Sitting of 2 March 1972

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

  THAMES BARRIER AND FLOOD PREVENTION [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to empower the Greater London Council to provide and operate a flood barrier, with movable gates, across the River Thames in Woolwich Reach, and in connection therewith to execute subsidiary works and to acquire lands; to confer further powers on the Greater London Council, the Essex River Authority and the Kent River Authority and other authorities; and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums which the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may pay out of moneys provided by Parliament by way of land drainage grant under section 15 of the Agriculture Act, 1937, section 55 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, section 38 of the Land Drainage Act, 1961, or section 37 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1968.— [Mr. Weatherill.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Unemployment
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures nationally, and by regions of the United Kingdom.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): At 14th February the provisional number of people registered as wholly unemployed in the United Kingdom was 968,927. In addi-
    716
    tion 649,017 temporarily stopped workers were registered as unemployed. I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT similar information for regions.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that when these figures were announced last week, we read in all the newspapers that the outlook was improving? Is he also aware that three months earlier one of his ministerial colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry said that the unemployment figures would not double during the lifetime of the present Government? Now that that has happened, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can answer a more realistic question. Will he now give a guarantee that at the end of the Government's term of office the wholly unemployed will be less than half the present total?
    Mr. Carr: I will not give any guarantee of that kind, any more than any Minister in my position has ever given any guarantee, or any more than Ministers in the previous Government undertook to double unemployment, which they succeeded in doing in their four years of office. I point out to the hon. Gentleman and the House that the seasonally adjusted number of wholly unemployed last month rose by only 1,000, which was the smallest increase in that number for well over a year. That is some cause for a belief that the recent upward trend is now levelling off, particularly when coupled with the fact that the seasonally adjusted number of vacancies also rose.
    Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order. I apologise for raising the point now, Mr. Speaker, but it is rather urgent. Many hon. Members have been to the Vote Office and found that there are no Order Papers available to us, so we do not know what Questions are being asked. Still less do we understand the answers.
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think there is very much I can do about that. I have noted the point.
    Mr. Hamilton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This has put some of us in an impossible situation. I do not know whether it will be in order—[An HON. MEMBER: "They are there now."] If they are now in the Vote Office, I shall be gratified. But when hon. Members from both sides of

    717
    the House were at the Vote Office two minutes ago, no copies were available. If it is in order, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the House should adjourn for 10 minutes until supplies are available to us.
    Mr. Speaker: That would not be appropriate in my view.
    Mr. Scott: Will my right hon. Friend add emphasis to his last remark by quantifying for us the improvement in the vacancies position? Looking at the figures, it seemed to me that this was one of the first hopeful signs that the basic employment situation was now improving.
    Mr. Carr: I can tell my hon. Friend and the House that the number of unfilled vacancies increased last month by 10,494 and that this represented, on a seasonally adjusted basis, a rise of 7,300.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order. I confess, Mr. Speaker, that I find some difficulty in this situation. What surprises me is that you have not been informed that apparently no Order Papers are available. It is extremely difficult to follow the Questions without them. Some hon. Members have them, but what they have is the full Order Book. They are not the usual Order Papers. We do not have a list of Questions and apparently the Vote Office has run out of them, perhaps because of a strike, because they have not been printed or have not arrived. I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, that you had not been informed of this difficulty before Question Time.
    Mr. Hamilton: May I advise you, Mr. Speaker, that not only is the Order Paper not available but that the Order Book also is not available? I inquired a minute ago and I was told that the Stationery Office is sending supplies but cannot guarantee when they will arrive. Hon. Members are sitting here virtually defenceless in the face of this situation.
    Mr. Speaker: I think we must get on. I share the hon. Member's surprise and I should have been told about this. I will certainly go into the matter. Perhaps as we move from Question to Question, as each hon. Member asks his Question he will say what the Question is.
    Mr. Hamilton: Further to the point of order. May I suggest, Mr. Speaker,
    718
    that each hon. Member reads out his Question?
    Mr. Speaker: That is exactly what I have just said.
    Following is the information:

    PROVISIONAL NUMBERS REGISTERED AS UNEMPLOYED AT 14TH FEBRUARY, 1972

    Wholly unemployed

    Temporarily stopped

    South East

    185,887

    28,074

    East Anglia

    22,982

    3,025

    South West

    56,022

    11,760

    West Midlands

    88,171

    218,464

    East Midlands

    47,901

    78,621

    Yorkshire and Humberside

    91,405

    103,101

    North West

    141,389

    76,480

    North

    88,372

    34,407

    Wales

    54,846

    22,264

    Scotland

    148,823

    69,229

    Northern Ireland

    43,129

    3,592

    Unemployment Benefit
    Mr. Ralph Howellasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons included in the latest unemployment total do not receive unemployment pay.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Howell): On 8th November, 1971, the latest date for which an estimate has been made, about 191,000 people registered as unemployed were estimated to be receiving neither unemployment benefit nor supplementary allowances.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he please explain these extraordinary figures?
    Mr. David Howell: There are various reasons why some unemployed persons show up in the figures as getting nothing. About two-thirds of them are persons whose entitlement is still being determined or has been exhausted or who do not satisfy the contribution conditions. Some married women and school leavers are in this category.
    Mr. Fell: On a point of order. This is not good enough. We are all most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your help in this matter. You have asked hon. Members to read out their own Questions and that is quite understandable. Now, suddenly, out of the blue, a number of Order Papers have arrived. If the firms

    719
    which publish the Order Papers are unable to deliver them, will you please make inquiries about Great Yarmouth? We will give you Order Papers, print them daily and make sure they are here.
    Mr. Speaker: I have noted what the hon. Member has said. I now call Mr. Kinnock for a supplementary question on Question No. 2.
    Mr. Kinnock: I had difficulty in hearing the Minister because of the activities of the usherette on one side and the prima ballerina on the other. Did I hear correctly that about one in four of the unemployed are not receiving unemployment benefit? How many of them are not receiving it because they have had inadequate redundancy payment awards in lieu of notice which under the present regulations disqualifies them from receiving unemployment pay?
    Mr. David Howell: The hon. Member in seeking to hear above the hubbub did not get the figure quite right. It is more like one in five—21 per cent. Of these about 37 per cent. became unemployed shortly before the day of the count of the figures, and of the remainder 41 per cent. were not receiving benefit for various reasons which in some cases included that mentioned by the hon. Member. In some cases people have no entitlement because they do not satisfy the contribution conditions and some are disallowed or disqualified from receipt of benefit at the time the count is taken.

    Sunderland
    Mr. Willeyasked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the percentage of male unemployment in Sunderland at the latest available date.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): Based on those wholly unemployed in the Wear-side travel-to-work area, the male unemployment rate on 14th February was 11 per cent. Substantial numbers of workers were laid off because of the fuel crisis and if those temporarily stopped are included the rate, based on the total number of males registered as unemployed, was 12·9 per cent. These figures are provisional.
    Mr. Willey: Does the Minister realise that these are wholly unacceptable
    720
    figures and that Sunderland has suffered exceptionally high unemployment for several years? The Sunderland Conservative Association has been driven to demand that this matter should be considered at Cabinet level. May I be assured that this will be done?
    Mr. Smith: The whole question of unemployment is considered at Cabinet level. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the figures are wholly unacceptable. But there has been a slight but very welcome improvement in the situation on Wearside. The total number of men wholly unemployed is down by 0·2 per cent. compared with last month. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would also care to reflect, as a former Minister in a Labour Administration, that unemployment did not start under the Tories. Two years ago over 6,000 men were wholly unemployed on Wearside.
    Mr. John Fraser: Do not the double sets of figures that the Minister gives in answer to questions show that since 1970 the Government, by their industrial policy, have produced more days lost in strikes and unemployment than any Government since the end of the Second World War?
    Mr. Smith: No, I do not accept that. The hon. Member is getting on to the realms of strikes. No one is disguising that there is a very serious situation on Wearside, as there is in the whole of that part of the North East. The important thing is to get on, cure the difficulties and get to the root causes, and that is what we are doing.

    Noise
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will now introduce legislation to control noise levels in factories and other places of work.
    Mr. R. Carr: My Industrial Health Advisory Committee is meeting on 14th March to consider, among other matters, a draft code of practice for reducing the exposure of employed persons to noise.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that most encouraging answer. May I draw his attention to the new evidence of damage to hearing

    721
    which is apparently much more widespread among those who have to work in certain manufacturing industries, and may I impress upon him the need to have properly silenced equipment and other noise suppressing devices in industrial environments?
    Mr. Carr: I agree that this is a most important matter and we in this country and, no doubt, people in other industrial countries have been rather slow in dealing with it. I will do all I can to see that it is taken very seriously.
    Dr. Stuttaford: Will the new Employment Medical Advisory Services Bill help in controlling the problem of damage caused by noise?
    Mr. Carr: I hope so, because the underlying idea behind it is that we should have a medical service available for advising industry in future and investigating problems of this kind. I certainly hope it will contribute to solving the problem.
    Mr. Harold Walker: I welcome the fact that the Industrial Health Advisory Committee is to look at what the Minister has drawn to its attention. Is he aware, however, that this does not go far enough? In the light of the recent court judgment when a precedent was set, a worker was awarded very substantial damages for what is now being classed by the court as industrial deafness. Does not this precedent establish a very powerful case for the Government to classify industrial deafness as an industrial injury?
    Mr. Carr: This may be an important matter but, as the hon. Member knows, it is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I will draw his attention to what has been said.

    "Training for the Future"
    Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for Employment how the proposals contained in the booklet, "Training for the Future", are being publicised in development areas.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Paul Bryan): The proposals in "Training for the Future" have attracted wide-scale attention in the Press, including the Press in development areas.
    Mr. Steel: It is extremely important that these proposals should be made widely available to employers and trade unions in the development areas because there has been disquiet over the years in some areas because levies are paid for training schemes which are not available in the areas in which the firms are situated. It is very important that they be brought fully into consultation on the proposals.
    Mr. Bryan: This is not a document which is expected to have mass circulation. We have circulated no fewer than 150,000 copies and the reprint is now being made. It has been gratifying to see the very wide publicity given to the document, in particular in Scotland, although I understand not yet in the hon. Member's constituency. We hope that perhaps he will put that right.
    Mr. Redmond: To what extent is the document a consultative document and to what extent is it to be considered a White Paper?
    Mr. Bryan: The parts of the document concerning Government training centres and so on are really a continuation and development of the Government's present activities. They are not consultative to the same extent as the parts of the document which deal with industrial training boards. But I would like to underline the consultative nature of the document. The consultative nature of the Code of Industrial Practice was a great success and many people took part in the consultation which had a great effect on the final outcome. We would like the same sort of process here.
    Mr. Douglas: While the proposals are futuristic there is currently a very pressing problem, particularly for the young people who are thrown out of work and who are still trying to continue their studies and further education. The document circulated to local education authorities may be appropriate in England and Wales but it is not appropriate in Scotland and the burden of paying the fees for further education is falling on the local education authority. Will the hon. Gentleman consult the Secretary of State for Scotland to see what can be done about this?
    Mr. Bryan: We have already been in consultation with my right hon. Friend

    723
    the Secretary of State for Scotland and with the education authorities, but we think that this sort of thing should come within the consultative period and consultative process.

    Industrial Relations (Confidentiality of Information)
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether provisions for the preservation of the confidentiality of information in the Industrial Relations Act include both his Departmental staff and those from the Commission on Industrial Relations.
    Mr. Bryan: Yes, Sir, with the exception of Departmental conciliation officers not appointed under the Act. The President of the Industrial Court has stated publicly that the Court will respect the confidentiality of discussions between the parties and conciliation officers of the Department or of the C.I.R.
    Mr. Huckfield: But is not the Minister aware that despite the statement by the President of the Industrial Relations Court there is tremendous concern about the provisions, not only among staff of his own Department and the staff of the C.I.R. but particularly in the trade union movement? Does not the Minister accept that the success of the commission and his own staff in dealing with these matters depends upon trade unionists feeling that they can talk freely? How can they talk freely when there is a growing fear that any information they give to C.I.R. staff and to staff of his Department may have to be given to the Industrial Relations Court as evidence against them under subpoena?
    Mr. Bryan: I can only repeat the firm assurance given by no less a person than Sir John Donaldson—there is no greater authority—in his public statement at the opening of the court on 1st December, 1971, when he said that any fears that the court would require conciliation officers, C.I.R. staff or others to reveal confidential information were completely without foundation. I very much hope that this will give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance he seeks.

    Lanarkshire
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Employment what are his plans for finding jobs for unem-
    724
    ployed youths over 17 years of age in North Lanarkshire.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Careers officers and the staff in employment exchanges will continue to do all they can to help youths who are out of work to find fresh jobs. The extensive measures we have introduced to stimulate the national economy and encourage industrial expansion in the assisted areas should improve employment prospects for workers of all ages.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that in Lanarkshire 17·4 per cent. of the insurable population are signing on at employment exchanges and that youths of 17 are experiencing increasing difficulty in finding reasonable jobs, such as apprenticeships, because employers must pay the wage for the age and therefore look for boys of 16? Will the Minister now take the matter up with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and tell him to take his finger out and bring industry to that part of the country, because that is the only way to give any hope to those young people?
    Mr. Smith: I am sure my right hon. Friend is well aware of that latter point. No one would disguise the fact that the position is anything but satisfactory in that part of the world. But the Government have made available £11½ million in Lanarkshire under their programme for public infrastructure works, which is a good indication of our intention to do all we can to help in those areas where there are great difficulties. But it will be a long-term job.

    Flammable Liquids (Inquiry Report)
    Mr. Boothasked the Secretary of State for Employment in how many cases, other than that of the Highly Flammable Liquids Regulations, an inquiry before a commissioner has not reported to the Minister appointing the commissioner within nine months; and if he will make a statement regarding the reasons for the delay in this instance.
    Mr. David Howell: The answer to the first part of the Question is "None". The report has now reached my right hon. Friend, the delay in submission being due to the extreme complexity of the issues raised at the inquiry.
    Mr. Booth: Will the Minister accept that a number of hon. Members who are deeply concerned about industrial safety issues consider that the delay in publication of the report has been intolerable, since the safety of thousands of people working in industry has been in jeopardy? As the Minister's sole justification for not producing regulations has been the delay in producing the report, will he now move with the utmost speed to see that regulations dealing with the storage of inflammable liquids in industry are laid before the House?
    Mr. Howell: I am aware of the very proper concern of a number of hon. Members on this issue. The Government fully realise its importance. The report is now being considered and copies will be published in due course.

    Picketing
    Mr. John Pageasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will seek to amend the existing law concerning picketing; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will now make a further statement on the operation of the law regarding picketing.
    Mr. Hayhoeasked the Secretary of State for Employment what consultation he has had with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress about amending the law relating to picketing during industrial disputes.
    Mr. Onslowasked the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he now has to seek to amend the law on picketing.
    Sir J. Rodgersasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will recommend the setting up of a Royal Commission or other form of inquiry to study and report on the law and practice relating to picketing.
    Mr. R. Carr: As already stated by my hon. Friend the Minister of State on 22nd February, I intend to review the law on picketing in the light of recent events. I can assure the House that no changes will be proposed without consultations with the Trades Union Con-
    726
    gress and the Confederation of British Industry.
    Mr. Page: Is my right hon. Friend aware that very many people were shocked by the abuse of the law during the recent dispute and that they look to the Government to clarify the present position and see that in future the law is both enforceable and enforced?
    Mr. Carr: We should all remember two things. First, the majority of picketing in the recent dispute was orderly, peaceful and legal, but there was a minority of cases that many of us saw, and some of us experienced a little, which are a cause for grave concern. That is why I believe the law should be reviewed as I shall now review it.
    Mr. Onslow: When my right hon. Friend carries out that review, will he also consider the possibility of amending the law to provide that in future picketing shall be permitted only at a worker's normal place of work?
    Mr. Carr: That is one of the points that will have to be properly considered.
    Sir J. Rodgers: Quite apart from whether the law needs revision to prevent outbreaks of violence or needs strengthening to prevent the disruption of industries that have nothing to do with a trade dispute, does my right hon. Friend agree that the whole case for so-called peaceful picketing has disappeared? The original idea was to allow strikers to put their case to the public. Strike leaders and strikers themselves, now have access to television, radio and the national Press, and an urgent review is necessary to stop peaceful picketing, so-called, or picketing at all.
    Mr. Carr: The basic purpose of picketing—to inform and persuade in a peaceful manner—is an essential extension of the basic right to strike. That must be affirmed. What gives great concern to many, including those who hold most dearly to the basic right of picketing, is that this freedom, like all other freedoms, can be put in jeopardy by gross abuse.
    Mr. Ronald King Murray: Does the Secretary of State accept that in this sector above all others it is necessary to maintain a fair and reasonable balance between the conflicting rights and interests of the parties concerned?
    Mr. Carr: Of course I do, and I hope that is quite clear from my last answer.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the Secretary of State aware that over 200,000 miners took part in the picketing at well over 500 establishments for five weeks, on a 24-hour basis, and that fewer than 50 were charged with breaking the law or going beyond the bounds of propriety? Is it not an infinitesimal problem blown up out of all proportion by Government Members and the newspapers?
    Mr. Carr: I am aware that the majority of picketing in that strike was peaceful, legal and orderly, but I am also aware of the other side. So, incidentally, was a member of the T.U.C. General Council, the General Secretary of N.A.C.O.D.S., who felt so strongly about it that he felt impelled to come and see me, and tell the public he was coming to see me, to express his concern about what was going on.
    Mr. Heffer: I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government recognise that the picketing by the overwhelming majority of miners in the coal dispute was perfectly legal, peaceful and within the law. Is it not a fact that only last year we revised the whole question of picketing, in a minor way it is true? We discussed the whole question of picketing as part and parcel of the Industrial Relations Act. Is it not quite clear that if anyone genuinely steps outside the law as it stands, the law as it stands is perfectly able to deal with him?
    Mr. Carr: I hardly think the law on picketing was a major part of last year's review, although I agree that it was part. A minor change was made, removing protection from picketing of people's homes, which we did not believe to be necessary in the modern world. The events of the last few weeks are a cause of public concern and we should be foolish, whatever our views may be, to pay no regard to that public concern. That is why I am sure I am right to review the situation.
    Mr. Fell: While I absolutely accept that in the recent strike the majority of picketing was peaceful, must we not also accept that the law cannot be enforced unless it has the backing of the vast majority of the people? Is it not true
    728
    that in the sort of picketing where that was seen to be so—
    Mr. Leslie Huckfield: On television.
    Mr. Fell: All right, on television; so people do watch television, fortunately or unfortunately—the sort of picketing where that was seen to be so, in places like Doncaster, the law should have been enforced?
    Mr. Carr: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in saying that the law depends on the support of the majority One of the great needs here is that the real state of the law on this matter should be enunciated anew so that everybody knows it. However, we should realise that enforcement on the spot must be properly the responsibility of the police. None of us should under-estimate the difficulty that the police have. I had personal experience of this from a visit I made during the dispute, and I do not believe that it was possible in those circumstances for the police to enforce the law.
    Mr. Harold Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while a small number of pickets at Coal House, Doncaster, indulged in behaviour which I would not seek to defend, on the night of the incidents to which the right hon. Gentleman referred the Assistant Chief Constable of Doncaster, Mr. Glendinning, who was in charge of the police on that day, said on Yorkshire Television:
    "The behaviour of the strike pickets today has been splendid. I have nothing but praise for them."
    Mr. Carr: Yes, that may be true in the majority of cases most of the time, but we do no good to the cause of peaceful picketing in the proper sense of the freedom which ought to be enjoyed in this country if any of us seek in any way to excuse some of the incidents which took place which were a disgrace and an abuse of freedom.

