
I have suggested the inclusion of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. The other bodies are national bodies or types of bodies which appear throughout the whole country, such as county councils, universities and the professional bodies. The S.T.U.C. is always consulted. I want to make that perfectly clear. I know that even if this Amendment is not made it is most unlikely that the Secretary of State would fail to consult the S.T.U.C.; but because it is a body so representative of a very large section of the organised community, I think it would be a good and a right thing specifically to include it among the bodies which must be consulted. I readily concede that I do not expect that the omission of the name would stop the S.T.U.C. from being consulted if past experience is a guide, even though I would not go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Platt, who said that he would not disagree with the wisdom of the Secretary of State except in a very modest way. I would enter a heavier reservation in that matter, but it would be a political point and the noble Lord. Lord Platt, was not expressing a political point of view. I have no reason to believe that a future Secretary of State would not consult the Congress. But after all, we have known previous Secretaries of State; we do not know who are
746
to be Secretaries of State. It may be that the worst may lie ahead rather than in the past. I hope therefore that the Minister will accept the Amendment.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I am afraid that I must disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I do not think it would be wise to accept this Amendment, nor do I think it necessary to do so. I suggest that it would not be wise, because if you include yet another interest (if one may put it that way) there could be endless demands for further interests to be included formally in the body of the Bill. But as the noble Lord himself recognised, the Amendment is unnecessary because the S.T.U.C. is among those organisations which are at present consulted in connection with appointments to Regional Hospital Boards. They would qualify, in particular, under paragraph 3(d) of Schedule 1, which is now under discussion, as among
"such other organisations as appear to the Secretary of State to be concerned".
I should like to give a definite assurance from this Dispatch Box that it is certainly intended that the S.T.U.C. will be among the bodies to be consulted about Health Board appointments, as indeed they have been in a different capacity up until now.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Baroness undoubtedly disappoints me, but I will give her the consolation of saying that she does not surprise me. I am happy to accept the assurance that has been given, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.2 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 33, line 34, after ("chairman") insert ("and members").
The noble Lord said: The schedule as it stands gives the Secretary of State discretion to pay the chairman of the Board. It says:
"The Secretary of State may pay to the chairman of a Health Board such remuneration as he may, with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service, from time to time determine."
This is not a mandatory thing. As the noble Baroness said on Second Reading,

747
while it has not yet been finally determined that the chairman of the Health Board should be paid, having regard to the nature of the duties it was felt right to take the power to pay him if it should ultimately be determined that that was the right thing to do. In my opinion there is no doubt at all that the decision will have to be taken to pay the chairman of a Health Board, who undoubtedly will be carrying out functions at least as onerous, and perhaps even more so and more responsible than, say, the chairman of a New Town development corporation or the chairman of a nationalised organisation in Scotland, such as the Electricity Board or the Gas Board.
In view of the fact that this is merely a power which is being taken, I think it would be right that the power should be taken to pay the members of these Boards as well as the chairman. I think it will speedily be found that membership of these Boards will make a much greater claim upon the time of the members than has been found in any of the bodies presently functioning under the Health Service. The noble Baroness on Second Reading listed the numbers of bodies that are going to be replaced by these 14, now 15, area Boards: five Regional Boards, a large number of boards of management, a considerable number of executive councils and the health functions of some 30-odd local authorities—to be carried out by 15 people, more or less. I know that matters of this kind will be governed by whatever decisions are ultimately to be made in connection with the reorganisation of local government. One could not divorce the one from the other. It may well be that the same arguments could apply to the development of a new regional authority.
I certainly should not be prepared to move that the members of these Boards must be paid, any more than I should be prepared to move at this stage that the chairman of the Board must be paid. I am quite certain that the chairman will be paid, and am almost certain that the time will arise when the members of the Boards also will be paid. As it is a permissive power, I wish to extend it so that the Secretary of State should have power, in consultation with the Minister for the Civil Service, to pay all the mem-
748
bers of the Board, if that should be found to be desirable. I beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I quite appreciate that these Amendments are designed merely to give the power, and cannot confer payment on the members of the Board as well as the chairman, but I fear that I cannot accept the Amendment because, although I agree that the work of a member of a Health Board will certainly be important, if the Boards are to be effective it will be necessary for members to leave a good deal of the detail to officers and to concentrate on the important matters of policy and planning. If they are to do this, it seems that it will not be necessary for them to spend a sufficient amount of time on the work to justify the payment of a salary. This does not apply to a chairman, and that is why, after further thought, we have taken power to pay a chairman, if necessary. No doubt the noble Lord will have noticed that under paragraph 3 of Part III of the Schedule members will be eligible under the Bill for travelling and other allowances, including allowances for loss of remunerative time, which I suggest is important. There is another matter which is of importance; namely, that if these members of a Board were paid like the chairman, it would disqualify about 200 prominent people in Scotland from standing for the House of Commons. Surely the noble Lord cannot wish that.
LORD HUGHES: I do not know why the noble Baroness should have any fears about my wishing to disqualify certain people. I can think of a lot of people in Scotland whom I should cheerfully wish not to have the right to stand for the House of Commons. But that was not the purpose of the Amendment, although it might be an incidental by-product of it. The noble Baroness said that she did not think that the duties undertaken by members would justify payment because so much of the work would be done by officials. But I have been a chairman of a New Town development corporation; and I have been a member of a board of a nationalised undertaking. No one can argue that in these bodies the work is done by the members and that they are not served by an efficient and extensive body of officials, who give them the necessary help