    Redundancy Payments Act
    Mr. Kinnockasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the operation of the Redundancy Payments Act; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Bryan: As I announced in the House on 1st February, my right hon. Friend intends to issue a consultative document discussing whether any changes are required in the objectives of the Act or in the means by which they are secured.—[Vol. 830, c. 383.]
    Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer and I express the hope that he will see fit to try to change the situation whereby people in receipt of pay in lieu of notice are disqualified from unemployment benefit. This results in a major injustice to those who have paid national insurance contributions, and is frustrating for people who think that they have behind them the security of the Redundancy Payments Act.
    Mr. Bryan: I assure the hon. Gentleman that his question will be noted and studied in the course of the consultation period.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Normantonasked the Secretary of State for Employment what most recent estimate he has made of the effect entry into the European Economic Community will have on employment prospects in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. R. Carr: It is not possible to make a quantitative estimate; but I am convinced that unlimited access for British goods and services to the much larger market of Europe will give a substantial stimulus to output and employment.
    Mr. Normanton: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, but does he not agree that one of the main prerequisites for resolving unemployment in Great Britain is for Europe as a whole, including Britain, to enjoy a continuous period of economic growth? Does he also agree that the attitude of the trade union movement on the Continent shows up markedly the way in which it is in tune with modern industrial society and the way in which many trade unionists in this country are blinding themselves and their members to the facts of life?
    Mr. Carr: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that growth, which is the basic strategy of the Government, is the answer to the problem of unemployment and that that policy will be powerfully assisted by our membership of
    730
    Europe. I certainly hope that members of the trade union movement in this country will work ever more closely with their trade union colleagues in Europe and learn from their belief that the Common Market has helped to improve the standard of living and to give full employment.
    Mr. Lamond: Is the Minister aware that many of us do not share his optimism about the future within the Common Market and that in any case, even if his forecasts were correct, workers in this country are not prepared to wait until we enter the Common Market for some relief of unemployment? This applies particularly in the North-West Region where the position continues to deteriorate sharply and is far worse than in any other region. During the last two years the North West has had the second highest number of redundancies in any of the regions. Will not the Government extend development area status to the whole of the North West and revise their development area programme to provide a real incentive to industries to come to development areas?
    Mr. Carr: I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that questions about regional policy are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I did not say that people must wait for our membership of Europe. The solution of unemployment must come through growth. Our main problem now arises from five or six years of virtually no growth. Our gross national product is today probably growing at at least twice the rate at which it was growing when the Labour Government left office.

    Professional and Executive Register
    Mr. Ronald Bellasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with the progress being made on the restyling of the Professional and Executive Register and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Yes, Sir. The target date for the introduction of the restyled service remains January, 1973.
    Mr. Bell: Will my hon. Friend say on what basis the restyling is being conducted? Does he agree that at a time when there is considerable unemployment in these categories, it is desirable that facilities should be provided as soon as

    731
    possible for the placing of unemployed professional and executive people?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, Sir. We hope to improve the service in the interim. The restyling plans were put into operation after a searching study under the direction of a business adviser. At the same time we had the results of an independent market survey into employment, recruitment practices and attitudes which indicated that many employers were ready to make much greater use of the restyled service than of the present service. The new approach fulfils a real need and I believe that it will be much appreciated once it gets under way.
    Mr. Dalyell: What is the evidence for saying that the employers will make greater use of the service?
    Mr. Smith: As I have just told the House, an independent market research survey was conducted which, so far as a judgment can be made, is one of the best in this field.
    Mr. Kinnock: What is the Minister doing to attract women to the Professional and Executive Register? If he is having difficulty in this, will he employ his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) as public relations officer?
    Mr. Smith: All suitable applicants will, of course, be considered by our staff. Without going into too much detail and getting out of order, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no sex discrimination in my Department.

    Training
    Mr. Brocklebank-Fowlerasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees will be retrained at Government training establishments in 1972 compared with 1971.
    Mr. Bryan: It is estimated that about 20,000 trainees should complete courses at Government training centres in 1972, compared with 16,500 in 1971.
    Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: What progress is being made in gaining further trade union acceptance of people who are trained in Government training centres? Does my hon. Friend intend to use the spare capacity in the Construction Industry Training Centre at Bircham
    732
    Newton, which is in my constituency, for Government training purposes?
    Mr. Bryan: In answer to the first question, it is difficult to measure the progress we are making in this direction but I can say that, in consultation with the trade union leaders, we are making progress. I visited Bircham Newton the day before yesterday and was most impressed by the facilities and staff available I am glad to say that my Department is negotiating with the C.I.T.B. to use places there for courses in limited skilled construction trades. This is part of the general programme for utilising spare capacity wherever it is available.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that, although all efforts made by the Government to improve the Government industrial training schemes will receive my full support and encouragement, in view of the present Government's policies in other spheres of activity many of my constituents in Lancashire would have greater confidence in the scheme if, at the end of their training, they saw a reasonable prospect of being able to obtain gainful employment?
    Mr. Bryan: The hon. Gentleman will find from the figures that the record of employment of those trained in G.T.C.s is extremely high, even at a time of high unemployment.
    Mr. James Hill: In view of the massive effort which the building industry is being called upon to make, will my hon. Friend ensure that sufficient numbers of places in these training establishments are kept open to produce skilled bricklayers and carpenters who are so desperately needed?
    Mr. Bryan: In the increased number of places which are being provided the accent is being placed on training for craftsmen in the building trade.
    Mr. Prentice: The Minister said that there would be an increase in trainees from 16,500 to 20,000 this year. Although we welcome that expansion, however modest, does it not follow that successive Government statements, particularly the Prime Minister's speech in the debate on unemployment on 14th January, have grossly exaggerated the impact this would have on the 1 million unemployed in 1972?
    Mr. Bryan: I do not think this exaggeration has been made at any time. The whole programme has been brought forward in a sober and well-judged way and we have in no way deceived the House. At the end of the day the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this is exactly what we have said it is—a massive increase in the country's training effort.

    Retail Prices
    Mr. Skeetasked the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the rate of increase in retail prices in the period since July, 1971; and how this compares with the rate of increase during the same period up to July, 1971.
    Mr. Bryan: The General Index of Retail Prices rose by 2·4 per cent. between July, 1971, and January, 1972, compared with 5·6 per cent. between January, 1971, and July, 1971.
    Mr. Skeet: I thank my hon. Friend for giving information about that trend, which must indicate a great triumph in the battle against inflation. Will he recognise this as a tribute to the C.B.I. initiative? Has he any suggestion about what should follow when that policy lapses in July?
    Mr. Bryan: I would pay tribute to the C.B.I. and its initiative. We are in touch with the C.B.I. about the future, though of course I cannot foretell what will happen. This is a battle on a number of fronts and the C.B.I. has done its bit. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done his bit by reducing taxation and, probably most of all, success is due to our policy of de-escalation on the wages front.
    Mr. Bob Brown: If an increase in retail prices of 2·4 per cent. is a triumph, God help us if the Government have any defeats! Does the Minister realise that there are many people who are hard pressed to make ends meet as a result of the increase in prices of 2·4 per cent.? It is no comfort to such people to tell them "Because of our policies you are only having half as hard a job as you had in the previous few months".
    Mr. Bryan: The Government are far from complacent about the present situation, but we are conscious that we have
    734
    changed the trend from the disastrous situation brought forward from the Labour Government. Among hopeful signs was the fact that the trend over the six-month period between February, and August, 1971, was 5·1 per cent. which gradually went down to 2·5 per cent. from June to December. Another satisfactory trend is to be seen in the pattern of wholesale prices. In the last three months of 1971 this has increased by just over½ per cent. This also is a very satisfactory trend.
    Mr. Kaufman: May we be spared any more of this collusive complacency between the Government and their back benches? Is it not a fact that according to The Grocer magazine—which ought to be well known to the Treasury Bench —retail food prices are still rising at a rate of 9·5 per cent. a year, sugar at the rate of 14 per cent. and cheese at the rate of 12 per cent.? Instead of being so complacent about the situation, what do the Government intend to do about it?
    Mr. Bryan: I do not know what particular prices the hon. Gentleman is taking, but if he looks at the general rise in the cost of living he will see that it has been notably slowed down and that people are grateful for it.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Prime Minister if the public speech delivered by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday, 15th February, in London on economic matters represents Government policy.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir. The speech was about international monetary reform, on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals have been widely recognised as very helpful.
    Mr. Sheldon: In that speech the Chancellor referred to the difficulties of other countries which have their own balance of payments problems. Since we in Britain have achieved a massive surplus, which is now runnng at a higher level than at any other time this century, will

    735
    the right hon. Gentleman say why it is not being used to increase demand and reduce unemployment? The only conceivable reason for failure to use the balance of payments in this way is that it would start the reflationary cycle too early for the next General Election. Because of this factor, must we be denied the use of that surplus in increasing demand and in reducing the present intolerable level of unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for paying tribute to the size of the balance of payments in 1971, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was dealing in his speech with monetary reform, not with the internal economy.
    Mr. Lamond: Is the Prime Minister aware that his right hon. Friend in that speech anticipated our entry into the Common Market and suggested that it would be the financial salvation not only of this country but of many other countries? Is not the Chancellor incorrect in assuming that we shall enter the Common Market, particularly in view of the Prime Minister's speech on television the other day in which he said that the Geovernment were here to do what the people wanted them to do? If that is the case, we shall certainly not enter the Common Market.
    The Prime Minister: When this House gives a majority of 112 to a policy, it is quite clear what the people's representatives want.

    GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE TRADES UNION CONGRESS
    Mr. Onslowasked the Prime Minister how many times he has invited Mr. Victor Feather, General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress, to meet him since June, 1970, to discuss matters for which he is responsible.
    The Prime Minister: Six, Sir, apart from meetings of the National Economic Development Council and on informal occasions.
    Mr. Onslow: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that at those meetings Mr. Feather has shown himself to have a much clearer understanding than the Opposition of both the rights and the
    736
    duties of trade unions in a democratic society?
    The Prime Minister: I have always found the meetings to be of value. We have covered a wide range of subjects. We have not always agreed, but at least the exchange of views has been fruitful.
    Mr. Ashley: Since the Prime Minister seems well aware of the problems of surtax payers and stockbrokers, will he invite to No. 10 some rank and file trade union representatives other than Mr. Feather so that he may acquaint himself with the problems of people who are generally overlooked and neglected by the present Government?
    The Prime Minister: I completely refute the remarks at the end of the hon. Gentleman's question and his earlier imputations. On the point about rank and file trade unionists coming to No. 10, a number of deputations have come to see me on various occasions and they included shop stewards and others who are not leaders of the T.U.C. This is absolutely right.

    EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
    Dr. Gilbertasked the Prime Minister what proposals for increasing the powers of the European Parliament he discussed in his recent conversations with President Pompidou.
    The Prime Minister: I am glad to say that the meeting between Monsieur Pompidou and myself, originally planned for 19th and 20th February, will now take place at Chequers on 18th and 19th March.
    Dr. Gilbert: Instead of discussing the power of the European Parliament, might it not be a good idea if the Prime Minister paid a little attention to the power of this Parliament? Does he realise that the difficulties in which we found ourselves last night were due to attempts by the Government to bully and cheat their European Communities legislation through this House and that Her Majesty's Opposition have no intention of being done out of their rights in this matter?
    The Prime Minister: Two things have become apparent during the last few

    737
    days. The first is that those who pursued a policy of trying to negotiate this country's entry into the Community apparently either did not realise what accepting Community law meant or are deceiving themselves and the House in saying now that they object to it. The second thing which has emerged clearly is that those who were shouting most for the protection of the rights of Parliament, and particularly of the House of Commons, were the first to abuse those rights and obstruct the will of the majority.
    Mr. Rost: Could President Pompidou be persuaded to invite the Leader of the Opposition to do a Eurovision broadcast, not simply to give the people in this country a rest but to explain to the French people the attitude of the party opposite to the Common Market?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the activities of the Leader of the Opposition must be left to the Leader of the Opposition. All I can say is that many European Socialists who have been endeavouring to persuade him what it is all about have confessed to me that they have failed.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: Does the Prime Minister realise that the European Parliament has the virility of a eunuch? Why did he not try, before signing the Treaty of Accession, to have that Parliament made responsible and powerful?
    The Prime Minister: Representatives of both parties in this House have always said that when we become a member of the European Community one thing which we want to see happen is the development of the European Parliament. We also believe that one of the major contributions which we can make to Europe is in helping in that process. What worries me at the moment is that after the last few days many of our European friends are beginning to have doubts about it.

    SCOTTISH TRADES UNION CONGRESS
    Mr. Ewingasked the Prime Minister what representations he has received from persons who were present at the Scottish Assembly sponsored by the Scottish Trades Union Congress in Edinburgh on 14th February.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on Tuesday to a Question from the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). —[Vol. 832, c. 96.]
    Mr. Ewing: While welcoming the news that the Prime Minister has agreed to meet the Standing Commission, may I ask whether he accepts that the assembly itself was born out of frustration with, first, the Government's economic policies, which will not solve the unemployment problem in Scotland, and, secondly, the lack of confidence in the Common Market regional policies to solve the unemployment problem in Scotland? When he meets the Standing Commission will the Prime Minister listen closely to what it has to say so that the unemployment problem in Scotland can at long last be tackled in a realistic manner?
    The Prime Minister: The assembly has sent me a copy of its proposals, which are now being closely studied. It has now been agreed that I should meet the assembly on 27th March. I assure the hon. Gentleman that at that meeting we shall express our views about these specific proposals and listen closely and carefully to any other proposals which the assembly wishes to make.
    Mr. Adley: When my right hon. Friend has another meeting with the T.U.C., either in Scotland or in England, will he remind it of the words of the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Prime Minister, that one's man's price increase is another man's wage increase? [HON. MEMBERS: "The other way round,"] Will my right hon. Friend also point out to the T.U.C. that Chrysler has just announced a reduction in its work force, which presumably must not be unrelated to the recent wage increase granted by the management as a result of pressure from the unions?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right in saying that one man's wage increase is another man's price increase. I should have thought that the Chrysler announcement was a clear indication of that.
    Mr. Grimond: Will the Prime Minister tell us whether, when he meets the Standing Commission later this month, he hopes to be able to announce a general

    739
    policy for the assistance of shipbuilding, in particular for other Scottish yards as well as U.C.S.?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking at this point about commitments to be given to the commission specifically at the meeting on 27th March. However, I will discuss the matter with the commission and indicate the way that the Government's thinking is moving.

    GOVERNMENT POLICIES (PROGRESS REPORTS)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister what plans he now has for making regular progress reports on the putting into effect of the policies of his Administration.
    Mr. Fell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.] This is a very short point. Can you tell me why this Question has been passed?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
    Mr. Hamilton: It is a very good Question.
    The Prime Minister: There is a very good answer coming.
    Ministers already report regularly to Parliament on the implementation of our various policies. Since taking office, the Government have successfully undertaken the reform of taxation, industrial relations and pensions, set in hand the reform of local government and housing finance, given the economy the largest stimulus ever, reduced the level of taxation, reshaped the pattern of public expenditure in order to give greater help to those in need and successfully negotiated entry into the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Prime Minister aware that none of those things has been achieved, that the unemployment figures are the highest since the war and that the cost of living is the highest since the war and has escalated more in the last 20 months? If there is this great catalogue of successes, why did the Prime Minister devote almost the whole of his broadcast on Sunday evening to the question of violence when he and his Government are doing more violence to the 1 million
    740
    unemployed and the 7 million old-age pensioners than the miners did in five weeks?
    The Prime Minister: The old-age pensioners have had the largest increase ever; last Christmas they were getting more in real terms than they had ever had at any previous Christmas; and they are now to have an annual review, which they never had before. The hon. Gentleman ought to try to keep in touch with what is going on.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is not the real problem facing the Government that, before this Parliament is halfway through, they will have implemented their entire legislative programme?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; and I shall continue to make helpful progress reports in this sense.

    EMPLOYMENT (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
    Mr. Joel Barnettasked the Prime Minister if he remains satisfied with the co-ordination between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment on employment questions; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The employment policies of all Departments, including massive reflationary measures, incentives for industrial expansion in the development and intermediate areas and expanded training programmes, are closely co-ordinated.
    Mr. Barnett: While welcoming the coordination which has resulted in a reversal of his "lame duck" policy in order, we are glad to see, to help unemployment on the Clyde, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will confirm the new policy of giving £35 million handouts to companies with neither assets nor profits and whether he intends to do the same for those companies which happen to have both assets and profits?
    The Prime Minister: I made it absolutely clear to the shop stewards when they came to see me in July that the Government wished to have a shipbuilding capacity on the Upper Clyde which would be as modern as any in Europe. What my right hon. Friend has

    741
    announced is not the gradual dribbling away of millions of pounds to a yard which was unable to spend any of the money on capital investment, but a properly considered programme of capital investment together with £17 million to pay off a lot of the losses which were incurred by the previous Administration's company.
    Mr. Jay: Will the Prime Minister explain what puzzles the country: namely, why what he calls the greatest stimulus ever to the economy has had the worst effect ever on employment?
    The Prime Minister: I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, with his experience in Government and his general knowledge of economic affairs, would have had some knowledge of the causes of the present unemployment cycle and would have recognised, as we did in the recent debate—which was a serious one, unlike the right hon. Gentleman's question—that the reflationary measures have had an impact on the economy but that, against that, the impact of high inflationary wages on productivity and the reduction of manpower has pushed up unemployment figures to their present level.
    Mr. Atkinson: In similar answers two days ago in the House, the Prime Minister said that employers should now invest in employment. This has caused considerable controversy and doubts among machine makers generally. Will the Prime Minister now explain clearly what he meant? Is he advising employers to invest in employment or to invest in labour-saving machines? Which one is he talking about when he says that employers should invest in employment?
    The Prime Minister: I was suggesting to employers that they should look ahead to the size of the market that they are
    742
    likely to have to meet in two, three or four years and that what they should then do is to replace obsolete equipment and create additional capacity. It may be that the replacement of obsolete plant leads to a reduction in labour. But, to counter that, one wants an increase of at least the same and probably more in capacity. I hope that those responsible for taking investment decisions can look at the position from the standpoint that anything they arrange now will not be effective for two or three years. We do not want them to have bottlenecks, but the capacity to meet the demand which will undoubtedly be there.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    Mr. Fell: On a point of order. First, Mr. Speaker, I must apologise to you for raising a point of order earlier at an inconvenient time. Secondly, I know that I am not allowed to comment on the brilliant answers that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been able to give to a very poor lot of Questions. However, I believe that I am allowed to ask you why Question No. Q5, in the name of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) was allowed to appear on the Order Paper at all. This is no criticism of anyone, unless it be of the hon. Gentleman who managed to table the Question. But it is clear to anyone that the Question is answered before it is ever asked, since my right hon. Friend repeatedly is making statements on all these matters. How did a Question of this kind to the Prime Minister ever appear on the Order Paper?
    Mr. Speaker: I have been considering the point since the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) raised it earlier. I am told that there is nothing out of order about the Question.

INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES (PARKER COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now make a statement about the Report of the Committee of Privy Councillors under the chairmanship of Lord Parker of Waddington. This report is published today; and copies are now available in the Vote Office. The Government have not found it necessary to omit any passage on grounds of security; and the report is published with only minor amendments which do not in any way affect the sense.
The terms of reference of the Committee were to inquire whether, and if so in what respects, the procedures currently authorised for the interrogation of persons suspected of terrorism, and for their custody while subject to interrogation, require amendment. The Government are indebted to Lord Parker and his colleagues for the scrupulous care with which they have examined this very difficult subject.
The Committee found itself unable to agree; and it has therefore submitted a majority report signed by Lord Parker and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), together with a minority report signed by Lord Gardiner.
The majority find that the methods in question, which had been applied on a number of occasions in the past under successive Governments in various parts of the world, were applied in Northern Ireland in August, 1971, to 12 detainees, and in October to two more. They consider—and I quote—that
"there is no doubt that the information obtained by these two operations directly and indirectly was responsible for the saving of lives of innocent citizens".
They conclude that the use of the methods involved could be justified in exceptional circumstances subject to further safeguards which they recommend. They consider, however, that the use of these techniques in some, if not all, cases would offend against English law; but they refrain from expressing any view about the position in Northern Ireland where legal proceedings which raise this issue are pending. Lord Gardiner in the minority report considers that these
744
methods are objectionable in all circumstances.
The Government, having reviewed the whole matter with great care and with particular reference to any future operations, have decided that the techniques which the Committee examined will not be used in future as an aid to interrogation.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that, in accordance with our usual practices in these matters, I can confirm fully that the amendments made on security grounds were entirely marginal and made no difference to the sense of the report?
Secondly, has the right hon. Gentleman noticed reports which have said that these techniques have not been used since the Parker Committee was set up? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that is so? I do not think that it comes out in the report itself.
Thirdly, while hon. Members will want to study the report and while every hon. Member faced with this very difficult problem will decide whether to accept in principle the argument of the majority or that of the minority, is the Prime Minister aware that I, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, greatly welcome the announcement in the concluding part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement? It is a wise announcement in all the circumstances, and it may make more than a marginal difference to the possibility of stabilising and improving the situation in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that at the end of the two-day debate last November my right hon. and hon. Friends voted on this matter because of Compton, and, naturally, we are extremely pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has taken this wise decision?
The Prime Minister: I can confirm that these techniques have not been used in cases other than those mentioned in the majority report; namely, the 12 in August, 1971 and the two in October, 1971.
Mr. Grimond: I, too, wish to congratulate the Government on their decision that these techniques should now be abandoned. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there must not be some disquiet about the fact that some

745
of these techniques may have been contrary to English law? What is the position of soldiers under the Army Act who might have been required to take part in the application of these techniques when, possibly, their powers may have been in conflict as between English and Northern Irish law?
The Prime Minister: On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, as both the majority and the minority reports point out clearly, the techniques were used over a long period in the postwar years under Governments of both parties in this House. On the second part, as this matter is before the Northern Ireland courts at the moment, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any difficulties which might arise in that respect. Obviously this is a matter in which the Government have given thought to the position of Her Majesty's forces. But I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Compton Report showed that these techniques were used by the R.U.C. under the authority of the Northern Ireland Government.
Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will my right hon. Friend say whether in criminal investigations it will still be possible to put a blanket over the head of an individual who is in custody when there are good reasons for maintaining concealment of identity?
The Prime Minister: A directive has been issued to the G.O.C., which, therefore covers the whole Army in Northern Ireland, in the sense of the statement that I have made. As for the use of techniques for non-interrogation, obviously from the point of view of security sometimes it is necessary for people to be asked to stand against a wall with their arms raised so that they may be searched to see whether they have weapons. That is a specific and limited use. As for putting a blanket over someone's head, the Army has been instructed not to use that technique in any circumstances. The police are covered by the normal police regulations. If a person asks to be covered so that his identity should not be revealed in public, it is possible for that to happen.
Mr. Mayhew: While I welcome the Prime Minister's decision, may I ask him whether he is aware of the substantial
746
body of expert opinion which says that the technique called sensory isolation can cause mental distress for long periods thereafter and permanently in certain circumstances? Was this known to the Government when they approved this technique?
The Prime Minister: Both the majority and the minority reports discussed this in some detail, and there is obviously a conflict of medical evidence about it. Her Majesty's Forces will of course continue to be trained in resistance to these techniques and, at the same time, training methods are being reviewed in regard to their application to Her Majesty's Forces. But the general conclusion of the majority report is that it has not been possible to discover ill effects on Her Majesty's Forces as a result of subjecting them to these techniques in training. But they also point out that a training position may prove to be different from a position in time of emergency or war.
Mr. Woodhouse: Does the Government's decision to discontinue intensive interrogation of this kind apply only in Northern Ireland or to all future circumstances anywhere?
The Prime Minister: I must make it plain that interrogation in depth will continue but that these techniques will not be used. It is important that interrogation should continue. The statement that I have made covers all future circumstances. If a Government did decide—on whatever grounds I would not like to foresee—that additional techniques were required for interrogation, then I think that, on the advice which is given in both the majority and the minority reports, and subject to any cases before the courts at the moment, they would probably have to come to the House and ask for the powers to do it.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Although one welcomes the ending of these intolerable techniques, was not the most disquieting feature the fact that, whether they were known to the members of this Government or their predecessor, they were not known to the House or to the country? Is it not right that the procedure followed in interrogation in depth, even the one which is still being sanctioned, should be put into some written form and be discussed by and available to the public?
The Prime Minister: The recommendation of the majority report was that, if the techniques were to be continued in a limited form, it would be necessary to set down guidelines in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. I do not think it would be possible or perhaps advisable that there should be issued as a public document any account of methods of interrogation which did not use these techniques. I am prepared to consider that, but I should have thought that as a security measure it is probably not advisable.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Are not the holding of this inquiry, the publication of this report and my right hon. Friend's statement today indicative of a civilised nation and an example to the world?
The Prime Minister: I think that the Government have come to the right conclusion in this matter. The majority report emphasises that the techniques had been used for a long time; and that in this particular case, in the sudden emergency of 9th August, they were used. In paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 the report sets out very clearly the advantages which were gained from that. But now that the situation is more a continuing one from the point of view of interrogation, I repeat that I think that the Government have come to the right conclusion.
Mr. McManus: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this report will only further sap the confidence of the minority in all reports instituted by this House, since it appears to attempt to whitewash what went on, and that no welcome whatever will be forthcoming from the people whom I represent for the fact that the Government have now been shamed by force of public opinion into discontinuing barbaric practices?
Would the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that this will call into further question the validity or usefulness of a tribunal which is now sitting? Will he particularly bear in mind that, if this sort of thing foreshadows the long-expected initiatives, they are bound, if they follow this sort of pattern, to be rejected outright by the minority?
Finally, on the question of interrogation, will the right hon. Gentleman give his personal guarantee to the House that
748
another form of interrogation, whereby soldiers go around remote parts of my constituency and ask people their religion, will cease forthwith?
The Prime Minister: I completely repudiate what the hon. Gentleman says. If he is claiming to speak for his constituents, perhaps he will prevail upon them to abandon the barbaric practices of the I.R.A. in murdering helpless individuals sitting by their own firesides.
Mr. McManus: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Prime Minister of England to stand in this House and accuse my constituents, without proof at all, of barbaric practices?
Mr. Speaker: I have heard nothing out of order.
Mr. Tapsell: If the interrogation procedures which have been used in past years, which the report confirms have saved innocent lives, are now to be discontinued, will it not be necessary very speedily to issue a new and clear code of practice to our Forces in Ulster in case a new emergency should arise in which interrogation in depth should again be necessary?
The Prime Minister: I repeat that interrogation in depth will continue when it is deemed right, but these techniques will not be used for this purpose. We must distinguish between these two things. I would repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse), that if any Government did come to the decision, after the most careful thought, that it was necessary to use some or all of these techniques, it would be necessary to come to the House first before doing so.
Mr. Harold Wilson: I thank the Prime Minister for his answer to my earlier question, when he said that these techniques had not been used during the period following the Compton Report. Is he aware that I have sent the Home Secretary some alleged evidence—I cannot evaluate it—purporting to show that there has been a continuation of this kind of practice? Will he be prepared to set against what he has said any findings which the Home Secretary may give him? Is he aware that only today there have been rather serious allegations of

749
a continuation of practices—whether these specific ones or the others which were not the subject of the Prime Minister's announcement I am not certain?
Do we take it from his statement that the Prime Minister has no present intention of introducing legislation in this matter—for example, possibly to validate past actions—at any rate until the result of cases now pending in the courts becomes known to the House?
The Prime Minister: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is correct. We have no intention at the moment of introducing legislation to deal with this matter by way of an idemnity. Naturally, we should like to see the results of any decision in the Northern Ireland courts. Then, if we judged it necessary, we would naturally raise this matter in the House.
On the first part of the question, I too have been sent from time to time a number of allegations, and I have immediately asked that all of them be investigated. The G.O.C. has always said that any allegation will immediately be investigated. The problem is to get those who make the allegations to come forward and make them to any inquiry or to give their own evidence about the allegations. They are prepared, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, to set them down on paper and sometimes to make them to other people, but they are very slow to come forward to make them to any inquiry. But I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that these allegations are quite separate from the question of the 14 cases in which the techniques were used for deep interrogation.

RHODESIA (ALL-PARTY DELEGATION)
3.50 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.
I said that I would report further to the House on the possibility of an all-party delegation visiting Rhodesia. Mr. Smith has finally replied that he would feel unable to agree to the visit of the delegation proposed. He gives as his
750
reason not only the strongly expressed opposition to the settlement of certain members of the proposed delegation, but also their alleged support for movements in Africa which make use of terrorist methods.
Since both the Labour and Liberal Parties have stated that they are not prepared to change their nominations to the all-party delegation, a position which I quite understand, I regret that there is now no point in pursuing the proposal further.
Mr. Hattersley: Will the Foreign Secretary accept that this is not simply a matter affecting the Labour and Liberal Parties but is the cause of concern to the House as a whole? Indeed, will he further accept that since Mr. Smith's message is indicative of Smith's character and policy, the right hon. Gentleman's statement is central to relations between Britain and the Rhodesian régime?
In the light of that understanding, may I put three specific questions to the right hon. Gentleman? First, having reported Mr. Smith's message to the House, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say what reply lie has sent to Mr. Smith's impertinence? Second what conclusion does the Foreign Secretary draw from Mr. Smith's attitude about the Rhodesian Front's likelihood of honouring any bargain that may be struck between Salisbury and Whitehall?
Third, does the Foreign Secretary realise that since he, unlike his predecessor, claims to have struck a bargain with the Rhodesian régime, he should be in a position to exercise some influence in Salisbury? When does he intend to do so?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that I have always thought that if there was to be observation of the Pearce Commission from this House, that would be better done by an all-party delegation. I made that clear to Mr. Smith. I also made clear the fact that in this House it is the practice for parties to select their own members to take part in delegations and that therefore it was intolerable that the choice should be limited. Thus, my preference was for an all-party delegation, though Lord Pearce is getting on with his work successfully without observation.

751
I will answer the three specific points the hon. Gentleman put to me. The answer to the first is that I have told Mr. Smith that I regret his decision. [Interruption.] The answer to the second, about the honouring of any bargain, is that that is a different matter in relation to the settlement that has been proposed; he must put the whole of his authority and party behind it if the settlement is to be brought into the Rhodesia Parliament.
The answer to the third is that I think the hon. Gentleman knows very well that the only sanction I have—I hope he is not asking me to use it—is to withdraw the Pearce Commission, which is something neither he nor his right hon and hon. Friends want.
Sir F. BennettWill my right hon. Friend confirm that it would be misleading to suggest that this represents an overall objection of hon. Members from this House going to Rhodesia? [Interruption.] Is it not a fact that very prominent right hon. Members from both sides of this Chamber, including one distinguished former Labour Minister and an equally prominent former Conservative Minister, have been to Rhodesia in the last few weeks?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that at least some of us feel that the more that Lord Pearce is allowed to get on with his job—without interference from political sources, including those who favour a settlement and those who are opposed to one—the better?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes. I have never thought that we should transfer our political differences from this House to Rhodesia, particularly while the Pearce Commission is there, or indeed at any time. It is true, of course, that hon. Members have been to Rhodesia in recent weeks.
Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he believes that, although he has been unable during these negotiations with Rhodesia to get Mr. Smith to accept a modest demand that an all-party delegation from this House be allowed to see what is happening as part of the test of acceptability which is being carried out, there is any real hope or promise of Mr. Smith, once the negotiations are over and the formal ties with
752
this country are cut, accepting the more substantial demands contained in the agreement that has been concluded with him?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Mr. Smith has accepted the proposals for a settlement—[Interruption.]—and has agreed to put his authority behind them in his own Parliament. Having done that, I should have thought that he must keep the agreement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]
Mr. Hastings: Is not the first objective to ascertain the views of the Rhodesian people in this matter? Is that not the responsibility of this House as well as of the Government? Has anyone explained to my right hon. Friend or to the House how this delegation could possibly help?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir, they have not, but if there were to have been a delegation, it should have been an all-party one.
Miss Lestor: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly publish all the exchanges he has had with Ian Smith over this matter so that we may see whether or not the Foreign Secretary explained to Mr. Smith why I and many Members of my party believe that violence becomes inevitable—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and often legitimate, but only if all normal methods of democratic change are closed?
Is he aware that the conduct of Ian Smith in Southern Rhodesia since the Pearce Commission went there demonstrates that this course is rapidly becoming the position? Will he acknowledge that if ever those who believe in equal rights in Southern Rhodesia are compelled to answer force with force, they will have been taught by masters who have been supported by the Foreign Secretary?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I will ignore the hon. Lady's final remarks. I hope she will recognise that the whole purpose of this settlement is to enable peaceful democratic change to take place so that the Rhodesians should not have to resort to violence.
Sir Gilbert Longden: If my right hon. Friend thinks that it would be advantageous for an all-party delegation to go from