749
when they need it in exactly the same way as it will be given to the membership of a Health Board.
Looking back on my own experience, I cannot imagine for one moment that the work of a member of a New Town development corporation, which carries a salary, could possibly be regarded as more onerous and more worthy of remuneration than membership of a Health Board. It was never regarded as an argument against paying members of New Town development corporations that it would disqualify them from membership of the House of Commons. That seems to me to be a facetious remark, thrown in for good measure. If the noble Baroness cares to look at it, I am certain that she cannot possibly argue that the work to be done by members of these Health Boards is going to be less onerous, less important, or to call for less time than the work of some of the bodies which have had paid membership ever since their inception.
However, I do not intend to pursue the matter. This is the sort of Amendment which obviously involves the expenditure of public money and can be more appropriately pursued in another place. But I want to emphasise as strongly as I can that the Government are mistaken if they feel that they will get the sort of service they need by the repayment of travelling expenses and compensation for lost working time, which, from experience, I know always falls far short of what many people have to undergo in actual loss. Having said that, and in the confident expectation that this is not by any means the last that will be heard of proposals of this kind, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.10 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 34, line 11, leave out paragraph 10.
The noble Lord said: When I was speaking to the first Amendment I said that with one exception I did not think that any of the Amendments I was proposing would be regarded as in any way political. This exception is the one that I am now moving, and it is to leave out paragraph 10 on page 34 which reads:
750
"Regulations under paragraph 8 above shall not contain a requirement that all consultants employed for the purpose of hospitals shall be employed whole-time."
The Health Service has been in existence for 25 years, and at no time during that period has any attempt been made to require the service to be a full-time service. But if this Bill, when it becomes an Act, serves as useful a purpose as the 1947 Act, we should not be having anything other than an incidental amendment of the Health Service for some years ahead. I think it would be wrong for an embargo of this kind to be laid down for the future.
I do not expect, if this paragraph were taken out, that there would be in the immediate or even the foreseeable future any provision to make the consultancy service a whole-time one. There are still a fair number of people who work on the 10/11ths basis, which is virtually whole-time but which protects their right to private practice. I am not moving the deletion of this paragraph in the expectation that there will be any desire to make a change in the immediate future, but if we are in fact legislating for twenty years or so then I think it is wrong to have such a restriction in the Bill. I therefore beg to move that this paragraph be omitted.
LORD PLATT: May I say a word about this matter? Here again I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I should like this paragraph left in. I may say that I have not discussed this with any member of my profession. I have always believed that there should be some people who do not spend their whole time in hospital practice and who have the wide and enormously valuable experience of private practice, perhaps in all parts of the world and with people from all parts of the world. If my memory serves me aright—and I have not looked this up at all—the profession was very keen that a paragraph of this kind should be inserted in the original Act so that the principle that one need not be entirely whole-time in the Health Service could not be swept aside by some subsequent Government without the matter coming again for debate before Parliament. I think that is the reason for this paragraph and I would vote for its inclusion.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, because I understand that this particular provision is one which means a very great deal to the profession, and that is why I cannot accept the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. This provision is based on the terms of Section 12 of the National Health Service (Amendment) Act 1949. It was inserted by the then Labour Government because of fears of the medical profession that a full-time salaried service would be introduced by regulations made under the National Health Service Acts; and the 1949 Act contained an exactly similar assurance in respect of general practitioners. I may say also that the provision was inserted after long negotiations with the profession following a pledge given by the then Minister of Health, Mr. Bevan, that a full-time salaried Service was not contemplated. It is of course no part of this Bill to change what are really very long-standing arrangements. A proposal to delete this provision was not put forward either in the late Government's Green Paper or in our White Paper: and as a matter of fact even if one did delete paragraph 10 it would not prevent the Secretary of State from continuing the present agreement with the profession but it would remove the statutory assurance. As I know that the profession attach great importance to this, I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: I did indicate that I regarded this as a political Amendment, and therefore I am not surprised that the noble Baroness has not accepted it. Before withdrawing the Amendment I wish to say a few words more. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, said that it had always been accepted as desirable that a number of people in the Service should be on a part-time basis. I agree that it is desirable and that it has been found very aceptable. I do not expect, as I said earlier, that in the immediate or even the foreseeable future there will be any need for change; but I am not prepared to say that this position will remain for all time. This is what the profession want, and there would have to
752
be an Act of Parliament to change the position.
If we were legislating for only a few years, then I would not quarrel with that, but I do not think it is right that we should continue to act on the basis that it was very necessary in 1949. At that time there was a completely new Service being introduced. The medical profession generally were exceedingly suspicious of it in many ways and there were many things which had to be done in order to ensure their co-operation. But I know that many of the fears which were very genuinely held in 1947, 1948 and 1949 are not held to-day, after 25 years' experience of the Health Service, and what was then a very necessary safeguard from the profession's point of view is not necessarily of the same essence to-day. However it is obviously a point upon which there would be major disagreement, and having expressed these views, I do not feel that it would be right to do anything other than ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD PLATT: Have I the right to say something since I have been quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes? I should like it recorded for historical purposes that I disagreed with most of the medical profession on their strictures at the time of the introduction of the Health Service.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Scottish Health Service Planning Council]:
7.20 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 35, line 35, leave out ("such") and insert ("six").
The noble Lord said: There are two Amendments of this kind, one to Schedule 2 and one to Schedule 3. I should like to speak briefly to both of them. The first one concerns page 35, line 35 and refers to the membership of the Scottish Health Service Planning Council. The Bill says that one member should be appointed by each Health Board, one member by each university in Scotland which has a medical school and not more than six officers of the Secretary of State appointed by him and such other members, not being officers of

753
the Secretary of State, as may be appointed by him. I have suggested that instead of the word "such" in this and in the succeeding Schedule, there should be the word "six". This seems a reasonable Amendment; it is one which was suggested to me and I am happy to adopt it. I beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: The present provision in the Bill which refers to such other members as may be appointed by the Secretary of State has deliberately been left unspecific because it may be useful from time to time to add to the Council one or two members from industry with management and commercial experience, or at some future date there may be other special kinds of experience which might be valuable. It is unlikely that one would want to add as many as six extra members. Therefore while it would be possible to add six members in the terms of the Schedule as it now stands, I suggest to the noble Lord that one may only want to add one or two members, and perhaps he would think that it is better to leave the Schedule as it is at present drafted.
LORD HUGHES: I do not say that it is necessarily better to leave it, but I do not feel all that strongly about it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 49:
Page 36, line 10, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State must pay to the Chairman of the Council such remuneration as he may, with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service, from time to time determine.").
The noble Lord said: I will not move this Amendment, but may I briefly say that for the reasons which I mentioned in connection with the payment of membership of the other bodies it will prove in practice to be reasonable to pay the Chairmen both of the Planning Council and the Common Services Agency and to make provision that they may be paid in the same way as is being done for the Chairmen of the Boards. I should think that the reasons which the noble Baroness advanced against payments to members of the Health Board will be the ones that she will equally advance against the pay-
754
ment to the Chairmen of either of these two bodies. Suffice it to say that I think that in due course the Government will prove to have been wrong and will probably return to this point in future legislation.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY): Amendment No. 49 is not moved.
LORD DENHAM: That is out of order.
LORD HUGHES: Then I beg leave to move the Amendment, and if the noble Baroness does not wish to reply, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Schedule 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: I have one point to raise on this part of the Bill. It arises from the letter which I received from a Regional Hospital Board. I believe that the noble Baroness will be able to give a satisfactory answer to this point. The Schedule talks about one member being appointed by each Health Board. I have no doubt that that reference is to the member of the Planning Council—one member of the Planning Council to be appointed by each Health Board. But the fear has been expressed that this may be interpreted as meaning that only the members of a Health Board would be eligible for appointment and that an official could not be appointed. I do not think that that is what is intended, but is it possible that this present wording could be interpreted as precluding an official of a Health Board from being the appointee of the Health Board?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: It would not be possible. One member could be appointed and it could include such an official.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedules 3 and 4 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential Amendments of Enactments]:
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 56, line 36, after (""Board") insert "or a joint committee of Health Boards."").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment to paragraph 154 of Schedule 5 brings under the supervision of the Scottish Committee of the Council on Tribunals service committees of joint committees of Health Boards. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
7.29 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE):
My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee.
At this point I must inform your Lordships that this is a Bill to consolidate the law with amendments recommended by the Law Commissioners. The Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills were of the opinion that the recommendations of the Law Commissioners were for the purpose of producing a satisfactory consolidation of the law and they approved the recommendations without amendment. They made 50 other Amendments to the Bill to improve its form and to bring it into conformity with the existing law. The Committee state in their Report that in their opinion there is no further point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn. Therefore, unless any noble Lord Objects, I beg to move that the Order of Re-commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Re-Commitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRANSPORT HOLDING COMPANY BILL
7.30 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The VISCOUNT GOSCHEN in the Chair.]
Clause 1[Disposal of assets by, dissolution of and grants to the Transport Holding Company etc.]:
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, after ("power") insert ("otherwise than to a public corporation").
The noble Lord said: May I make two short prefatory comments? The first is that I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I speak very shortly on these Amendments because I take it that the wish of your Lordships is that, as it is a Thursday, we should finish a minute or two earlier than we did this morning. The second comment is that these Amendments are put forward at a stage when it is really more important to decide the meaning than the wording, and there will be ample opportunity at later stages of the Bill, if necessary, to make the wording precise. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will forgive us if our Amendments do not subscribe to the best and highest standards of draftsmanship.
The first Amendment, which I beg to move, is really very moderate. It seeks to give power to the Transport Holding Company to dispose of the assets with which the Bill is concerned to a nationalised industry or a public corporation, without troubling the Minister. I have carefully read the contents of the Bill, the main clause and the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, and it is perfectly clear that the main purpose of the Bill is to make sure that the Transport Holding Company is enabled to dispose of its assets—all of them. Nowhere in the Bill or in the Explanatory and

757
Financial Memorandum is there any indication of any limitation on the—I do not know the correct title; would it be the "disposee"?—person to whom the assets are disposed. Therefore I am assuming that it would be within the objects of the Bill that these assets, which are assets of a nationalised corporation and which fit very naturally and suitably within the complex of nationalised corporations which deal with transport, should presumably in the first place be transferred to another nationalised corporation within this field, if the Transport Holding Company so thinks fit. But being very moderate, as we always are on this side, we do not seek to place this as an instruction but merely as an opportunity, an option, which the Company should have. I therefore beg to move, in the hope that the Government will make it clear that this is something which is within the intention of the Bill.
LORD SANDFORD: I am glad to respond to the noble Lord's suggestion that we should at this stage deal with this Bill briefly, and I am sure we can. I was not sure when I saw the noble Lord's Amendment whether it was a paving or a wrecking Amendment. I felt fairly sure that it was defective, and fairly certain that it needs to be resisted. I am now quite clear that it is in effect a wrecking Amendment, because, as the noble Lord knows perfectly well from the Second Reading, the intention behind the Bill is to make quite certain that the Transport Holding Company, with the agreement of the Secretary of State, has the powers to arrange for the sale of the remaining assets of the Transport Holding Company, namely, Thomas Cook and Company, into the private sector. I do not think any of your Lordships on this Committee would consider it otherwise than moving in exactly the opposite direction to that which we intend, if we were to amend the Bill so that the Transport Holding Company could, without the agreement of the Secretary of State, dispose of its assets to the public sector. As the Committee knows, the intention of the Bill is to secure that the Transport Holding Company has the necessary powers, with the agreement of the Secretary of State, to dispose of its assets into the private sector. For this reason I can-
758
not do other than advise the Committee to reject this Amendment, if the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, decides to press it.
LORD DIAMOND: I am grateful to the noble Lord for a very clear answer. I regretted it extremely, but it was a very clear answer. I do not think the noble Lord was absolutely accurate in indicating to the extent he did that this puts any compulsion upon the Transport Holding Company to sell to another nationalised industry or to a public corporation. But I am grateful to him for making it absolutely clear that at this time in our affairs, when we are faced with great difficulties—to-day we had, for example, a special Statement on the development of restrictions in connection with electricity supply; we are much concerned with the problem of over a million unemployed and all those who are out of work because of the after effects (as I hope I may describe them) of the coal strike—the Government think it proper to devote the time of Parliament to a diversion of the assets of a business, big in itself but not large in relation to nationalised industries, from the public sector to the private sector, without one word—not one word—of justification in terms of the interests of the public, in terms of the interests of the taxpayer or in terms of the interests of the employees, some 5,000 of them, of Thomas Cook and Company, which is the asset in question.
All that was said on Second Reading was that the Government did not think it right to concern themselves with running this kind of business. The fact is that it has been run as a public corporation for 25 years very satisfactorily and profitably—during the whole of the period, for example, that the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, was such an adornment to the Conservative Government. He did not spend, I hope, one moment of his valuable time in considering whether it was right for Thomas Cook and Company to be in the public sector or in the private sector. He got on with matters which engaged his time much more usefully and profitably in the interests of the nation. So I am sorry that we find ourselves in the situation where the Government have introduced this Bill which does not say one word about transferring this asset to the private sector. I should hardly call this lack of candour; I