753
this House to Rhodesia—though in my respectful submission Lord Pearce is doing very well without such a delegation—why not put them in an R.A.F. aeroplane, fly them to Salisbury and see what Mr. Smith does next?
Mr. Thorpe: While not wishing to see my Chief Whip detained without trial and therefore dissociating myself from the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he does not feel that, in fairness to the House, he should go further than expressing regret to Mr. Smith, which is the sentiment one expresses if one is unable to accept a supper invitation?
Does he not think that he should make it clear that he received an undertaking from the two political parties that they would refrain from expressing an opinion publicly or from taking part in political activities while they were in Rhodesia and that he had accepted those undertakings as having been given in good faith?
Does he not believe that he should reject the suggestion that the members of the proposed delegation support terrorist methods and are themselves alleged to be terrorist sympathisers? [Interruption.] Is he aware that if the Pearce Commission concludes that there is support for the proposals that this House should be asked to grant £5 million for 10 years to lift sanctions, grant independence and give recognition to the Smith régime, this House should be given an opportunity to see how the Pearce Commission has worked, prior to such a conclusion being reached?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have already conveyed to Mr. Smith the two suggestions which the right hon. Gentleman has made. On the last point he raised, I suggest we await the Pearce Report.
Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members on this side of the House as well as hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite are deeply disappointed that the Smith régime has felt unable to accept the presence in Rhodesia of an all-party delegation from this House? Will he present
754
our dissatisfaction to Mr. Smith over this?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have told Mr. Smith that I supported the idea of an all-party delegation to observe the Pearce Commission working. I will certainly tell him that I think he has made a mistake in this matter.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is it not a fact that, contrary to the impression which the right hon. Gentleman gave in reply to a question from his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), which disparaged the value of an all-party delegation, the suggestion for an all-party delegation came specifically from the Foreign Secretary? Is it not the case, therefore, that his own suggestion has been rejected by Mr. Smith? Does not this conduct on the part of Mr. Smith affect the right hon. Gentleman's mind about the value of any bargain that may be struck with Mr. Smith?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am not sure if the right hon. Gentleman was around when this was considered, but the position was that Mr. Smith rejected a request for a Labour Party delegation and a Liberal Party delegation. I have never been keen on Lord Pearce's Commission being observed, but if it was to be observed—[Interruption.]—I agree that could have been better expressed, I meant it in the sense that Lord Pearce could get on with the work of the Commission perfectly well without any external observation—but if there were to be observation, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I said that it should be an all-party delegation, that was the best form. This has now been turned down.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he told Mr. Smith that he was not very keen on the proposition he was putting forward?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I told Mr. Smith that he ought to accept an all-party delegation. He has not done so.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend know whether Ian Smith will accept a Conservative Party delegation made up of anti-Marketeers, which might then help the Government?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
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, 6TH MARCH.—Debate on the Opposition Censure Motion on the framing of the European Communities Bill.
Motions relating to the Air Navigation (Noise Certification) (Amendment) Order and to the Lytchett Minster and Upton Bypass Compulsory Purchase Order.
TUESDAY, 7TH MARCH and WEDNESDAY, 8TH MARCH.—Further progress in Committee on the European Communities Bill.
THURSDAY, 9TH MARCH.—Supply (15th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition Motion relating to Wales.
Motions on the Post-War Credit Regulations and on the Livestock and Livestock Products Industries Order.
FRIDAY, 10TH MARCH.—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 13TH MARCH.—Supply (16th Allotted Day). The topic for debate will be announced later.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Having heard the right hon. Gentleman's words, whatever difference there may be between the two sides of the House on the subject of the Motion on Monday, I think it right to express our thanks to him for moving so quickly to put it before the House.
Secondly, with regard to the Northern Ireland debate about which he has been asked, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have not pressed the Government unduly to hurry this debate, although after the previous legislation had to be rushed through we felt there should be an early opportunity for this? I do not know whether he is able to give an indication yet that there will be the intended statement from the Government before we ask for the debate in Government time which the right hon. Gentleman has offered. Is he aware that we trust it will not be too long delayed? On the other hand, it is better to get the right statement a day or two late than to rush the whole proceedings and perhaps get it wrong.
Mr. Whitelaw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his first point. On the
756
second point, I am grateful to him for his forbearance on this complicated matter. I will certainly note all that he has said and respond in the same way as he has put it to me.
Sir Robin Turton: I notice my right hon. Friend has not been able to include Motion No. 213 for debate next week.
[That this House, concerned at the deterioration of standards of civilised behaviour in Parliament, and aware that on certain occasions the rule prohibiting smoking in the division lobbies has not been observed, shall appoint a select committee to inquire into these breaches.]
Would he consider taking up through the usual channels the question of whether we could have a short debate next week on this important subject of the breach of the parliamentary convention on smoking in Division Lobbies? Otherwise, the health of hon. Members and possibly of some hon. Friends may be in danger.
Mr. Whitelaw: Not being a smoker, I am not very much aware of this, one way or the other. However, I note the importance which is attached to the convention. I am afraid I could not give time for such a debate next week. It is a convention of the House and one which the House obviously as a whole would wish to observe.
Mr. English: When will the right hon. Gentleman carry out the assurance he gave the House that we should have before us all documents necessary for the consideration of the European Communities Bill? In particular, when will he publish in the English translation and place in the Vote Office the decisions of the Council of Ministers which have not so far been published? Many of my hon. Friends and I have asked various Ministers about this on several occasions, last night and on other nights. When will this be done, or if it will not be done, why not?
Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman and I appear to be in dispute on this matter. I said that I would ensure that all documents necessary for consideration of the Bill would be available. I believe they are; he believes they are not: and we both appear to hold to our particular views.
Dame Irene Ward: As the Chief Constable of Northumberland has expressed the view that the proposed Home Office reorganisation of the police is impractical, could I ask my right hon. Friend for time for a debate on this subject? Since most North Country Members on our side of the House are Ministers none of them can make any comment on the chief constable's views. I would like to make known those views because I believe in the police and I think the Home Office is quite wrong, and I hope it will be defeated.
Mr. Whitelaw: As one of the North Country Members to whom my hon. Friend refers, obviously I could not agree with her last comment. Nevertheless, I note what she has said. I appreciate the importance of the subject. I am afraid I could not give time for a debate, but I will certainly call her views to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. C. Pannell: Perhaps I missed something in the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I had rather anticipated something which has not cropped up. He will know how helpful I have tried to be in this matter. Would he like to make a statement on the question of my Motion still standing on the Order Paper which I wish to have removed as soon as possible?
[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: The right hon. Gentleman has not missed anything. What I should say to him is that I have had —as I think he knows—some further discussions on this matter. I am pursuing these discussions. I may have something to report to the House. If I do not, then of course I stand by my promise that there should be an opportunity for this debate before the Budget.
Mr. Burden: Further to the request of the Leader of the Opposition for an early debate on Northern Ireland, may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Early-Day Motion No. 218?
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to make the Irish Republican Army an illegal organisation, in view of the fact that it is raising money in the United Kingdom and elsewhere with the express purpose of mounting murderous attacks upon the Forces of the Crown and civilians and thereby attempting to create a state of anarchy.]
This Motion is signed by myself and about 60 hon. and right hon. Members and asks for legislation to ban the Irish Republican Army. My hon. Friend will surely agree that it is quite unrealistic for this Government to continue to bring pressure to bear on the Republic of Ireland to increase their efforts to suppress the I.R.A., which is an illegal organisation in that country, while allowing it to remain legal in this country. It is also unrealistic to allow its agents and representatives to collect sums of money here which will be transferred to Ireland and used to prosecute the aims of the I.R.A., including causing the death and maiming of members of Her Majesty's Forces and of innocent people, and the destruction of property.
Mr. Whitelaw: In view of such recent happenings, it is natural that there should be strong feelings in this country and on all sides of the House on this matter. I am afraid I could not give time for a debate on this Motion next week although I fully appreciate the feelings which lie behind it. In the difficult situation in Northern Ireland it is right that I should not say anything provocative one way or the other, but simply say that I note the Motion and fully understand the strong feelings behind it.
Mr. Michael Foot: Does the Leader of the House appreciate that, apart altogether from the crisis over the Government's Common Market legislation which will be discussed on Monday, the Government have steered their legislative programme into a state of muddle of monumental and historic proportions? Is he aware that the conditions that are being imposed on members of the Housing Committee, for example, are quite intolerable and amount to an interference in the rights of those Members of Parliament to participate fully in the affairs of the House? There has been a breakdown in several of the other Committees; one had to be suspended this morning because hon. Members did not understand the meaning of the E.E.C. legislation and how it affected the Bill. Therefore, will the Leader of the House consider the state of legislation and recognise that he should be coming forward with suggestions to the House about which of these deeply offensive Measures he proposes to withdraw before the whole system seizes up and comes to a standstill?
Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Member is prone to some exaggeration, and I certainly would not accept what he says. I would remind him, although I do not suggest for one moment that he was in any way responsible, that when his party was in Government that Government introduced a vitally important Measure in August and had to rush it through at grave inconvenience to this House in the early days of August. This Government have certainly not done that.
Hon. Members: Yet.
Mr. Whitelaw: As Opposition Chief Whip in the last Parliament, I know very well some of the muddles the previous Government got into. The hon. Gentleman was not responsible for them I know, but that does not entitled him to criticise this Government for what they are doing, which is much better than anything carried out by his party.
Mr. Emery: Has my right hon. Friend had drawn to his attention the fact that the House in Committee spent eight and a half hours earlier today on points of order? If this or some similar circumstance happens again, will he consider referring this matter for consideration by the Select Committee on Procedure?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am all too painfully aware of what went on during the hours of last night, as are a great many other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen. Not all are. I would be very careful before saying anything which might in any way be a reflection on the Chair. That is very important and should be considered carefully by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House. I do not wish to comment further, but that is something which certainly could be considered by the Select Committee if it thought fit. The sensible answer is that we did at the end of the night get on to the business of the Committee, and I hope that from there we can proceed in the normal manner.
Mr. Oram: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is some time since the House debated aid for and trade with developing countries? In view of the importance of this question and the third United Nations Conference on Trade and Development will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a debate on this subject and the Government's policy towards it before Easter?
Mr. Whitelaw: I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's interest in the subject and its importance. I am afraid that I could not provide time for a debate on this subject before Easter. I regret this all the more because it would be good for this House, the country and perhaps the world to know how much this Government and country are doing in such matters.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Without entering into the delicate question of the selection of Amendments for the European Communities Bill, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether any representations could be made to the Chairman of Ways and Means to make somewhat earlier selections so as to give hon. Members more time to study the Amendments to be debated?
Mr. Whitelaw: I will, naturally, look into the point. I do not know fully the circumstances about the time allowed so far. I do know that the Chairman will be most anxious to give all the help he can. I am sure he will note what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, but I will certainly call it to his attention.
Mr. William Hannan: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has now given consideration to the request made to him last week for the provision of time on the Floor of the House to debate the reorganisation of local government in Scotland? Is he aware that this matter has been dragging on since last February and that local authorities and administrative bodies are becoming anxious? Has he got anything extra to add?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am afraid I have not got anything further I can offer. I must point out that when censure Motions are tabled, whether dealing with the Chair or similar to that which we are to debate on Monday, time has to be found by the Government for debate, which makes it all the more difficult for me to find time for other debates.
Mr. Awdry: May I return to the question of the points of order? Should we not have a look at our Standing Orders to try to prevent these endless points of order obstructing the business of the House? I know that my right hon. Friend is being good-tempered and charming about it, but people are getting somewhat angry about the way in which the business is being disrupted.
Mr. Whitelaw: I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. I also note, and it is right to say it, that on these occasions tempers do sometimes run high. I say this in the most reasonable manner possible, but all of us are responsible entirely to this House, to our constituents and to ourselves for any action we may take at any moment of time. That is our responsibility for which we are answerable. If in the process any of us by what we do do harm to Parliament, that is something we would all regret, and I for one would like to make sure that such a thing does not happen in future.
Mr. Jay: To avoid further harm to Parliament, will the right hon. Gentleman consider, after Monday's debate, arranging what Sir Winston Churchill used to call a "parley on neutral ground" between the two sides to see whether we can discover an acceptable method of selecting Amendments on the European Communities Bill, since, clearly, orderly debate cannot continue if the method of selection is unacceptable to half the Committee?
Mr. Whitelaw: I must be careful here. The right hon. Gentleman is a considerable parliamentarian, much more experienced than I am, and he will be the first to appreciate that the selection of Amendments must be a matter for the Chair. If, in the conduct of Committee stage, with "parley" through the usual channels we can reach a more orderly debate, then we on this side of the House would be very ready to take part in such discussions.
Mr. Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week he said he would seek whenever possible to avoid an overlap of the work of the Standing Committees upstairs and the consideration of the European Communities Bill? Is he further aware that I and, I am sure, many others are immensely grateful to him for those sentiments? Could he say, in respect of the legislation which we shall have to enact to implement the £35 million that will be paid to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, that to avoid this overlap the Committee stage of the legislation will be taken on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend has produced a very cunning proposal which I would need more time to consider. On his point about trying to avoid a clash between Standing Committees and the debates on the European Communities Bill, I said that I would do my best. This is something that has happened to all Governments. I did undertake that Committees would not sit on Wednesdays and that I would seek to have the Committee stage of the European Communities Bill on the Wednesday. That undertaking I have fulfilled.
Mr. Frank Allaun: No. The Housing Committee is sitting upstairs.
Mr. Whitelaw: I think I have fulfilled that undertaking.
Mr. Skinner: You have not. I have not been out of this building at all since Monday morning.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Skinner: Bloody well call me, then, I will explain if you call me.
Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman must be fair to me.
Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman lied to me on the phone.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member said that the Leader of the House had lied to him on the phone. That is not a parliamentary expression, and I really must ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.
Mr. Skinner: I think it is necessary for me to explain the events—
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I want the hon. Member to follow this. He has used an unparliamentary expression, and it is my duty to ask him to withdraw it. If he does not, I am afraid that I shall have to ask him to withdraw from the Chamber. I would ask him to withdraw it.
Mr. Skinner: The Leader of the House, the other day when I raised this matter—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not possible. I am afraid that the hon. Member has either to withdraw the unparliamentary expression or to obey my direction to withdraw from the Chamber.
Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I greatly hope that my hon. Friend will be willing to withdraw the remark that he made, because I am sure he will appreciate on reflection that that is the way in which our procedure could advance. If he could know that he would still have the opportunity —will he not?—of putting a question at a later stage, then I would hope that he would be willing to withdraw the remark which was an unparliamentary expression. He would still have his right to put a question later to the Leader of the House in accordance with the procedure of the House.
Mr. Speaker: So far as I am concerned, the hon. Gentleman must either withdraw the unparliamentary expression or withdraw from the House. I call upon the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the unparliamentary expression; if he does not, I must ask him to withdraw from the House. I must warn the hon. Gentleman that if he will not obey my instruction to withdraw from the House then I shall have no recourse other than to name him; and the consequence if he is named and the Motion is carried is that he is
764
suspended from the service of the House for five sitting days. That is the consequence.
Hon. Members: Point of order.
Mr. Speaker: I really think the situation cannot be helped by points of order from other hon. Gentlemen. This is a matter between the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and the Chair. This is an unpleasant task for the Chair. If the hon. Member will neither withdraw the expression nor withdraw from the House, then I tell him again that I am put in the very unenviable position of having to name him.
Mr. Skinner: On the basis, Mr. Speaker, that I shall have the opportunity—
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: I am very sorry, but that is a matter which must be left to me in my discretion. There cannot be conditions about a matter of this sort. I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw his unparliamentary expression or else face the consequences.
Mr. Skinner: I withdraw the unparliamentary expression.
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member.
Mr. Whitelaw: Perhaps before continuing my answer I might simply say to the hon. Gentleman that I am grateful for his withdrawal. If anything that I said on the telephone when he rang me—and, indeed, woke me up—at one o'clock in the morning was in his opinion incorrect or inconsistent with what I have said, I can understand that and I am grateful to him for the manner in which he has withdrawn.
As for the further point of my hon. Friend, I do not think that the Committee stage of this Bill is likely to be taken on the Floor of the House, but it is certainly a matter I will consider.
Mr. Frank Allaun: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to accuse the Leader of the House of being a liar, but you will recollect that a couple of days ago the right hon. Gentleman said that he would not allow Standing Committees to be held on Wednesdays, so that they would not interfere with the E.E.C. debate; but it has happened