759
should call it, if I may say so, misdirecting the attention of both Houses as to the true purposes of the Bill.
It is perfectly true that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, whom I acquit of any such suggestion, made fairly clear in his Second Reading speech how he interpreted and how the Government interpreted the Bill. However, there is not a word in the Bill which says that. The Government are going to achieve their purpose only by tying the sale of the assets to the consent of the Secretary of State, and the noble Lord is telling us that the Secretary of State will not agree to the sale unless it is a sale to the private sector. Not one word of justification has been produced. It is not in the Bill. I regret it extremely. That is all I can do about it.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw the Amendment?
LORD DIAMOND: Certainly not.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
7.40 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 10, at end insert ("which consent shall not be given in any case where such disposal is likely to lead to the lessening of competition in the travel industry").
The noble Lord said: When I look at the wording of this Amendment I see that there is a possibility of misunderstanding in that the "travel industry" is a short description of the "travel agency business", but I hope that the intention of the Amendment is perfectly clear.
In Committee we cannot alter the main purpose of the Bill but we can hope to improve it within the philosophy of the Government; and the philosophy of the Government, as has been made clear by the very fact that this is to be taken out of the public sector and put into the private sector, is that competition is what produces efficiency and the best result, and various Government Ministers have made many speeches to that end. If that is the case, I think it would be helpful to make it clear in the Bill that the Minister is to be restricted to giving consent to these cases where disposal is not likely to lead to the
760
lessening of competition. This is most important because great anxiety has been expressed throughout the travel agency business as to the hands into which this uniquely large travel agency business of Thomas Cook and Sons is going to fall. It is extremely large, as everybody in your Lordships' House understands. Not only has it 5,000 employees; not only a very large turnover running into something like £300 million, taking all the aspects of the business into consideration (having something like 500 different establishments in something like 50 countries); not only is it very large and very international, it is uniquely large in that there is no other travel agency business of remotely the same size. Therefore, if this business were to go to another travel agency business and thereby lessen competition, it would be a mammoth organisation among a number of much smaller organisations, all of whom are very anxious as to how this giant would exercise its powers. Would it exercise them with care or would it exercise them brutally?
Therefore, I thought it right to table an Amendment to give the Government an opportunity of explaining, as I hope the noble Lord will be able to explain, that it is their intention to see to it that, according to their philosophy, competition in the travel agency industry is not reduced and that therefore there will be no question of allowing Thomas Cook & Sons to fall into other hands in the manner I have described. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I am glad to say that here, certainly in broad intention, there is no difference between the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and the policy of Her Majesty's Government. It is certainly not our intention that Thomas Cook and Sons should be sold to anybody in such a way as materially to reduce competition in the travel industry. On the other hand, to accept this Amendment and to include it in the Bill would put too great a constraint on my right honourable friend in coming to his decision as to which bidders to allow to bid for this company, because it may well be that in order to secure the other criteria which we are coming to in the next Amendment, some slight reduction in competition in the travel agency business ought to be accepted in order to secure that Thomas Cook and Sons

761
should be taken over and should continue to run as a going concern. Another factor is that Thomas Cook and Sons could not be sold, for instance, to one of the Air Corporations, which I understand to be one of the preferred solutions of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, without there being a lessening in competition in the travel agency business.
So the precise form of this Amendment incorporated into the Bill would involve too much constraint on my right honourable friend's discretion. But I am glad to put on record that it is his intention so to arrange the sale that there is no undue reduction in competition in the travel agency business; and of course as a fall-back position there is the Monopolies Commission and the legislation relating to monopolies which would come into play were the reduction of competition to be on a serious scale. I hope that with those assurances the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. It may be proper to add a word or two on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill, but now with the permission of your Lordships I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.47 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 10, at end insert ("provided that the Secretary of State shall not give his consent to the disposal of any such securities unless he is satisfied that those to whom disposal of such shares is proposed intend to maintain the business of Thos. Cook and Sons as a going concern").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment provides that the Secretary of State shall not give his consent to the disposal of these securities unless he is satisfied that those to whom disposal is proposed intend to maintain the business of Thomas Cook and Sons. There is the technical problem, to which I referred at the outset, that of course the assets are shares and what we are really talking about is the underlying business of Thomas Cook and Sons. Therefore, I hope that instead of going into a long and detailed Amendment which could have been phrased to give the precise
762
meaning, the Government have understood what the intention is behind this Amendment.
From what has been said previously and what the noble Lord indicated on the previous Amendment, we are not very far apart in the purpose of this Amendment. This Amendment is designed to make it clear to those who have anxiety about the future of Thomas Cook and Sons (and they are many) that this is not a stripping operation but is a transfer of a business, regrettably as we think, out of the public sector into the private sector, but nevertheless the transfer of a business with a view to maintaining and running that business.
The reason why we are bound to put stress on this is that the business of Thomas Cook and Sons is quite a varied business and consists of really severable businesses. The financial side is fairly distinct from the travel side, although in my view, and I hope in your Lordships' view, they are complementary to one another. But it is conceivable that a finance house or a group of finance houses which are concerned solely with the financial side of Thomas Cook and Sons might acquire the business solely with a view to retaining the financial side and hiving off, stripping or whatever other phrase might be appropriate, the rest of the business, ignoring the benefits of a balanced and combined business of the kind that exists already, and ignoring the proper concern of the staff. Therefore this Amendment has been tabled in the hope that the Government, if they are not able to incorporate it in the Bill itself, will be able to affirm that it is their intention, so far as they reasonably can—and one has not included here a period of years because I think that is a difficult thing to do—to ensure that the Minister, who is the responsible person, is satisfied that before he consents to the disposal of the business of Thomas Cook and Sons it is established that those who are going to acquire that business are acqiuring it with a view to running it as a whole, and for as long as they can reasonably foresee at that time in all good faith. I hope the Government will be able to confirm that that is their view. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to do what he asks, namely, to

763
confirm that it is the Government's intention that Cook's will only be sold as a going concern to somebody who will maintain the business. That is the first factor on which any potential purchaser will have to satisfy my right honourable friend. To obtain this assurance purchasers are being asked two specific questions: the minimum period for which they are willing to undertake to hold the shares of the company; and whether it would be intended to dispose of any major assets, activities or companies or to close down any major part of the Group's undertaking. They have to answer those specific questions in the course of their negotiations. But once again I think the noble Lord would agree that the matter on which he has invited me to give this assurance is one for commercial judgment rather than statutory control. It may well be that in order to keep Cook's as a going concern and to comply with monopolies legislation—not perhaps in this country but in some other country—it will be necessary to make some small adjustments to the wide spectrum which at present comprises Thomas Cook's. It is conceivable that there would be small adjustments of that kind, and that is the reason why one cannot accept an Amendment as precise as this and the reason why this kind of assurance cannot be incorporated in statutory form. But I am glad of this opportunity to repeat the assurances which have been given all along in the course of the passage of this Bill.
LORD DIAMOND: That is a very clear assurance indeed, and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DIAMOND: There are two matters which arise on Clause 1. The first is not a question, but a criticism. It has now become absolutely clear that the purpose of the Bill is not the purpose described in the Bill, and I am bound to say that this is an unfortunate and un-candid way of legislating. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has made it absolutely clear that it is the Government's intention—and the Government are entitled to have their way so long as the Opposition
764
have their say—to transfer Cook's from the public sector to the private sector. If that is so the Government should stand on their philosophical beliefs and say so in the Bill. There is not one word in the Bill which says that. So I regret that the Bill is as lacking in candour as it appears to a layman like myself to be. That is the comment.
The question to the noble Lord is, can we have his view, and I hope his assurance, that the transferee of the shares will be a body or individual which is British? I hope I am not giving the wrong impression. It is very important indeed, where you have a business which handles something between £90 million and £100 million a year in travellers' cheques, which is of such interest to our balance of payments, which is so essentially a matter of credit and good faith, that it should remain, if not in 100 per cent. British hands, completely and undeniably under British control. There are already provisions and regulations under our Statutes which would ensure its continuance in that way. I hope the noble Lord can give that assurance.
LORD SANDFORD: I think the noble Lord will recall that at Second Reading I virtually gave that assurance. It certainly will be the intention that Thomas Cook's will remain in British hands. I do not rule out the possibility that among the bidders there might be a consortium which would contain foreign elements, and that might in all the circumstances be better. But I am certainly glad to give the assurance that it is the hope and intention of my right honourable friend that Thomas Cook's should remain in British hands and British control.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment; Report received.