765
again. We sat until 6 o'clock yesterday morning, and 5 o'clock on the morning before, and there was a 27-hour session the previous Wednesday. We have no undertaking that it will not happen again.
Mr. Speaker: Again, this is a matter of comment or debate, but not a matter of order for me. It is a matter of representation, but not a point of order.
Mr. John Mendelson: Whilst I do not accept that the Leader of the House necessarily knows what went on earlier today in the Committee of the House, on the European Communities Bill, because he was absent from his duties for five and a half hours and therefore has not got the detailed knowledge that he otherwise might have had had he been present and before arguments were allowed to arise on questions that have been put to him, may I ask whether he realises that all this trouble is due to the fact that the Government have deliberately chosen to introduce a Bill that cannot be amended in its major portion and that the only remedy and the only hope of making any progress on this Bill is to withdraw it and introduce it in a new form?
Mr. Whitelaw: On the first point, I must make it perfectly clear that I was in the precincts of the House the whole of last night. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is in charge of the Bill I do not see that it demands my presence in this House the whole time. I was in this House for a considerable part of the evening. I think the hon. Gentleman is being extremely unfair. I do not accept for one moment what he is saying. As for what he says about the Bill; I do not accept that point. It has been argued at interminable length. He likes to hold that view, and I totally disagree with him: and there we shall have to leave it.
Mr. Rost: So that the E.E.C. Bill can make progress next week, can we have an assurance from the Leader of the House that the Leader or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will be present at least during a good part of the proceedings so that we may have some order and discipline from Opposition Members?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That really is not a matter for the Leader of the House.
Mr. Skinner: It will be in the recollection of the Leader of the House that on Thursday, 24th February, in response to a question by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), he gave a pledge —that is probably as broadly as it can be interpreted—that there would be no Committee meetings on Wednesday.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of the fact that the meeting was taking place on Tuesday with respect to points of order, I came down and held a consultation with him outside the Bar of the House in which he said that as a result of the likelihood of the Housing Finance Committee sitting until the early hours of the following morning he would take measures to see to it that there would be some curtailment in order that we could get some sleep, in order to take part in what is double duty, in serving on Standing Committees and at the same time taking part in the debate on the Common Market Bill? He will, of course, recollect that later that night—at ten minutes to one—when it became apparent that I would be sitting for many more hours—I had not then been to sleep for two days: I have not been to sleep for four, as it now stands—I informed the Leader of the House and he told me that the Minister in charge of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) had said:
"In the last analysis it is not a matter for the Leader of the House to decide how long Committees sit; it is for me."
I reminded the Leader of the House of this particular information, and on the basis of the consultations we had had previously, several hours before, the Leader of the House like any good Tory, backed his Minister. That is a matter for him. But it was certainly a different conversation from the one that took place some time earlier.
Therefore, I am asking the Leader of the House, on the basis that some of us —certainly I myself—have never set foot outside this building since twenty past ten on the morning of Monday, when that Committee commenced, for some different arrangements next week.
Mr. Speaker: I think that is quite enough to be going on with.
Mr. Whitelaw: I think that in all the circumstances I was extremely generous to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will be equally generous to me. Some of my hon. Friends might say I have been too generous. I made it perfectly clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) that one of the two days allocated to the Committee stage of the European Communities Bill would be a Wednesday, when I understood Committees upstairs would not be sitting. That, of course, referred—and I think the hon. Gentleman would fairly regard it as referring—to the time on the Wednesday when the European Communities Bill would be before the House. I would have thought that a perfectly reasonable proposition. That is certainly what I meant, and that it what I stand by.
Mr. Skinner: When do we sleep?
Mr. Whitelaw: I might well ask the hon. Gentleman that, too.
Hon. Members: Try to answer.
Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman must accept that I have been extremely reasonable. I accept that he has, too. I realise that the hon. Gentleman has been in a difficulty, but I stand by my particular undertaking, that the Committee on the Housing Finance Bill would not be sitting at the time of the Committee stage of the European Communities Bill on the Wednesday afternoon—and it is not. That is my commitment, and it is exactly what I carried out. I cannot say any fairer than that.
If the hon. Gentleman seeks to refer to a private conversation with me, of course there can be two views on a private conversation. I have never thought it particularly wise for private conversations between Members necessarily to be brought to the Floor of the House and treated as commitments. There is a danger in that. I should like to say that if I went too far in anything I said, I understand it. I do not think that I did, but I am trying to be as helpful as I can in all the circumstances.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Not now. I will rule on the privilege issue, and then the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) can raise a point of order. Even points of order must come in their proper place.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker: Yesterday the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) drew attention to an article in the Spectator, which mentioned several hon. Members of the House and made certain allegations, or inferences about them. It is not for me to say whether the article reflected on any Member in such a way as to constitute a violation of the rights and privileges of the House. I have to say whether, in my view, the hon. Member's complaint should be given precedence as a privilege issue over today's business. It is my opinion that it should not.
Mr. William Hamilton: May I ask a question for my own guidance, Mr. Speaker? Would I be in order in commenting on a letter of advice I received from the Clerk of the Journals on this matter? If not, may I ask you this question, Mr. Speaker? I understand that one of the reasons why you have ruled as you have ruled is that the activities of the Member concerned were activities outside the House and not inside. But the fact—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I really do not think that my Ruling is debatable or questionable. If the hon. Member has any representation to make to me about any advice he was given, I will see him privately and discuss it with him. I cannot allow any public discussion of a Ruling on privilege.
Mr. Hamilton: We shall have a cup of tea over it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not take too much for granted. Mr. Arthur Lewis.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me on this point of order. I wanted to raise a point of order with you, and I

769
am sorry if I appeared to be impetuous but I wanted to do so within the hearing of the Leader of the House. I was afraid that he might leave the Chamber. My point of order may be for you to deal with or for the Leader of the House, or probably jointly.
Earlier this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, you will recollect that hon. Members on both sides of the House raised the question—I hope that the Leader of the House will listen to me.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): I am listening.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Leader of the House was not present, Mr. Speaker, when you were put into a difficult situation. This is a serious point. The Leader of the House has not only got the House and hon. Members into a difficult situation but also, with respect, he is getting you, Mr. Speaker, into a difficult situation. When the House met this afternoon we did not have Order Papers and could not know the Questions that were to be asked. That is an innovation that I have not known in 27 years' experience in the House. Hon. Members had to read out their Questions because there was no Order Paper.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can shorten this. I quite agree that it was unfortunate and that we had a minute or two of difficulty during which one Question was read out by an hon. Member. I have made inquiries into this matter. I think that there was some misunderstanding in Her Majesty's Stationery Office which led to this difficulty. I do not think that any blame should be attached to any Officer of the House; but there was a misunderstanding which led to an unfortunate situation.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I was not for a moment about to say that the Officers of the House were in any way concerned. I was about to pay tribute to them for the fact that when we have had difficulties in the past—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman rose on a point of order, but a point of order is not the appropriate vehicle
770
by which to pay tribute to the Officers of the House.
Mr. Lewis: But, with respect, Mr. Speaker, you interrupted me before I reached my point of order, and, therefore, you gave me the opportunity of saying that the Officers of the House have always been helpful. But my point is that the Leader of the House has done nothing about the situation, and I am concerned about next week. Next week we are likely to have problems again, not only because 150 hon. Members will be in Committee and unable to attend the House, but also because we probably will not get the proper papers and documents.
The Leader of the House has not laid on the Floor of the House the proper documents, and we cannot obtain our papers. Would you, Mr. Speaker, ask the Leader of the House to ensure that hon. Members are treated decently, as they have not been so treated since the E.E.C. Bill has been on the stocks? Would you request the Leader of the House to see that we are given some consideration during next week?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has made his point.

TURKEY (TIMOTHY DAVEY)
Mr. Douglas-Mann: May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to whether there is any constitutional way in which the House can discuss the matter of my 14-year-old constituent, Timothy Davey, who has been sentenced to six and a quarter years' imprisonment in Turkey? In view of the irresponsible Press comment made, which suggests that in Britain we are not accepting the right of the Turkish courts to deal with matters in accordance with Turkish law, it is desirable to make it clear that we merely hope for clemency and are not criticising the Turkish courts—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That really is an abuse. The hon. Member has all the appropriate methods of raising this matter, by Question, by seeking an Adjournment debate, and in other ways, which I am ready to discuss with him; but he cannot do it in that way as a point of order.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE AND STANDING COMMITTEES
Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The co-ordination of the sitting of the Committee of the Whole House and all the other Committees—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter of order for the Chair. It is a matter for representation through the usual channels, for a Motion or any of the other ways in which matters can be raised. It is not a matter for me. I have no control.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [14TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

  DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1972–73 (AIR), VOTE A
  4.36 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Lord Lambton): I beg to move,
  That during the year ending on 31st March 1973 a number not exceeding 113,500 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 13,590 for the Royal Air Force Reserve and a number not exceeding 400 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.
  When I had the honour to present the Air Estimates last year I made what was in retrospect a monumental speech. My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General described it to me in private as resembling one of Gladstone's Budgets—by which he meant, I suppose, something very long and dull. But in presenting that speech I was following the precedents which had grown up through the years of giving a detailed account of all the affairs of the Royal Air Force.
  Of course, in the pre-war years, which was an era of frequent equipment changes, this was probably necessary. But I must confess that last year I repeated many things which the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) had said the year before, and looking a little further back, I hope that he will not think me rude if I say that he was repeating, in turn, much of the content of previous years' speeches.
  As in the defence debate last week, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement dealt with such equipment matters as were quite often previously discussed in this debate, what I should like to do today is not merely go in once again for repetition but rather to try to deal more fully with what has happened to the R.A.F. in other areas during the last 12 months. I shall, therefore, wait until tonight to answer equipment quesions which hon. Members may wish to put during the debate. I believe that in this way we can give more time to hon. Members who may wish to speak —although I cannot see them in the

  773
  Chamber at present. We can also get away from what in some degree has been almost an essay in annual repetition.
  It has been a notable year for the Royal Air Force. It played a major part in the withdrawal of no less than 38,000 servicemen and their dependants and all their personal effects from the Gulf and the Far East. More recently there has been the much more limited but equally successful operation from Malta. I think it is no exaggeration to say that these large-scale movements were carried out by Air Support Command without any hitch and in my view this brings great credit to that branch of the Service. Elements of the R.A.F. remain in Singapore and in addition there will be regular visits to both the Far East and the Gulf. Apart from what I might call these real operations, I remind the House that only last December the Royal Air Force flew no less than 1,300 civilians from the Indian sub-continent and it is only right to draw particular attention to the exploits of the Hercules crews in Dacca.
  In the middle of the war these men landed their aircraft with the very greatest skill on a runway still pitted with bomb craters and took off again with hundreds of refugees of all nations. In addition to these operations the Royal Air Force played its part in all the normal N.A.T.O. and national exercises. Some of these were designed primarily to maintain the high standard of competence in the Service. Others, such as the large joint Navy/Air exercises last autumn, were to test thoroughly our command and control arrangements and operating techniques. I am glad to say the exercises went off well.
  I should like briefly to mention the improvements and additions which have been made in the front line. This year has seen the completion of the build-up of the Phantom Strike Attack Force, both in the United Kingdom and in Germany and the re-equipment of the long-range maritime reconnaissance force with Nimrods is also nearly complete. Puma helicopter deliveries will also be completed in the coming year, and we shall deploy more Buccaneers and Harriers to Germany. At the same time we plan to re-equip the Whirlwind squadrons in Singapore and Hong Kong with Wessexes and introduce a number of Shackletons in
  774
  the airborne early-warning rôle for which they are being specially developed. In the tanker rôle, work is proceeding on the Victor Mk 2 and in the close support rôle the outstanding capability of the Harrier is being further improved by the progressive re-equipment with the more powerful marks of the Pegasus engine.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: Before the Under-Secretary leaves that point, can he say what has happened to the medium-lift helicopters which were designed to operate with the Harrier and which have been in and out of the various White Papers over the past six or seven years?
  Lord Lambton: Broadly speaking, we did not have enough money to procure them, and the Harriers are working and can work without them. I agree though that if at some future date, the necessary finance is there they would be a welcome addition to the Air Force.
  In Germany the provision of shelters which is to be financed from N.A.T.O. infrastructure funds will improve aircraft protection and this summer we shall progress to the contracting phase. We attach great importance to this programme. The introduction of the Jaguars in about two years will enable us to start transferring more of the Phantoms to air defence. Already we are purchasing enough Bucaneers to form an extra squadron. We have also announced our intention to order sufficient extra Nimrods to form another additional squadron and both these additions will mean a genuine increase in operational capability.
  Looking further ahead at the next generation of combat aircraft I should like to report continuing satisfactory progress with the M.R.C.A. which is really to be the linch-pin of our future strike reconnaissance and air defence forces. Last summer's review with our German and Italian partners confirmed the validity of our earlier objectives as regards performance, costs and timescale. All three partners agreed that the project should proceed as planned and that a further review should be made at the end of this year.
  Now I shall turn to something which is quite considerably in the news this morning—the Linesman system which was last week the subject of some comment from

  775
  the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield). The Linesman system, which is part of our defence against the manned aircraft threat, consists essentially of improved radars and communications systems together with computer-based control facilities. The new radars and communications have been in service for some time and are operating very satisfactorily. But there has been a serious delay in bringing the centralised computer installation into operation because of difficulties in the development of software. Computer hardware has not been a holding factor but there was a serious under-estimation of the size and complexity of the very considerable task of computer programming for the main data processing system.
  We now expect the computer installation at West Drayton to become operational towards the end of next year and this will be a considerable step forward. The hon. Member for Nuneaton suggested that the system was wholly dependent on eastward-facing radars. The main military radar stations are naturally on the East and North-East facing what we must recognise to be the main threat. But it also derives information from the modern civil aviation Mediator system in the West and South. These are not "souped-up" second world war radars. They are modern, advanced equipment and can contribute substantially to the defence system. We also get the benefit of the exchange of information with the N.A.T.O. system on the Continent and the system will also benefit from the information provided by the Shackleton airborne early warning aircraft coming into service this year.
  Even when the computer system at West Drayton is operational I do not suggest that we will have reached the stage of perfection. We are naturally examining what further measures may be needed to supplement Linesman. The hon. Member referred to the vulnerability of West Drayton to conventional air attack. As has been explained computerised standby facilities are being provided in the Linesman system but we shall naturally consider whether other further measures are necessary. I do not think there is any particular party point to be made here one way or the other about a system which originated more
  776
  than a decade ago and the expenditure on which has been split among the last three administrations. There have been some changes in that period and it would be surprising if there had not been. We may well find we need to supplement the system in certain respects in the future. But none of this detracts from the value of the present system.
  I should like now to turn to the rôle and organisation of the Royal Air Force. I think all hon. Members will agree with the point I made last year which I do not hesitate to repeat, that the most important task for the Air Force is to continue to improve its power and effectiveness. I will describe what we have tried to do towards this end. The message for the R.A.F. is a very clear one. We are working within a very limited budget and I think we must try to cut out everything which is unnecessary and to see that all the money that is spent is well spent. In the first phase of an economy project all commanders in chief have been asked to make substantial economies in the manpower they are utilising. A simultaneous drive has been launched in the Whitehall organisation. The savings must be found without detriment to efficiency.
  The first phase of this project is nearing completion, although of course all the benefits will not be felt at once. But because of the resulting manpower economies the R.A.F. has already cut back on its recruiting requirements for next year. This not only offers a bonus in reduced training costs but also enables us to apply higher standards in the selection of recruits.
  The second phase which is to follow will involve an intensive search in support and operating costs, and commanders-in-chief will be invited to take the initiative and examine critically every aspect of their operations. Of course, we cannot tell yet how this will go, but I hope the savings will be commensurate with those shown in the first stage.
  Not the least value of these savings has been to bring home to everyone throughout the R.A.F. that money must be spent primarily on the front line. We must get better value for money.
  Alongside these economy measures, and complementary to them, as I informed the House on 25th November last year, the main elements of Strike Command

  777
  and Air Support Command are to be merged. In paragraph 27 of Chapter 1 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates we explained that a single R.A.F. operational Command in this country will be set up by the end of 1972. I shall inform the House in more detail about this.
  The new command, which is to be called "Strike Command" is designed to enable the front-line resources of the R.A.F. in the United Kingdom to be used with greater flexibility; to provide a single point of contact in the United Kingdom at Air Commander-in-Chief level with N.A.T.O.; and to effect financial and manpower economies. It will also make the R.A.F.'s operational Command structure in the United Kingdom more compatible with the other Services'.
  The headquarters of the new "Strike Command" will be at High Wycombe, and will form on 1st September. The new command will comprise five Groups embracing the operational functions of strike/attack, air defence, maritime patrol, tactical and air transport. It will also include the H.Q. Military Air Traffic Operations.
  The existing resources of Air Support Command, consisting of strategic and medium fixed wing transport aircraft, all offensive support aircraft and support helicopters, will be re-organised into two operational groups, the tactical Group and the air transport group. The latter will take the title "No. 46 Group". Its headquarters will be located at R.A.F. Upavon, when the headquarters of Air Support Command are disbanded there. Nos. 1, 11 and 18 Groups, which now comprise the operational elements of the present Strike Command, will remain largely unchanged and in their present locations.
  As part of the overall reorganisation, the administrative support of units in No. 90 (Signals) Group is to be transferred to Maintenance Command on 1st May, 1972; this transfer will enable the new Command to concentrate upon its prime responsibilities. Detailed plans for the merger are now being worked out.
  Present indications are that about 18 existing senior R.A.F. staff posts should be saved once the merger is completed and the new headquarters fully operational. In addition, there will be more
  778
  savings at lower levels resulting from the abolition of H.Q. Air Support Command.
  There will be some decrease in the number of non-industrial civilian staff employed at Upavon, with some increase in the number employed at High Wycombe, but I cannot give numbers at this stage. However, they will not be considerable. No significant staff changes are expected at any of the other headquarters formations of the new Strike Command, nor will the reorganisation lead to the closure of any R.A.F. stations.
  Now I should like to turn from these operational changes to speak of those in training. A comprehensive review of the part to be played by the Royal Air Force College, Cranwell, has now been completed in the light of the development of the graduate entry scheme, and of decisions relating to aircrew training.
  In consequence, the plan of the previous Administration to move the Officer Cadet Training Unit from Henlow to Cranwell at the end of 1973, and to establish the R.A.F. College as the centre for general Service training has been revised. Instead, it has been decided that the Royal Air Force College will, by 1975, undertake the general Service training of graduate entrants to the Service, and basic flying training of all graduate entrant pilots. It will accommodate the College of Air Warfare, which will be moved from Manby and will provide postgraduate navigation training and some refresher flying, in addition to continuing the professional training of all Engineer, Supply and Secretarial officers. The Officer Cadet Training Unit will remain at Henlow, and will continue to provide general Service training for other entrants to commissioned service. Some consequential re-deployments, aimed at making the most effective use of resources, are planned, which will free the R.A.F. stations at Upwood, Debden and Strubby. These redeployments will produce useful savings.
  Further changes are coming about in flying training, which is obviously vital to the maintenance of the high professional standards of the Service. But it is extremely expensive, particularly when the time comes to re-equip, and we must therefore achieve a proper balance between the resources devoted to training and to the front-line. Recognising this, we decided to abandon the earlier plan to

  779
  use the Jaguar as an advanced trainer, and to substitute a less expensive aircraft. This switch made possible the additional Jaguar front-line squadrons.
  As a result of our review of pilot training, we decided progressively to introduce earlier specialisation. This will mean that after a shorter common stage of basic training, pilots will be divided for advanced training into three streams —those selected to fly fast jet aircraft; those going on to multi-engined types; and helicopter pilots. This will be accompanied by a reduction in the number of stages through which pilots must pass during training, and an overall saving in training time.
  The Jet Provost will continue for some years as the basic training aircraft. For the advanced trainer for fast jet pilots, in replacement of the Gnat and the Hunter, we have selected the Hawker Siddeley 1182. We have now decided that the engine for this aircraft—and this is the first time this has been announced—shall be an unreheated version of the Adour engine, which powers the Jaguar.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is it or is it not true that some £10 million was spent on taking the after-burner out of that engine?
  Lord Lambton: I cannot answer that question now, but if the hon. Gentleman gives me notice I shall try to find out.
  In addition to its primary rôle as a jet trainer, the HS1182 will have a close-support capability. This is very important, because it means that we are not separating totally the training facilities and aeroplanes that can be used in an emergency in combat areas. Subject to the satisfactory completion of contract negotiations, the order for the aircraft will be placed very soon.
  For multi-engined training, we have selected the Jetstream to replace the Varsity. With these new aircraft and the revised training pattern, we are confident the pilots can be trained more economically without loss of the essential high standards. I believe this is a step in the right direction. In addition, as hon. Members will know, we intend to buy a substantial number of Bulldogs for use in the university air squadrons in place of the Chipmunk.
  780
  I should also like to say something about our further studies on the use of simulators.
  Mr. Dalyell: It might help us if we could be given the reasons against using the Viper 600 engine which would seem to many of us to be an ideal training engine. Why go for the Adour?
  Lord Lambton: We found the performance was better, which would seem the best reason of all. It is very much a matter of opinion.
  I should also like to say something about our further studies on the use of simulators in flying training.
  Mr. George Thomson: The Minister has just made an important announcement about the HS1182. Could he give the House any indication as to the employment possibilities in the north of England?
  Lord Lambton: They will be considerable. I will try to find out precisely what they will be and let the hon. Member know tonight. As I said, I should like to say something about the further studies on the use of simulators, about which I also spoke last year. We already rely on simulators to a considerable degree, and past research has shown their really obvious operational advantages: standardised and repeatable conditions; the ability to keep to a set training programme without delays arising from lack of air space, and so on. In the future, our research will be aimed at assessing, by means of controlled trials, the extent to which simulator time can be further substituted for real flying time. I need hardly stress the importance of this when one takes into consideration the cost of training pilots today. In this, we are co-operating closely with the United States Air Force, who are also involved in this research.
  Last year, hon. Members may recall —especially my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson)—that I spoke at length on the subject of R.A.F. reserves. I assured the hon. Member then that although our limited resources made it impractical to maintain a flying reserve, a study was being undertaken to see whether there was a case for using reservists in other categories. The study looked at the adequacy of our reserves. It was thoroughly done,

  781
  and covered every task which it was conceivable that reservists could do, either in place of the regular Force or as a supplement to it. It showed unmistakably—and I must say disappointingly, but it is no use establishing facts if one is not prepared to admit them—that considerations of time and value for money would make it foolish for us to embark on any major expansion of our small paid reserve. That was really the answer which hon. Gentlemen got who looked into this some years ago. Before long, we shall know whether it makes sense to extend the activities of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force into certain additional support rôles.
  At the other end of the scale, I should now like to deal briefly with something I mentioned earlier, which is of great importance to the House—raised recruiting standards. Without question, this has been a satisfactory year for recruiting. Our problems have been eased by two things, the success of manpower economy measures and the increase in the number of applicants. Now we are having to restrict entry numbers firmly. Our success could face us with certain problems, for at some future date there may well be shortages again. But to insure against that we would now have to recruit in larger numbers than would be necessary at the present time. What we are therefore trying to do is to select those applicants most likely to give long and useful service to the Royal Air Force. As I said, as a result of this, the standard of entry is noticeably higher than it was. Of course, the standard was always good and I must say that I think anyone who visits an airfield is always impressed by many things, not least by the maintenance of discipline with, at the same time, an almost total divorce from that drilling, barrack square atmosphere which once played such a considerable part in the life of the Service. Indeed, it seems to me when I go round now that the primary use of the main barrack squares in the R.A.F. is that of car parks. That is something which really shows the change there has been.
  The calibre and qualifications of many members of the Force are staggeringly high. I never visit a station without being impressed by the quality of the men there and what they are doing. What is especially satisfactory is that this
  782
  "civilianisation" of the Royal Air Force has been achieved without any lessening of discipline. I am certain that with the further raising of standards, this will be maintained. However, there is no doubt that we will not in future be certain of drawing the men we really want unless we provide better living conditions. I have borne this very much in mind.
  The House will know that all the Armed Forces are evolving new standards of accommodation which will satisfy this need. Old style barrack rooms are simply no longer acceptable. We have gone fully into what the young serviceman wants in the way of accommodation. What they really all want is a single room and recreational facilities—at any rate in places where they are going to have to spend a considerable time. The House will know, especially those who have served in my office, that these schemes must await further examination and agreement on costs. It really cannot be done quickly. The long term solution we are going for is to provide single rooms grouped together to provide flats, with a central washing and community area, for up to 12 airmen.
  We were lucky that as a result of the expansion of the Air Force in the 1930s the Force has relatively modern and well-built accommodation which can easily be converted. Nevertheless, the long-term programme will take up to 10 years. This brings one up against the fact that there will be a number of airmen who might have to continue to live in large dormitory rooms for years to come. If anything can be done about it, that is not acceptable. Having seen in some of the R.A.F. stations I have visited, extremely intelligent divisions of large rooms under self-help arrangements, early last year I set up a Joint Air Force Department/ D.O.E. advisory study to see whether we could achieve greater privacy and better living conditions by the use of economic materials. The D.O.E. designers were co-operative and produced several excellent schemes to allow conversion of large dormitories into single cubicles or rooms, depending on the amount of space available at individual stations.
  I must emphasise that these changes are short term and do not in any way prejudice the ultimate conversion to permanent standards, although wherever space permits we have been able by these

  783
  methods to convert barrack room blocks into six or eight rooms, of a standard which will ensure their usefulness for many years to come. We started this scheme last year, with rush plans to convert large dormitories in 53 barrack blocks to produce 2,271 single rooms. By the 31st of this month 40 of these blocks will have been completed, giving a total of 1,533 single rooms. If any hon. Members on the Opposition benches would like to see them I hope they will do so. It is planned to convert a further 33 blocks in 1972–73 to give an extra 1,607 single rooms.
  All this conversion has been possible within the framework of our Estimates and by diversion of funds allocated for previous modernisation projects of too old-fashioned and ponderous a type, and we shall continue to press forward on these lines.
  The result of this is that I hope, given reasonable luck, that we shall have completed by mid-year 1973 no less than 3,878 rooms of this type. The conversions have been greatly welcomed by the Service and illustrate what I am sure all of us who deal with this problem feel, that if we are to get good men today we must offer them a living style appropriate to the future, and not to the past.
  I should like to take this opportunity of thanking my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction and his staff in the Department of the Environment for the whole-hearted way in which they went into these improvements, the results of which, as I have said, have been very satisfactory.
  I have tried briefly this afternoon—
  Mr. Dalyell: As the Under-Secretary of State said that it was a matter of judgment, I will help the House by being explicit as to precisely what my problem is over the HS1182. If pilots are to be trained on the Rolls-Royce turbo-jet Adour engine, which is one of the most powerful engines in the world and built with an after-burner, they will kill themselves during training. The decision has been made against the Rolls-Royce Viper 600. The direct question which I should like the Under-Secretary of State to answer later is this. Is the after-burner being taken out of the Rolls-Royce Adour engine and is the cost of so doing about £ 10 million?
  Lord Lambton: As I told the hon. Gentleman before, it is the unreheated version. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the last thing in the world we want to do is to provide planes which will kill our pilots. We want to get the planes which are most suitable for the different varieties of training, and this is what we set out to do. There is nothing the slightest bit sinister in these decisions. They have been worked out as the most likely ways in which to train effectively different types of airmen in the most economical manner.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister tell us the cost of changing the engines?
  Lord Lambton: I will give the hon. Gentleman the information he seeks tonight, if it is possible to do so. One cannot always know the precise costs, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are trying to get the right types of planes for training.
  I have tried this afternoon to go through the main happenings to the Royal Air Force in the last year, and to outline the measures we have taken to ensure its continued effectiveness.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: As my hon. Friend appears either to be reaching his peroration or running out of steam, before he does so I should like to congratulate him warmly on the efficiency of the surveillance potential, exampled by the photograph of the disabled Soviet nuclear submarine in the Atlantic, accounts of which appeared in the newspapers yesterday. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are about 400 Russian U boats in commission, and does he therefore agree that his handful of Nimrods will have plenty to do?
  Lord Lambton: I think the answer is yes.
  I have told the House that, as a result of the increase in the number of Buccaneers and Nimrods, our efficiency will increase. Nevertheless, the last thing we want to do is to be in any way complacent.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence said in his speech last week that we are faced with an ever-increasing Soviet strength, and the policy of flexible response to which we have been committed since 1967 means that we and our allies must have forces to

  785
  deter conventional aggression, and that of course is the main reason for our defence expenditure today.
  What I have been trying to do in this last year is to ensure that, by taking every possible step within the framework of the Royal Air Force, we have been able to make economies to increase the amount which can be spent on the front line, and this must be our continuous aim. We have a force which is served by men of the highest calibre, and the aircraft now in service are without doubt some of the finest in the world. I feel, therefore, that we can look forward with optimism to increasing the efficiency of the Royal Air Force and keeping it as a force which, if not as large as the forces of the two great powers, is yet one which can most effectively fulfil the roles to which N.A.T.O. attaches the greatest value.
  5.16 p.m.
  Mr. John Morris: The Minister is to be congratulated on the way in which he has probed the catalogue of ironmongery which he and I in the past in turn have presented to the House when we have introduced the Royal Air Force Estimates. I know the pressures which are brought to bear upon whoever is in his seat. Every branch of the Air Force wants a mention, and fights to a bitter death to ensure that it has its rightful mention in what is after all the Air Force's day in this House. The Minister, I am sure, has had a difficult and painful task in editing the contributions which have come from every corner of the Air Force Department in the fight to be represented in his speech. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), who has served in the same office as the Minister, nodding in agreement.
  Although the Minister's speech today has been perhaps a little shorter than usual, the Minister who winds up will perhaps have time to deal in more generous terms with the pertinent points which will be raised on this side of the House. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) who is to wind up for the Opposition has several points of particular significance to raise. I know from 11 years' experience, on and off, of winding up from this Dispatch Box that the one who winds 786
  up does not have much of a reply from the Minister who succeeds him. I hope that the Minister will deal with any points which cannot be replied to in winding up by writing to the hon. Members concerned.
  The Minister has said that this has been a notable year for the Royal Air Force and I fully endorse that statement. He mentioned in particular the rôle of Transport Command, the withdrawal from the Gulf, and Malta, and he commended the exploit of the Hercules crew in Dacca, which I fully endorse.
  The Minister has inherited a first-class Transport Command. When calls are made on Transport Command, whether they be major or minor, we know that Transport Command is able to respond to them. I am sure the House warmed to the frankness of the Minister in replying to the point put to him by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) about the medium-lift helicopter. I hope I am not paraphrasing him wrongly, but my impression is that he said that this would be an excellent and welcome addition to the use of the Harrier aircraft when there was the money. This, of course, is always the problem of any Minister in a Service Department—or, indeed, in any Department—and always when there are cuts to be made or when expenditure has to be undertaken, it is those on the equipment side who have to suffer. But what is welcome is the conversion of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, and indeed of the noble Lord in another place, to the whole concept that there is a ceiling to defence expenditure and that defence expenditure has to be contained within that ceiling.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: Not ceiling—target. There is a difference.
  Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman is playing with words. Target or ceiling, I suggest he re-read the speech which the noble Lord made in the other place. I am sure that the impression the Under-Secretary gave to the House today was that there are many other things he might like to do but a ceiling had been imposed—a target, if the hon. Gentleman prefers. This was completely and wholly different from the strictures from this side of the House when the present Government were in Opposition. Time after

  787
  time, led by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), there were bitter complaints about the way we presented our Estimates and organised defence exepnditure, rejecting completely the whole idea of a ceiling. Therefore, whether the hon. Gentleman wants to call it a target or a ceiling, at the end of the day it amounts to the same thing.
  Mr. Wilkinson: The R.A.F. always hits its target.
  Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman can go on with his game. What I am saying is that the Government have now realised the problems that face their spending departments, and basically they are doing what they can with whatever money the Cabinet allows them.
  My speech will be brief because I am conscious of the danger of repeating what I have said either here or on the other side of the House over a number of years. I want to deal first with organisation and recruiting, secondly, with some of the present equipment in the Air Force and, thirdly, with research and development and new provisioning.
  We have had the statement by the Under-Secretary about the new operational command in the United Kingdom for the Royal Air Force which is to be set up on 1st September, 1972, and which is to cover the whole of the United Kingdom and to be formed from the main elements of Strike and Air Support Commands. The object, we are told, is the more effective use of the front line of the United Kingdom, and I am sure this will mean better interface with the other Services and with our commitment and responsibility to N.A.T.O.
  In connection with one obvious and logical difficulty, as I see it on the information available to us, perhaps we may be told what are the expectations of manpower and financial economies, particularly in the higher ranks, from this change in structure.
  As regards recruiting, I am glad to see that the good trend has continued. As I told the House on the last occasion on which I presented the Air Estimates, I saw the beginning of distinct signs of improvement, and the impetus which I had seen beginning was maintaining itself in the last few months before the presen-
  788
  tation of those Estimates. My reading of the figures which have been presented this year is that within the needs of the Air Force this has been an excellent year. But when one looks at the minuses in the table setting out Air Force recruiting we see that there has been a lower demand by the Air Force and this, in turn, has meant that it has been able to turn people away because it has been able to demand a higher standard. That will have its effect on the kind of Air Force we have. The fact that the Air Force is able to be more selective is welcomed.
  I also welcome the remarks made by the Under-Secretary of State on the subject of accommodation. I have been to many airfields and have seen much of the accommodation of the Air Force from one end of the country to the other —and, indeed, the accommodation for all the other Services—and the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to tell the House that in order to get good men today provision has to be made in a style suitable for the future.
  There has been a substantial increase and improvement over the years in the standard of life that ordinary people right through the community demand, and the Services cannot be divorced, in terms of accommodation or anything else, from the standards of the community as a whole. One sees this in the improvements in heating and lighting, and in the whole philosophy of improvement grants which successive Governments have maintained in order to improve housing generally. That must be reflected in the accommodation and the privacy which Servicemen require and demand today. I am sure that that will be reflected, in turn, in the calibre of the men who come forward.
  One of the tragedies is that while this can be done for one service—the Royal Air Force—great difficulties arise in some of the other Services, particularly the Royal Navy. Without going out of order, a point of major significance to the other Services is the question of the accommodation that can be provided in one and not in another. Anybody who has been on board ship will know the severe limitations in accommodation. This is exceedingly hard on petty officers and people of similar rank who have

  789
  reached a certain age and seniority and, in financial terms, get substantial rewards. Because of the sheer size of the Fleet and the ships they operate not a great deal can be done to ensure that they have more privacy and better accommodation. I know that over the years the other Services have tried to do what they could, but this is obviously a point that will have to be borne in mind when looking at the whole problem of recruiting for the Services.
  I am aware of the difficulties that may arise in the future, about which the White Paper and the noble Lord strike a note of warning, namely, that it is not going to be easy to maintain and sustain recruitment at its present level. The number of young men of recruiting age is declining, and, of course, there will be the result of the problem of the raising of the school leaving age.
  It would be helpful if in some White Paper—perhaps next year's Defence White Paper—the Under-Secretary could give the House a forward look at the needs of the Air Force over the next few years. The expression "corporate planning" is one of the new expressions in industry. It might be of help as an element of corporate planning if we could have an indication of the likely needs of the Air Force—and, indeed, the other Services —and the types and skills that will be needed.
  One of the things of which I am conscious is that at the n.c.o. level the Royal Air Force tends to become more than a little heavy. The age structure may well be out of balance. This is generally accepted as a danger, and may be more of a reality than Ministers are prepared to acknowledge. Perhaps we could have a word about this in the course of the winding-up speech, and some indication of the likely forward needs of the Air Force, which perhaps could be set out in next year's White Paper.
  In our time we saw a substantial degree of rationalisation between the Services, in terms of some of their functions. I should like to know whether there have been any innovations in that field, and any new ideas or studies to see whether savings could be achieved by one Service doing the work of others in certain fields. Has any progress been made in this respect since we left office?
  790
  I turn to the question of equipment. We have been told about the increased price of the Buccaneer and Nimrod. I am sure that both have been strongly welcomed by the Royal Air Force. I appreciate that the decision on Nimrod had to be taken because the production line was coming to an end, unless there was to be a new buy-in. That must be a matter of great importance to Ministers.
  In the past one has heard about the excellent progress of various aircraft and the potential market for them—regrettably after the production line has closed. What progress has been made in the sale of Nimrod? A great deal of work went into the negotiations to try to sell this remarkable aircraft. Have any extra orders been placed for this aircraft to give the Government a breathing space, in order to ensure that present needs are catered for? What are the sale prospects for Nimrod in other parts of the world, particularly Canada?
  The Sunday Telegraph of 12th December last carried a report about the High Wood exercise which took place over 11 days in December. I should like to know the Minister's reactions to what the air correspondent of that newspaper wrote, namely:
  "One of the most important defence exercises for a decade has revealed acute shortages in R.A.F. front-line strength. The exercise, called High Wood, ran for 11 days … The main object was to show that the R.A.F. could protect the Fleet hundreds of miles from home bases and in this it was successful. To do it, however, R.A.F. Strike Command had to use every plane available. Pilots flew as many as four sorties a day and ground crews worked round the clock. Some fighter crews spent more than five hours in the air, the planes being refuelled in flight. The operations revealed shortages of Buccaneer low-level strike planes, airborne tanker aircraft. Nimrod maritime reconnaissance planes and fighters to protect British airfields and facilities."
  Is that kind of comment acceptable?
  I am wondering whether we can afford the luxury of allowing Nimrod to rotate between Britain and the Far East. Therefore, I should like to know how far the new order for Nimrods is being implemented to deal with the present shortage, and also what has happened to the undertaking given by the Government to send some of these aircraft to the Far East.
  The White Paper mentions collaboration between Britain and her allies, particularly in Europe, and makes the point