WHYTELEAFE COUNTY SCHOOL FOR GIRLS
7.57 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I rise to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the full consequences of the action by the Secretary of State for Education and Science in disapproving the proposal of Surrey

765
County Council to cease to maintain Whyteleafe County School for Girls as a separatist establishment, a decision which is of much more than local interest and importance. It betokens a determination by the Secretary of State to interfere with local education authorities' plans for educational development to a point which threatens the very principles on which those plans are based. I am not at all sure who is going to reply to the debate. I notice that the Minister who replied to my Question last week is not present. I shall be addressing a number of quite specific points to him, and I hope I shall get some reply.
I am myself a member of the Surrey County Council and of its education committee; also I am a member of that authority's south eastern division education executive and chairman of that executive's development committee. Perhaps I should say that the County Council is overwhelmingly Conservative in its membership. At divisional level Party political affiliations are not so pronounced. I have a further general interest in that I seek for all children the educational opportunities such as the best and wisest parents desire for their own children, and I have no hesitation in saying that the maintenance of an élitist system based on selection and separatism is a denial of that aim. I sought in a Starred Question a week ago to get a simple answer to what I thought was a straightforward question. The Question then was to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend that Surrey County Council shall continue to select pupils for this school, having regard to the decision of the Secretary of State for Education and Science not to approve Surrey's proposal to cease to maintain it as a separatist establishment within a scheme for comprehensive reorganisation of secondary education. I have studied the replies given then pretty closely and there seems to me to be a need for further probing to ascertain whether the full implications of that disapproval are understood, and certainly to get more of the story on the record.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said in reply to a supplementary question from my noble friend Lord Shepherd:
"The arrangements for admissions to a voluntary school are entirely up to either the County Council or its managers or governors."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17/2/72, col. 306.]
766
It is only a small point, but this is not a voluntary school, it is a State-maintained school. What I really found puzzling is that I had earlier been told by the Minister at col. 303:
"the effect of my right honourable friend's decision is that the Whyteleafe County School for Girls remains a school that admits pupils by reference to their ability."
Can we have this discrepancy cleared up this evening? How can admission be made according to ability without some form of selection? Here it may be pertinent if I ask the Minister to state in quite unequivocal terms whether this Government believe in a system of selection for admission to secondary schools or not? Or is this a matter, will he tell us, that they intend should be left to the local authority? If this latter attitude obtains, how is the action of the Secretary of State defensible since Surrey propose to abolish selection in this part of the county, and that was one of the reasons for the Section 13 notice for Whyteleafe County School for Girls?
I now turn to the statement made by the Minister last week that out of 22 proposals submitted by the County Council for primary and secondary reorganisation in the area concerned—that is to say, Warlingham, Whyteleafe, Caterham and Oxted—on Plowden and comprehensive lines respectively, 21 had been approved. That left only one not approved, and it sounded so very reasonable. It gave no idea of the fact that the one proposal that was disapproved was an integral part of the whole scheme, and without it the scheme was placed in jeopardy.
First, the proposal to close Whyteleafe, which is a girls' grammar school, went hand in hand with a proposal to close De Stafford, a mixed bilateral secondary school. The resources of the two schools were to be combined in a new school in buildings already on the De Stafford site. Proceeding in this way meant that the staffs of the two schools would be given equal treatment and equal chances in the new situation. Indeed, the headmistress of the Whyteleafe School had been selected as head designate of the proposed new school, but disapproval of the proposal for Whyteleafe really means there is to be no new school, and the decision to approve the closure of De Stafford is therefore a pretty meaningless operation—unless it is thought that

767
a mere change in the label on a school could be meaningful. The approvals for change in the character of Warlingham Secondary School and Oxted County School are also of little value if selection is to be continued in the area, and this accounts for four out of the 22 proposals. One was disapproved, and by that disapproval the approvals for the other three are quite meaningless. The other 18 proposals were for primary schools.
Here arises another serious consequence. The Whyteleafe school buildings are needed—and I am saying "are needed" not "were needed"—to accommodate a new middle school to serve Whyteleafe and North Caterham, to provide accommodation for over 400 children in the 8 to 12 age range. The disapproval of the proposal to combine Whyteleafe and De Stafford denies the local education authority the opportunity to use those buildings for that purpose. To build a new middle school to cater for such a number of children as I have mentioned would cost, shall we say, to build the building alone, a figure of somewhere between £150,000 to £200,000—and on a new site that has yet to be acquired. That means an addition to the building programme of that amount of money, or it means deferring some other very urgent work. The County Council has been quite unable to find an alternative site to date. Even if it could find one—and I am reliably informed that the prospects are very bleak indeed—and even if it got permission to increase its building programme, it could not build that new school in five minutes. The date set for Plowden reorganisation of primary education in that area is September 1973.
Progress to date, then, for the new middle school is no site, no approved figure in the building programme, no plans, and little prospect indeed of getting a site. Even if all could be secured, it is anybody's guess how long before the school could be ready for occupation—1974, 1975, 1976? Perhaps the Minister would care to give us his idea as to when we might expect to get something.
One gets the impression that the Secretary of State has not really looked at the proposals as a whole. It seems that she looks at each individual school and, in doing so in this case, she has not realised that each proposal fitted into an
768
overall plan. I ask the Minister to tell us what consideration was given to the overall plan, and what attention was given to the integral importance of the Whyteleafe proposal. Further, will he say what the Secretary of State's attitude was to ending selection in the area, because the County Council sought, when it drew up these plans, to honour its 1967 declaration of intent to abolish selection, to end separatism and to reorganise on comprehensive lines? The Minister referred last week to what he thought, as he put it, were not very many refusals to approve proposals for a change in character, or for the establishment or closure of schools. I think I am right in saying that no Secretary of State for Education has ever before in a like period refused 35 proposals in respect of secondary schools. I think I am right in saying that the scale of refusal is unprecedented.
Reference was made a week ago by the Minister to 7,000 objections that were sent in in regard to the Section 13 notice for Whyteleafe. I think the figure was probably nearer 8,000. A very interesting campaign indeed was mounted to secure these signatures. I should like the Minister when he replies to tell us a little more about the stereotyped objections to which he referred—at least, if he did not refer to them, they have been referred to in correspondence from his Department. How many of these 7,000-odd objections were stereotyped? How many were like the copy I hold in my hand, which does not even mention the Whyteleafe School? If the Minister is unaware of what that is he can look at it. I should like him, when he replies this evening, to tell us how many of the objections submitted were in that form—a form which makes no reference at all to the Whyteleafe School.
Since Whyteleafe is only a two-form entry school—that is to say, 60 pupils are admitted a year—it is truly remarkable, is it not, that nearly 8,000 people are said to have objected? I should like to know how many of them were residents within the new Surrey, and how many of them were residents of Croydon, which has already decided to go comprehensive.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I think

769
he ought to know this. So far as we know, the objections which we took into account were from statutory objectors; that is, local government electors.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I accept that from the noble Lord. I hope he will give me equally explicit and firm information with regard to the question which I addressed to him about stereotyped objections. I raised the point about Croydon residents, because I have very good reason to know that a very large proportion of the children at Whyteleafe are the children of Croydon residents. The County Council recently had difficulty with the Secretary of State in regard to a Section 13 notice at Merstham. I think there was then reference to a large number of objections. Perhaps many people would feel that the reactions locally to the Secretary of State's decision should have persuaded her that she had been badly misled in her assessment of the situation. Other local education authorities have had some difficulty with the Secretary of State; I think Worcestershire is a recent casualty.
The proposals which the Surrey County Council submitted for this part of the country were part of an overall plan which sought to make wise use of resources, meeting local needs and wishes. I am telling the Minister from my own experience, because I was involved in a great many of the meetings, that there was probably more local consultation in this area in regard to these proposals than in almost any other part of the country. I doubt whether so many meetings and consultations have been held in many other parts of the country. I ask: why should L.E.A.s be so treated and denied the greater freedom that was promised them in Circular 10/70? The Minister made some reference last week to Circular 10/65. When my right honourable friend Anthony Crosland sent out Circular 10/65, he had taken the precaution of consulting the appropriate organisations within the service of education and he sought to persuade. The present Secretary of State for Education and Science does not have an unblemished record in the matter of issuing circulars without consultation. She fulfils a boast by a diehard Tory supporter of hers in Surrey, when he declared, not only in my hearing but in
770
the hearing of all the members of the Education Committee:
"She's the boss now and can do what she likes."
That is how she seems to be behaving, and there is a great deal of unhappiness throughout the service of education.
A reading of the national and local Press shows that she is constantly under criticism because of the manner in which she is riding roughshod when she has made up her mind what she intends to happen. No, my Lords. I know that that kind of thing suits some people in Surrey, such as the individual who made the remark which I have quoted. But it would be a useful exercise—and I would urge this—to give attention to the statement made by the Chairman of Surrey Education Committee on February 4 at the last meeting of the County Education Committee. He is a very good Tory. He is one of the best Tories, with a very considerable interest in, and service to, the cause of education. This is how he concluded his statement to the Education Committee dealing with this matter. He said:
"In a matter which so directly affects the educational policy of the County Council, it is unfortunate that the Secretary of State was not able to hold discussions with the County Council before reaching her decision which seems to be inconsistent with Circular 10/70, in which an assurance was given that authorities would be freer to determine the shape of secondary provision in their areas. The decision is particularly unfortunate in that it has been taken in respect of an area adjoining the areas of three neighbouring authorities, all of which have introduced completely comprehensive arrangements in their maintained systems of education."
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the issue involved here is of importance far beyond the County of Surrey, as evidenced by the attention that has been given to it in the Press, both nationally and locally.
8.16 p.m.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, I hope that I shall not detain your Lordships very long, having regard to the lateness of the hour, but there were certain remarks made on the occasion of the other Question being asked which might be expanded a little. For instance, at column 306 of Hansard for February 17, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in reply to some remarks of mine which were

771
perhaps somewhat derogatory of the Minister, is quoted as saying that he thought on the figures that the Minister had been eminently reasonable. He referred to the fact that 3,700 proposals had been submitted and that she had refused only 57; that is, a ratio of one in 65. He went on to give us figures of 1,400 for secondary education, and said that 35 of the 57 refusals related to secondary education; that is, a ratio of one in 40. But the ratio of one in 40 for secondary education becomes one in 105 in the case of the remaining 2,300. In other words, it is apparently much easier for the Minister to approve proposals relating to primary education than it is for her to approve proposals for secondary education. In the case of the 35, it would he interesting to know in how many a grammar school of some form or other was involved.
My noble friend has already mentioned the 7,000 objections. It would be interesting to know how they were obtained. I live in the area; hence, my interest in this matter. Someone knocked at my door and asked me to sign a petition against the closing of Whyteleafe County School for Girls. I said that I would not do so, but I was not told why I was being asked to sign. Evidently, I was regarded as hostile and that person did not waste much time on me. But I probably knew more about the matter than the person who was trying to get my signature. I should like to know precisely how the Department deals with those 7,000 objections. I was a member of the Public Petitions Committee in another place, and for one period was Chairman of it. We examined petitions and threw out those signatures which did not appear to conform to the requirements of the petition, or to the law with relation to the submission of petitions.
The document which my noble friend mentioned states:
"In particular, I object to the fact that the poposals will have as a general objective that Caterham School (direct grant) …"
Caterham School, a direct grant school, has nothing at all to do with Section 13. It says that they believe in the special value of this type of school,
"but it is clear that the intention that pupils in that area will not be given the option of
772
undergoing selection for a place in a grammar school will mean that local boys will no longer be able to obtain free county day places in Caterham."
That, again, is not a statement of fact.
"This in turn will almost certainly lead to the loss of the school's direct grant status."
What authority has anybody for saying that? Certainly they have not the authority of the school to say this. What authority has anybody to say this sort of thing and to put it up to the Minister as a valid objection to the closing of Whyteleafe Girls' Grammar School? As I say, the school is not even mentioned here. Now according to what the noble Lord said, the 7,000 objectors were on this particular aspect of the matter. If that is so, just how is this reconciled? Were there 7,000 other than these people who signed this form? Have all those that did not refer specifically to Whyteleafe Grammar School been rejected?
Another factor is this. How does the thing square up? I appreciate that every local government elector has a right. Let us put this against what the county council itself did. It sought meetings with parents, and it sought to explain the proposals to them. If one takes the opposite point of view, some 6,000 parents were opposed—parents, mark you; not the local government electors in general, who might be anybody. It might be me, for instance, and at my age I have no further interest in education from a personal point of view, or from the point of view of children or grandchildren or anything else. My interest, to say the least of it, would be academic. So there is to be set against this the wishes of 6,000 parents. And how many of the 7,000 were in fact parents, either of girls at the grammar school or potential pupils, those who might go to the grammar school? These are the people whose objections are valid, and I recognise them as being valid. But I do not recognise, generally speaking, that an overall objection to comprehensive education, which is the basis of this objection, should be used in this particular case in order to bolster the Minister's decision—a decision which she obviously likes to take—that a grammar school, irrespective of the merits of the case, shall be kept in operation. That I honestly believe is what she has done in this particular case, against the whole weight of evidence.