  791
  that this continues to grow in importance. We can all think of projects of collaboration which were sponsored during the life of the Labour Government, but I cannot see any new project of collaboration to report at present. There is a shortage of money for defence, and this problem is also being experienced by our allies. If the Government believe so much in collaboration; and pay lip service to the idea, some indication should be given in the Air Estimates to show what collaboration is being undertaken.
  I welcome the statement that bi-national arrangements for the Anglo-French Jaguar aircraft are being made with the French Government. We are told that each country should procure and hold a joint stock of items of its own manufacture to meet the requirements of both countries. That is eminently right and proper, and I hope that other improvements in this respect are attempted. What happened to the joint arrangements with France over helicopters? This relates to the general policy of the Government in regard to the stocking of joint items which are needed to support new aircraft and which are the product of joint collaborative arrangements.
  A few weeks ago an exchange took place between my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who takes a great interest in these matters, and my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), on whether aircraft should be serviced within or outside the Services. I have invited the Minister to look into this problem. There is a deeper problem than just the point involving whether this should be done within the Service or outside it. The real problem is the speedy change-round in the engines which need to be fitted and supported to waste the least amount of time. Millions of pounds are tied up in capital.
  In the last few weeks that I was at the Ministry—for obvious reasons, I will not go into detail on this matter—I was horrified at the amount of time it took to transport engines from B.A.O.R. to this country, to be tackled by Rolls-Royce. I am not directing criticism one way or the other, but I was surprised at the time it took to take out an engine. It sometimes takes months for an engine to be returned to this country and to be made available again in B.A.O.R. During my
  792
  time at the Ministry high level studies were taking place on this subject. Because of the events that occurred on 18th June I was not able to see the results of those studies.
  I hope that the Ministers will be able to give some assurance on this matter since I referred to it in my speech last year. This is an important subject, and does not involve small items of expenditure. We all know how important it is in defence expenditure to get maximum value for money. Savings in time mean saving vast amounts of capital investment, running to millions of pounds. I know from experience that in regard to engines—and, indeed, 101 other things—there can be delays. It is hoped that such delays, in terms of servicing, and so on, can be avoided. I know all the arguments about the difficulties of getting overtime work and the problems of contractual arrangements, but I am more convinced than ever that there is need for improvement on this score. I shall be very disappointed if there has been no improvement since I last raised this subject.
  I turn to the future, and my remarks relate to research and development, and particularly to M.R.C.A. In the course of my speech on the Defence Estimates —it being a winding-up speech I did not expect a winding-up answer—I expressed deep concern about the general increase in research and development costs of 50 per cent. over two years—now running at £330 million—a complete reversal of past trends. There may be substantial disagreement on the question whether the cost should rise to £330 million, but the least that we could expect was a more detailed explanation in the White Paper for the increase from £220 million to £330 million in the course of two years.
  There are Committees upstairs looking with fine-tooth combs into expenditure on social projects and other matters. They try to collect and save candle ends. We are here dealing, with a vast amount of expenditure. I commend the Government's brevity; indeed, I would accord them the full luxury of perhaps double, if not three times, the space that they have taken in the White Paper to set out the bare facts of the increase in expenditure.
  I am sure that the Minister will say, "There it is. You were the Minister

  793
  responsible for Defence Equipment. All this expenditure is the result of your good or evil deeds "—from whatever point of view one looks at it. This is an answer which, on its face, appears attractive, in that expenditure on any project carried out over a number of years, as most of these are, tends to rise from fairly modest amounts in the initial pilot stages to more substantial amounts later. I accept and understand that argument. However, this happens in every sphere of equipment.
  Every bet that is made by the Ministry of Defence on a particular piece of equipment to initiate initial studies does not mean that it will back that horse to the end of the day. If that were the case it would back only winners, and never take any risk to find new pieces of equipment on the edge of the horizon of knowledge which involve an element of gambling.
  There were difficulties in the past which we had to face concerning items of expenditure having been initiated, with expenditure increasing, as usual, at a far greater pace than people anticipated. Hardly any estimate on research and development keeps within the original cost. That is one of the harsh facts of life for any Minister of Defence.
  When expenditure on a piece of equipment begins to gallop, one may have to look at the totality of the expenditure on defence and, perhaps, take a pruning knife to spread it out, limit it, or cut it out altogether, if it means that the provision of other equipment or necessary provisioning for the Services will suffer.
  Despite the general welcome to new equipment throughout the Services, when they see these large figures going through the House unchallenged I am sure that many other parts of the Services, which have been crying out for more money over the years, will be far from happy if we do not ask for full particulars of the items concerned. The balance has again gone wrong between research and development in the military and civilian spheres. We were proud of the way that we changed that balance, so that the trend was going the other way, to ensure the better utilisation of resources in the interests of the country. Therefore, we deserve a better explanation than we have had.
  794
  One point which concerns me, to which attention has been drawn recently, is that there may be a hump in defence expenditure in a few years, with substantial expenditure on the M.R.C.A., on the one hand, and on through-deck on the other hand; and at some stage replacement of our larger air transport planes will be necessary. It may be that difficult decisions will have to be taken. I should like to know how far the Government have faced the problem of the coinciding of major expenditure—how they will ensure that it will be catered for, and how they will evaluate rival claims at any one time.
  Without the M.R.C.A. the Royal Air Force would be in an almost impossible situation from the mid-1970s onward. That is why everyone in the Service is firmly determined that it shall come into operation. Having played a small part in the beginning of this project, I watch it with great interest. The Royal Air Force remains convinced that, despite statements to the contrary, the M.R.C.A. will be capable of coping with virtually anything put against it in the rôle which it is intended to fulfil. It is more than an aeroplane; it virtually represents the survival capability of the Royal Air Force and the British military aircraft manufacturing industry in the years ahead.
  We had a statement from the Minister in the course of his speech this afternoon. However, I think that we deserve a fuller statement—perhaps a White Paper—giving a broad analysis of how this plane is getting on; whether the original estimates are being adhered to, what are our present needs, and whether they have been changed in any way.
  Before the debate commenced I read a statement made by the Minister in the course of his winding-up speech last week, in which he said that he expected that a statement would be made in July last year. None was forthcoming. I think that there was a statement in September. I suggest that there should be regular statements to the House by the Minister so that we may know exactly how this aircraft is getting on at different times.
  Lord Lambton: There was a statement last September.
  Mr. Morris: I am conscious that a statement was made last September, but it was not the statement indicated by the

  795
  Minister to be made in July. We expected that a statement would be made to the House in July. I appreciate some of the problems and delays which can occur. However, I hope that in future, at each of the review stages—perhaps we may be reminded of the review stages—a statement will be made to the House, because this aeroplane is of fundamental importance to the Royal Air Force. We should be informed, step by step, how satisfied the Government are about the progress of this aircraft, and whether they are still adhering to the original estimated ordered numbers. I have read the detailed criticism of the contractual arrangements. I should like to know the Government's views on them and on the arrangements and agreements entered into with our co-partners in this scheme.
  We had a statement by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement in November on the allocation of radar and of 10 major avionic equipments which have been selected since the radar decision, telling us that British firms will be prime contractors for six. I understand that there is dissatisfaction by some of the firms about the progress which has been made in the selection of equipment. Certainly it was varied in the autumn, and some of the firms were far from happy. Are the Government reasonably happy about the arrangements which have been made? Are they happy that the arrangements are the best that can be made for the Royal Air Force? Has there been any delay in the estimated time for the M.R.C.A. coming into operation? The original date was 1976 for this country and 1975 for one of the planes for West Germany, but I notice that the Minister of State said towards the end of March that it would start coming into service in the second half of the decade. Has there been any slippage? Has there been any change in the original ideas?
  We have read reports in the Press of the amount of money involved and of the fact that, other than normal inflation, the airframe costs seemed to be keeping to the original estimates. But there is an impression in some parts of the Press that there has been more escalation in the engine costs than had been allowed for under normal inflation, contrary to the experience on the airframe side.
  796
  Those are some of the matters about which we should like more information. We are not dealing with small amounts of money; we are dealing with hundreds of millions of pounds. We are dealing with the most significant and important piece of expenditure for the Air Force in the whole of this decade. It is not a matter to be dismissed in a few words. The House should be told in as detailed a manner as possible. I appreciate the security problems involved. However, one reads more and more details in the Press. I know the point made time after time by the hon. Member for Woking about the disclosure of full information, and I understand his view. I believe that the time has come when we should be told at what stage we can have the fullest possible information.
  I am sure that it will be the wish of the House to endorse the remarks of the Under-Secretary, to wish the Royal Air Force well in whatever part of the world it may be, and to congratulate it on its many achievements in the past year.
  5.53 p.m.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: At the beginning of this Session, I placed myself under a self-denying ordinance in the hope of completing the Session without making a speech lasting more than 10 minutes. So far, I have kept to it. However, I hope that I shall be forgiven today if I delay the House a little longer. There does not seem to be tremendous pressure on Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye, if I may put it that way. The right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) also raised a number of interesting matters about which I had intended to speak in any case, and it would be discourteous of me not to develop them.
  I wish that we could find a different way of debating the affairs of our defence Services. To crowd all the defence debates into so short a compass suggests a sudden disinterest in the Services on the part of this House. However, many of us are fortunate enough at different times of the year, especially during the summer Recess, to get about a bit outside this country and to see something of the Services in action. At the end of last year my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) and I were amongst those lucky

  797
  enough to do this in Cyprus. There, among other things, we saw at Akrotiri the largest Royal Air Force Station in the world.
  I wish that it were possible for this House to spend two half-days or perhaps a whole day debating practical defence matters before the turn of the year, especially before minds have been made up about what is to go into the following year's Estimates. I regret that we have this concentration of debate into so short a period. If we cannot have a Committee on Defence at least let us have some flexibility in the way in which we debate defence matters in this House.
  Mr. George Thomson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I understand the position, there is now no need to have these Estimates debates before the Budget, as was once the case. They can be spread over the year. I suggest that it is a matter for the hon. Gentleman to press strongly on his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. If he does he will certainly have the support of the defence spokesman on this side of the House.
  Mr. Onslow: Long may this amity continue. I remind the House that we did not debate the R.A.F. until April last year because of something to do with the date of Trafalgar Day, the movements of my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), and the need to time the debate on the Naval Estimates accordingly.
  This is not, in fact, a bad moment at which to have a debate about the R.A.F., since it gives us an opportunity to say nice things about the Government. I am always glad to do that. I am especially glad that in recent months my right hon. Friends have put so much work in the way of the defence industry in the shape of orders for the Nimrod, Jetstream, Bulldog, and the additional Buccaneer Squadron. I hope that whoever deserves the credit on the Treasury Bench will take it. He deserves generous thanks.
  I shall also be generous to the right hon. Member for Aberavon for his frankness in asking the Government to comment on the M.R.C.A. contractual arrangements. I suspect that somewhere in the recesses of the Ministry of Defence there runs a jingle which says, "Healey and Benn, never again." I think that the
  798
  original arrangements which were drawn up for the M.R.C.A. project are not of a kind that we should like to repeat. Some improvement must be found in these arrangements if ever we are again to go into such a project, with special reference to the protection of areas in which British know-how is sensitive and most important to maintain.
  I intend to deal with only two main matters, but first I want to make a passing reference to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), whom we are glad to see on the Front Bench opposite. When the hon. Gentleman sat on the back benches he sometimes used to win the reputation of being an amiable eccentric, however, now that he has moved to the Front Bench he has lost a great deal of his amiability. When he intervened earlier he displayed a carping attitude to everyone else's opinions which was not worthy of an old Etonian—if I may say that on behalf of all old Harrovians present.
  I want to deal first with repair and maintenance work in the R.A.F., with special reference to airframe repair and maintenance. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will recall that we have had a number of exchanges on the subject. On 20th January, I put a Question to by hon. Friend. In answer to my supplementary question my hon. Friend said:
  "I hope that there will be a rising trend in the amount of airframe repair work that goes to industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 648.]
  That is most certainly a hope that I share. On 17th February, I put another Question to my hon. Friend—the one to which the right hon. Member for Aberavon referred. In reply to my original Question, my hon. Friend said:
  "The allocation of repair work is constantly under review and we are always trying to get the balance right."
  To my supplementary question, my hon. Friend replied:
  "I can only repeat that we are only too anxious to look at every side of this matter." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 600.]
  I invite my hon. Friend to consider this matter with the needs of the airframe industry on the one side and the capability of the aero-engine industry on the other side very much in his mind. There are two interlinked problems.

  799
  On 27th January of this year my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary told me, in answer to a Question, that in the course of the last nine years the total work force at R.A.F. engineering maintenance units had risen from about 5,700 in 1962 to just over 9,000 in 1971. He added:
  "The increase in numbers over the period is due to the gradual centralisation of work in Maintenance Command from Operational Units."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 504.]
  Though no doubt that is true, there is also a strong impression in the industry that the increase in number is due to a growing retention of work in maintenance units of a kind which was formerly sent back to the manufacturers, and this is causing a great deal of alarm to the manufacturing side of the industry.
  When I first tabled my Question in January I received a letter from someone in the business warning me that the answer that I might get would paint a rosy picture. He said that whereas statistically the situation might look encouraging for industry it was distorted by the work on the Victor tanker conversions, which is a once-for-all exercise.
  He pointed out that it did not make much sense for the R.A.F. to claim operational need to maintain substantial capability within its own control in conditions where the most obvious threat was a very short war but if we were likely to face a war of attrition, there was no doubt that it would be of the greatest importance that adequate capability to back up the R.A.F. should exist inside civilian industry.
  Mr. Wilkinson: That is just the point, is it not—that the Royal Air Force and its posture predicates a three- or four-day war, that this is equally a reason why there should be no reserves at all, and that it is equally a weakness?
  Mr. Onslow: I am sure that my hon. Friend will have a chance to develop that argument. If there is to be a three- or four-day war it does not seem to matter very much, operationally, who does the five-day repairs. It is a somewhat academic matter. We might as well let other questions decide our priorities.
  The situation seems to sum itself up like this: there is a loss of confidence in
  800
  the airframe industry in relation to the Air Force attitude to maintenance and repair matters. I am sure that the Minister of State and the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will be aware of this, because they have taken part in many discussions on that subject. I might also point out that the confidence of industry is not increased when work on refurbishing the Air Force VC10s goes to British European Airways.
  That is one side of the question. The other is that there is serious evidence of a loss of efficiency to the R.A.F. on the engine side. Anyone who has read the Second Report of the Expenditure Committee will have seen in it some fairly disturbing evidence—among the asterisks —about the state of the Spey engines in the R.A.F. Phantoms. I will not read it out, but Question 1754 paints a fairly alarming picture. In that, the reply from the R.A.F. side contains the following:
  "… there is a just adequate supply of the Spey 202 available to use."
  That subject has received some prominence in the Press. The Sunday Telegraph had a story about it last week. I believe that it is generally conceded that the story which appeared there is wholly accurate.
  Certainly, there seems to be an impression among the journalists who keep an eye on these things that matters in this part of Rolls-Royce have got back to being nearly as bad as they were just before the company collapsed. I do not know whether this is accurate—I hope that my hon. Friend will comment on it —but when people say, "You must not knock Rolls-Royce because they have had a hard time and have only had a year to pick up the pieces," I feel inclined to retort, "A year is a year, and it is about time they had some improvement to show for the way in which they are handling a problem with whose existence they were perfectly familiar and which they should by now have gone some way towards solving."
  There is not nearly sufficient centralisation on the company's side in the way in which it tackles the question of R.A.F. engine overhauls. There is no good reason why it should not have a centralised engine overhaul unit for that service. This is something that the company should consider, along with some hatchet-swinging among some of the middle

  801
  management who have managed to cling on from the bad old days. I have never thought that the top management was necessarily the only blameworthy part of the company.
  When this situation is considered, particularly on this engine, we have to remember that this engine is also a product of a Healey-Benn decision—a decision that Phantoms had to be bought for the R.A.F. to make up for all the aircraft of British manufacture which had been cancelled since 1964. All of a sudden, for offset reasons, the inspiration occurred to someone—I know not who, and do not wish to know—that they should take a civil engine, cobble an after-burner on the back and hope for the best. Not surprisingly, bits are now beginning to fly off.
  I want to know whether, as a result of the failures which are being experienced with the Spey Phantom, any lives have been lost. I have seen reports of more than one Phantom lost in recent months. I am told that it is unlikely that this failing will cause a fatal accident in flight but again this is something upon which the House has a right to seek reassurance. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that he can answer this. I am sorry if I have seemed flippant in referring to the white heat of modern technology; this is a serious matter and I want it to be taken seriously.
  Mr. Dalyell: On the issue of Rolls-Royce, there was an Adjournment debate at some length on Tuesday night, when the Minister for Aerospace confirmed in some sense some of the things that the hon. Gentleman is saying, which worry all of us. Centralised repair is a highly "specialist job. Some of us went to B.O.A.C. yesterday morning. Anyone who goes there sees the highly specialised nature of working on any engine. It would seem sensible that B.O.A.C., which is doing the VC10 anyway, should do it for the Services too. Does not that commend itself to the hon. Member?
  Mr. Onslow: I was coming to that point, only in an even broader sense. I do not confine it to the VC10. B.O.A.C. has at Treforst one of the best engine maintenance units in the country. It overhauls American engines for foreign airlines at the kind of speed which should make Rolls-Royce blush with shame. I
  802
  know of no complaints about its competence in this field. If work is to be put in the way of the nationalised corporations there is no reason why it should not be engine work. There is real scope here for increased professionalism and efficiency.
  There is also a trouble about the system itself. Once upon a time I drove tanks with Rolls-Royce engines. If anything went wrong, we had to send for the man from Rolls-Royce who took it all that way back to his base workshops. The message usually came back that the plugs were loose, or something minor of that sort. It occurred to me that that was not very cost-effective. A similar situation prevails in relation to these engines. If an engine goes back to the manufacturer. I suspect that it goes through the whole overhaul process, even if it needs only a sharp tap with a hammer. There are substantial areas here where we could achieve flexibility and economy.
  My hon. Friend should change his approach. We should not altogether disparage the idea of running the R.A.F. as a military airline, which is what most European countries do. One of the main anxieties of B.A.C. is that in its co-operation with its French partners in the Jaguar, it has found that the Breguet Company is being set up as the Jaguar maintenance unit for the French Air Force. Not only has that advantages for their Air Force; it also creates a situation in which there is so much more additional capacity in the civil company that B.A.C. will be placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis its competitors if it is not treated in the same way by the R.A.F.
  The same thing holds true for other collaborative projects, the M.R.C.A. in particular. Apart from anything else, this should be investigated again by my hon. Friend. I also believe—I respond here to something that the right hon. Member for Aberavon said—that this is the kind of thing that the Public Accounts Committee should be looking at. I prefer that to the Expenditure Committee, because the P.A.C. has the staff which would be needed to conduct an inquiry of this kind, and there is already, I think, a feeling among the membership of that Committee that this is something about which we should be thinking seriously.