773
Now what does the Minister propose to do? How does the Minister propose that primary education shall be reorganised? Of course, this is now allowed to go by the board. The Minister did not call the county council into consultation and say to them, "Look, I have had many objections; I am not inclined to approve the whole of your proposals", and go into it with the county council as to what might be done as alternatives. Not in the least! It is just a plain, blank refusal under Section 13; and the effect of a refusal under this section really means that the whole scheme goes by the board. The reorganisation of Warlingham goes by the board because you really cannot organise comprehensive education so long as yon have selection, and so long as you maintain selection you do not get comprehensive schools. There used to be a phrase which we used in the education world years ago though we do not hear so much about it now. We called it "parity of esteem". Obviously, parity of esteem is of vital importance, and there will be no parity of esteem in this area so long as there is selection. That is the reason why comprehensive education has become so much more popular in the country as a whole. Once you get rid of the political bias on either one side or the other, it is accepted in most parts of the country now as being the means by which parity of esteem is obtained in secondary education.
There is another factor in this, too. It does not appear so very much at the moment, but it will. Take staffing ratios. Staffing ratios, on the unitary basis, give a higher staffing ratio to those schools which have a higher proportion of children above the age of 16. By the very nature of things, Whyteleafe Girls' Grammar School will be entitled to the extra benefit of that staffing ratio. I am not saying that the staffing ratio itself is wrong, but you see the effect of it when that school is used for a two-form entry grammar school. The staffing could be spread and employed much better and there could be more qualified teachers, both in the Warlingham and in the De Stafford schools, and a better balance provided. It is not even that there is much particular gain in this action by the Secretary of State, because, if I may mention this very briefly, at the Whyte-
774
leafe Girls' School 20 "O" level courses are available and 16 "A" level courses. At the Stafford school, there are 30 "O" level courses available and 17 "A" level courses. Again, in the Warlingham School there are 22 "O" levels and 14 "A" levels. Consequently, the fact that it is a bigger school gives a wider variety of opportunities to all the children than could be obtained in a narrow two-form entry school.
This ought to be something which should weigh with the Minister. If she would put aside the prejudice which she has in favour of grammar schools at all costs and deal with this on its merits, something could be done; because unless this is done there is no question about any reorganisation of primary education. There is no reorganisation of primary education until a middle school can be provided; and now the middle school has to start de novo. It so happens that this school. Whyteleafe Girls' Grammar School fitted beautifully into the picture. It is just a shade larger than was required for the purposes of a middle school not too small, but just a shade larger—and that is not a bad fault, I should have thought. But now it has to start off de novo. It has to find a site, and get the planning authority to agree to it. I must say that in my experience of the local planning authority they will not very readily approve any sort of site with regard to the provision of a school. It will take quite some time to do this. In the meantime, education in this part of Surrey stands still, and it stands still purely because of the prejudice of the Minister.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, if the House will allow me, I should like to make a correction. I said that the Minister referred last week to Circular 10/65. He in point of fact referred to Circular 10/66. I am sorry that I made the mistake: I had no wish to do him an injustice.
8.27 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, I must apologise for not being in my place when the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, began speaking. It was extremely discourteous of me, and not intended; but I think I

775
am right in saying that the noble Lord only spoke of something which I know very well, which is his position in the affairs of local government in Surrey. I would recognise at once that, although we do not agree on the subject of the noble Lord's Unstarred Question this evening, one thing on which we do agree (I know of it and recognise it) is the selfless work which the noble Lord does; and I know also of the great interest which the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, takes in the affairs of the county in which those noble Lords live.
My Lords, may I turn immediately to the statutory proposals which were submitted to my right honourable friend for changes in the school provision in South East Surrey? These, under Section 13 of the Education Act 1944, as both noble Lords have said, provided for the establishment of three comprehensive schools—one at Caterham, one at Warlingham and one at Oxted—and a system of first and middle schools in the Caterham and Warlingham area. A system of this sort has already been established, I think, in the Oxted catchment area. There were, as the noble Lord said, twenty-two proposals, and twenty-one, including those for the three comprehensive schools, were approved on February 1. It was the proposed closure of Whyteleafe County School for Girls, a two-form entry grammar school, which was rejected.
I put it to the House that it is essential to emphasise at the very beginning of any discussion on this subject that any Secretary of State, whoever he or she may be, has a clear statutory responsibility to examine on its own merits and in the light of any objections each individual proposal which a local education authority submits. Of course individual proposals are frequently associated with others in the same area; and we examine very carefully the various aspects and implications of what may be called a set of proposals—in this case 22. But nothing can in any way diminish the statutory responsibility for an individual proposal, to which I have just referred.
Now in the case of the Whyteleafe School, objections to the closure were received, as the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, himself said, from about 7,000
776
people. That number did not include any objections (there were over 1,000, I think) which were put on the direct grant point. It was clear that there was a wide measure of opposition to the disappearance of this respected grammar school; and by "disappearance" I mean that the effect of the proposals was that for the existing pupils and existing age range, Whyteleafe School would have ceased to exist. My right honourable friend regards it as very important that parents should have as wide a choice as possible, and although she recognises that it may not always be possible to retain particular schools when reorganisation takes place, she concluded here, having very carefully considered all the evidence available to her, that there was no adequate reason why the Whyteleafe School should not continue in its present form. If it is the authority's wish, she would of course be ready to consider a proposal that the age of entry to the school should be changed to fit in with the arrangements elsewhere in the area.
My right honourable friend is aware that as the Whyteleafe School remains one which admits pupils by reference to ability, some method of selection will continue to be necessary. The form which this should take is entirely a matter for the authority. In the past the Government, in Opposition and in office, have made their view clear that 11-plus may well be too early to make final decisions about a pupil's educational future, and in this case I would point out that the approval of the three comprehensive schools means that there is no need for any girl to take part in selection procedures unless the parents so wish.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I intervene? There is at present no need for parents to subject their children to this selection procedure if they wish to opt out; so this involves no change at all. I should like to get this clear while the Minister is speaking. I assure him that within the county there is very great concern—I am probably in some danger—but there is no change likely to take place at Oxted, De Stafford or Warlingham. They are already taking and catering for children up to the age of 18. I want to be under no illusion. Is the Minister saying quite clearly that the Government recognise that selection