  803
  I refer finally to the Harrier. In doing so I shall not detain the House for long. Two substantial mentions of the Harrier appear in the White Paper. One is on page 14, which talks about
  "The capability of the Harrier … being improved by progressive re-equipment with more powerful marks of Pegasus engine."
  That mention is encouraging. The next appears earlier, on page 10, where we are told:
  "The courses open include the design of a new aircraft or the development of the operational capability of the existing Harrier for deployment at sea. The former would give a better performance but would cost more and require a longer period of development. These options are now being studied in relation to effectiveness, timing and cost, and to other priorities. The studies are being pressed vigorously forward; but, in view of the potential complexity and cost of the work involved, careful examination of all the issues will be needed before decisions are taken."
  Perhaps uncharitably, I read that to mean that nothing would happen for 10 years. I was, therefore, heartened to a degree by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy when replying to the defence debate on 24th February last. He said:
  "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".[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 1650.]
  He went on to say that the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force were working closely together on that matter, but that their studies would have to continue for some months and he could not say when they would be completed. I am pleased that he intends to inform the House as soon as they are completed.
  We seem in the meantime to have a situation in which nobody knows what will happen. There should be much more certainty about the Harrier programme, particularly in view of export prospects across the Atlantic. I understand that the R.A.F. has about 90 aircraft, most of which are fitted with Pegasus 10 engines. The United States Marine Corps has ordered 60, and is said to want a total of 114. Their aircraft will be fitted with the Pegasus 11 engine uprated to 21,000lb. thrust, and that R.A.F.'s aircraft will also be retrofitted with this
  804
  engine. But if the export market is to be collared we must have a more powerful engine still, and the next and obvious step is to go to a Pegasus 15 engine of 24,500lb. thrust.
  Everybody knows this. I cannot understand why these simple and known facts of life should suddenly have thrown everybody into a state of great confusion, with talk of building a wholly new airframe. Although I am not an engineer, I know that one of the golden rules of engineering success is to add lightness. If one can succeed in adding 3,500lb. of thrust cheaply one is adding a great deal of lightness. This, coupled with the need to develop new systems, would seem to be all that needs to be done in this case. I therefore do not understand why high-ranking and well-paid R.A.F. and Royal Navy officers are having to study this matter for six months or more.
  We simply need now to get on with developing the existing Harrier. There is a grave danger that if we do not get on the Americans will take it over, if they decide that they like the look of the beast. Then we shall be faced with having to buy it back, and we have been caught that way before.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. E. S. Bishop: Many of the points that I would have made have already been covered, some by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris), particularly in his references to research and development, and others by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) in his references to the MRCA and equipment generally.
  It is probably due to the way in which these Estimates are debated that so few hon. Members are in the Chamber—and that applies to both sides of the House. However, this subject is of great interest, not only to members of the Services but to the House and the country. It is to be hoped that some other means will be devised for those who particularly wish to debate these issues, for only by being able really to get to grips with the various items under discussion can we examine them as closely as they should be scrutinised.
  When considering the money and resources involved in this Vote one is bound to be reminded of some of the points that

  805
  were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) in the debate on the White Paper a few days ago. When voting money of this magnitude and when dealing with the sort of resource capability that we have in mind, we must have regard to other factors of our defence policy and consider whether the sums that we are voting could be used in a civilian rather than in a defence rôle.
  We are sometimes criticised by people who are concerned with the Armed Forces in this country and overseas for, in their view, curtailing our defence spending, though this year it has increased again. We are, of course, not necessarily weakening our forces. The programme by which we carry out in this country the servicing of R.A.F. aircraft operating in Europe and Germany is a case in point, and leads one to hope that the Services are being reminded of the need for economy and the best use of the resources which this House is prepared to grant them.
  Hon. Members who travel abroad through Europe, the Baltic and the Polar regions often come across officers and commanders of our Forces who never seem to desist from reminding one that our defence spending is getting near the bone. In a democratic society, however, it is necessary for this House to relate the needs of the Forces to the other priorities of the nation.
  I recall being in Brussels when one of our defence chiefs expressed the fear that our defence spending was getting too low. I told him that he should try to justify his claim for more resources, manpower and equipment in my constituency. After all, hon. Members are also in touch with those who provide the resources and who probably have good reasons for having priorities different from those of the Service chiefs.
  I remember telling one defence chief in Brussels that in one of the 82 villages in my constituency there is a school which was built in 1848. Not unreasonably, some of my constituents would rather see that school modernised, if not replaced, than spend more on defence.
  Whatever argument we put up, if an aircraft flies overhead someone in the forefront of the protesters will remind us that £4 million or £5 million has
  806
  gone overhead straightaway—money which could have been well spent in other ways. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East said that the world spent 180 billion dollars on killing and defence and only 14 billion dollars on mutual aid. I thought that was relevant. In the North Atlantic Assembly over the last few years we have been very much concerned with a study of some of the trouble spots of the world which tend to make defence spending rise.
  Although this spending is preventive in many ways, I regard it as a negative form of spending. I would like to see more done with the N.A.T.O. Ministerial Council to encourage the members of N.A.T.O. to get together to see how they can, by aid and trade, help to eliminate some of the tensions and problems in the Middle East. These particularly arise in Turkey, Greece, Israel, the Arab States, and the Maghreb States. We should see how we can help to get rid of some of the problems there which cause tensions and defence spending to rise in a very negative way. We should bear this point in mind when discussing the allocation of resources in this field.
  There is a great need to cut down on the total spending in our defence budget of £2,854 million. Although one recognises that this figure includes a new look at the pay and conditions of the Forces for which my right hon. and hon. Friends in the last Government should be given some credit, continuation of the S.A.L.T. talks and discussions on mutual balanced force reductions are absolutely essential to the future of this country and to Europe in general. If I can switch from the general to the particular, as my right hon. Friend said at the Dispatch Box, there is a great need for a look by the Minister and an indication of the Government's thinking on forward planning.
  That is most important, from the point of view not only of defence and the R.A.F. but of our civilian aerospace industry in this country. The hon. Member for Woking referred to the White Paper and the Harrier. I know that my hon. Friends in the House have been pressing for some time for the Government to give a greater indication of their thinking on aerospace generally. That includes not only the civilian but also the military and Air Force aspects.

  807
  The hon. Member for Woking referred to page 10, from which I would also quote, mentioning the trials of the Harrier on H.M.S. "Ark Royal" during the past year and indicating that the V/STOL aircraft can be operated effectively from a ship's deck. There are no technical or logistic reasons why V/STOL aircraft should not be considered suitable for deployment at sea. I think that the hon. Member was probably right when he talked about contradiction. The statement further mentions the possibility that V/STOL can make a real contribution in this sphere of operations. Yet it says, at the same time:
  "No VSTOL aricraft at present exists with the capability for maritime operations. Employment of VSTOL aircraft in an embarked rôle would, therefore, require a considerable degree of development."
  The situation varies here from that in the United States, where very often with different aerospace aspects they can develop civilian aircraft much more cheaply because they are using the resources of the defence budget. I think here the development of the Harrier, which has been very successful and which I remember seeing in operation at least three years ago, could be used in the civilian sense in other aspects of V/STOL which we should be getting on with at the present time.
  However, the development of V/STOL and the Harrier cannot be looked at in isolation from other aspects where V/STOL could be used in a civilian capacity. This calls for some concerted and co-ordinated thinking not only by the manufacturers on the types of aircraft being developed, such as the Harrier; it also demands from the Government some longer-term and more comprehensive planning in air traffic controls, civilian bases in this country, and liaison with civil engineering and local authorities on both sides of the Channel if we are to make the best use of these projects. There may well be future development in this country for short-range travel as well as in the operational use, to which I have referred, of the Harrier in its maritime capacity.
  My right hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to the great escalation in research and development spending in the past year and the next few years. I think
  808
  that many of us in industry would like to see some of the resources of the research and development budget from defence deployed in the civilian rôle as well, because there can be a very dramatic spin-off, which could be used for other purposes with a considerable lowering of costs at the same time.
  We should look not only at the civilian aspects of our aerospace programme but also at our defence needs in a more constructive way, and with longer-term planning than at present. The hon. Member for Woking rightly said that there was a great deal of uncertainty in the aircraft industry. From time to time those of us who have a particular interest and experience in it are lobbied by hundreds of people from Manchester, Stockport, Bradford, Derby—all over the country—expressing anxiety about their future and that of their industry. Considering the immense resources of manpower and skills represented in these anxieties, with the need to keep design teams together, the Government should give a far better lead than at the present time. We should look at that aspect of our civilian and defence needs as far as aircraft are concerned.
  Many of the anxieties in the aircraft industry, not only amongst workers on the shop floor but in the design teams and management itself, would be allayed if we could think in this way. As a member of the Air League and of the Royal Aeronautical Society and other such institutions, one becomes acutely aware of these anxieties in the criticisms which are rightly levelled at the Government at the lack of long-term policy thinking.
  I referred in my speech on aerospace policy planning in the Consolidated Fund debate on 15th December last to the lobbies that we get. The debate ended at about One o'clock in the morning, and I remember being lobbied by workers from Manchester who were rather anxious that the Government was investing money in the Jetstream instead of the HS 748. Then they were anxious that the Government should give orders for Nimrods, and I think that the Minister has already indicated that another squadron of Nimrods will be on the order books.
  Although one recognises that these orders on defence spending, as well as civilian spending, indicate longer-term

  809
  security for those in the industry, the point is that the people who normally talk about cutting down on our defence spending from time to time are thought to be contradictory by demanding orders for Nimrods and similar aircraft. These may be contradictory, but it is really a criticism of the Government that because there is no long-term planning on civilian and defence needs people are apt to back any aircraft which provides them with work, when if we had a long-term look at our industry we could avoid the situation in which people would demand things that they would normally want reduced.
  In the speech of the Minister, which I thought contained a number of welcome innovations, reference was made to the increased spending on far better facilities for accommodation in our Forces. We have to recognise that the standard of accommodation and facilities for people in the Forces—both single and married —as well as their leisure activities, must be at least comparable with those which they would get in civilian life. I welcome the improvement here. I recall the representations that I have received from some of my constituents working in Germany who are critical about their houses, which are sometimes many miles away from their places of work. They are anxious to have accommodation nearer to their workplace.
  Lord Lambton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is necessary to improve housing accommodation. We have that very much in mind.
  Mr. Bishop: I note the Minister's comments. I also noted with amusement, if not interest, the reference to the use of the parade ground for a car park, which reflects some credit on my hon. and right hon. Friends for the improvements in pay and conditions which have enabled more people in the Forces to have that kind of transport and to make better use of the parade ground, which was an unfortunate image of the unnecessary discipline with which the R.A.F. was once associated.
  This shows a new change of thinking. I notice that there are about 20,000 officers compared with about 93,000 other ranks—which looks like one officer for every three or four other ranks. That demonstrates the great need for integration in this sophisticated and technical Service.
  810
  I come now to some constituency points. I refer first to the remarks the Minister made about Cranwell, and the new training facilities. The Minister made a statement this afternoon about the redeployment there, not only about the type of aircraft, but also the location of training bases. Perhaps in summing up he will say something about the future of R.A.F. Syerston, on the edge of my constituency. This has concerned me for some time, since my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was Secretary of State for Defence, when he declared that this base was not likely to be used in future.
  While the future needs are being assessed the base is being maintained on a care-and-maintenance basis. I hope that the Minister will deal with this and, if it is to be used in future, say what his plans are. If it is to be used only partially, will he say whether any resources —housing land or other facilities—might be made available to local authorities in the area who urgently need such facilities? A number of authorities in the Newark area, including Southwell R.D.C. and the Notts County Council, as well as Bingham—which is just outside my constituency—are anxious to use these facilities. If the Minister can say which facilities will be wanted it will be most welcome.
  I am pleased to note the investigation which goes on with equipment. I was pleased to note that the White Paper, in paragraph 12, states that
  "Britain has taken a leading part in the activities of the Eurogroup from its inception, including its specialised sub-groups which are exploring the possibilities of closer European co-operation in logistics, communications, training medical facilities and arms procurement."
  That is a good thing, which must continue if we are to make the best use of our resources and assure the public that their money for defence is being spent in the best way.
  As one who has seen the Services—particularly the R.A.F.—in operation in various parts of the world, I add my praise for those officers and men who make their contribution, often at great danger and risk to themselves, and, to the discomfort of their families. It is right that some words of appreciation and pride should come from this Chamber. I hope that the rôle of the R.A.F. and all our

  811
  Services in future can be taken as part of a wider effort, especially by our N.A.T.O. partners, to see whether our resources can be used in a more constructive and positive way by ridding the world—and the Middle East, in particular—of some of the problems which cause tensions to rise, and defence spending with them. This teamwork will help our people to realise that we are doing all we can to ensure that the demands of defence are kept to a minimum and facilities deployed in the best way.
  6.35 p.m.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I hope that the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) will forgive me if I do not follow him along the lines of his argument but instead join with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) in congratulating the Minister on his order for the Jetstream aircraft for the R.A.F. in place of the Varsity. Many of us who have watched the fortunes of the aircraft were particularly pleased to see it come through so many trials and tribulations to this order and I hope that this may also mean a considerable civilian order book.
  I should like to welcome too the Hawker Siddeley 1182 as a training aircraft because it is clearly a good thing for the R.A.F. to have British aircraft. To think that two new British aircraft will soon come into service cheers me up very much.
  During this debate perhaps we have been over-congratulating ourselves on the front line and super modern quality of the aircraft we now have in the R.A.F., so if I strike a slightly discordant note I hope that my hon. Friend will follow my reasoning. Looking at the list of aircraft in the defence estimates one is struck by the fact that a number of the aircraft in various commands have been around for a long time. To say just when they first went on the drawing-board would probably be difficult. If we think of the Canberra or the Victor we are going back to the 1950s although I know some of the Canberras in Service have been produced between 1966–68. There are, however, some of these aircraft in service with Strike Command which go back to the 1950s.
  I suggest that for some of our front line aircraft to be as much as perhaps
  812
  20-year-old does not speak of their modernity. We should surely be ready with replacements by now. The Victor aircraft is in the same position. Although the White Paper makes something of the fact that the Victor Mark II is being developed for the tanker rôle and that the Shackleton will be our airborne early warning aircraft I would remind hon. Gentlemen that the Victor is 18 years old and the Shackleton 20 years. This is not to say that these aircraft do not have a long Service life ahead of them. I cannot help feeling that to consider them as front-line aircraft when we know of the enormous advances made in aircraft design in the last 20 years is to expect rather a lot. I commend the idea that we should be thinking of rather more modern aircraft to take the rôles of the Canberra and Victor. The Jaguar will come along quite soon I hope, to take over the reconnaissance rôle of the Canberra, and could I suggest that further Nimrods might be brought in to take over the Victor's rôle, both its reconnaissance and its tanker task.
  After all, we have already had reference in the course of the debate to the excellence of the Nimrod aircraft and, again, I think we are all aware that it has prospects of overseas orders, although one has to admit that those prospects take a long time coming. However, this only emphasises the point that the more Nimrods we bring into service with the Royal Air Force the longer the production line remains open, and the longer the production line remains open, the more chance there is of picking up the orders that must surely come its way.
  Lastly on this particular part of my speech, I want to raise the question of airfield defence and again one refers to an old weapon system, the Bloodhound. Indeed, one is irresistibly forced to the conclusion that the Bloodhound is getting long in the tooth and one is inclined to ask whether Bloodhound is really capable of the task for which it is being used or should we be looking for a new system to do its job. I should be very grateful if my hon. Friend could find something to say in his winding-up speech about these points.
  From weaponry I should like to turn once again to the vexed question of Linesman/Mediator. First, I should like

  813
  to say how grateful I am for the statement already made by my hon. Friend in the course of this debate. However, if I still have one or two questions in my mind that is not to underestimate what we have been told but merely to seek clarification, because I think we recognise that the Linesman part of the Mediator system, that is, the air defence part, is pretty crucial to the air defences of this country. I also think the allegations published recently in