777
will have to continue if Whyteleafe is maintained?
LORD BELSTEAD: Yes, my Lords, that is so. I wonder whether I might cover the other points raised by the noble Lord in a moment. I will indicate when.
Last week in this House the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, complained of my right honourable friend's decision on the grounds that there is no maintained grammar school for boys in the area. Of course this has been the case for a long time, and boys who qualify for grammar school places have been provided for outside the area. But it cannot logically be claimed that the absence of a local grammar school for boys justifies the closure of the girls' grammar school. Surely the noble Lord would not argue that because the boys do not enjoy this facility, it must be taken away from the girls.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords the position was that there was provision for boys by arrangement between Surrey and the adjoining authorities; but the two adjoining authorities, East Sussex and Croydon, are now comprehensive and therefore the grammar school type of education which was formally available for boys, say at Purley, is no longer available. That is the difference.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I understand that the authority have made arrangements, certainly for the forthcoming year, to continue to take up places in one of the schools the noble Lord mentioned. It is a direct grant school in which Surrey have taken up places in the past and my information is it will continue to take them up. I am glad of that. But here again, the approval of three comprehensive schools will mean that no boy, whatever his academic ability may be, will need to travel outside the area if his parents do not wish him to do so.
Noble Lords opposite have expressed themselves as perplexed. I join them. I do not understand why the two noble Lords hold that the presence of a small girls' grammar school in the same area as three comprehensive schools (which are going to consist of 1,200 pupils and will have sixth forms of the size indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter) should be something which cannot work.
778
Before coming to the House this evening, I turned up the results of the 1969/70 G.C.E. "O" level passes obtained in Surrey. They make remarkable reading. I know that the noble Lords opposite will be proud of their county. What they also showed, if one looked broadly at the sort of level of selection that there has been over the last six or eight years in Surrey, is that about half the pupils who gain four or more G.C.E. "O" levels in Surrey schools do not come from grammar schools at all. For this reason I welcome this opportunity to point out that comprehensive and grammar schools can be run in the same locality, and particularly in Surrey where the population is reasonably concentrated and growing, and where the level of ability and the voluntary staying on rate are both above the national average.
One purely practical criticism of the decision is that the retention of the girls' grammar school will deny the authority the use of the buildings needed to house one of the middle schools. Approval has been given to the authority's proposal to establish a middle school to serve Whyteleafe and North Caterham; but it is true that, before this proposal can be implemented, it may well be necessary to wait for the inclusion of a project in a building programme. However, it is for the authority itself to review the situation in the light of my right honourable friend's decision to consider whether there are any alternative ways of proceeding. As I made it clear last week we, of course, are ready to consider any proposals or suggestions which the authority may formulate. I have indicated that although there must be regard to the implications of a "set" of proposals, nevertheless under Section 13(4) of the 1944 Act the Secretary of State's inescapable function is to accept or reject the individual proposals put forward by local authorities. It would be quite wrong to assume that a proposal must be approved regardless of merit, simply because rejection had implications elsewhere. I am certain that such a substantial and experienced authority as Surrey would not make this assumption, and that the noble Lord will appreciate that the factors which should weigh in Section 13 decisions are the merits or defects of each proposal.
In the case of Whyteleafe School the large volume of objectors put forward a

779
variety of reasons, educational and social, why this school should remain. Bearing in mind the factors I have submitted to the House, and bearing in mind that the proposals would have destroyed the school and removed the pupils to a different location, the Department wrote to the authority on February 1, including these words:
"The Secretary of State has reached this decision after very careful consideration of all the relevant facts, the views expressed by local government electors and the authority's observations on the objections received. She has had regard to the desirability of preserving wherever possible existing opportunities open to parents and children. In her view the balance of educational advantage lies in enabling this school to continue to make its contribution to the provision available in the area".
I respect the responsibility which Lord Garnsworthy feels towards the authority in which he holds an official position; but I must say that I am surprised that he can pitch his Question this evening as though my right honourable friend's decision does not command majority support when, in another place, the Member of Parliament for the constituency went out of his way at Question Time to welcome this decision. I am surprised that the noble Lord can demon-state that responsibility in an Unstarred Question of this nature against the background of his Party's record in secondary education over a period of six years, for it was, as the noble Lord was good enough to say, the Labour Party which sought to enforce its will by Circular 10/66 which made clear that no major allocation would be forthcoming for secondary projects incompatible with comprehensive schools. And in 1970 the Labour Party introduced the Bill threatening to do by legislation what it could not otherwise do namely, forbid maintained schools unless they were comprehensive. I put it to noble Lords that it is hardly surprising that this Government were able to claim in their Circular 10/70 that authorities would now be freer to determine the shape of secondary provision in their area. My right honourable friend has been true to that pledge.
I gave the figures to your Lordships' House last week: 1,400 proposals for secondary schools since July 1970 and only 35 refusals. In my opinion that is
780
a record which speaks for itself, when authorities are not under any duress not to put forward proposals, or to put forward proposals. That is a situation very different from that in the previous six years. These decisions are taken after examining each case on its merits, which indeed, my Lords, is nothing more nor less than the requirements of the law. To make these judgments is the proper function of any Secretary of State, and this is what my right honourable friend will continue to do.
UNITED REFORMED CHURCH BILL [H.L.]
UPPER AVON NAVIGATION BILL [H.L.]
Examiners' Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable have been complied with, received, and Bills committed to a Select Committee.

  FISHERIES RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
  FISHERIES RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT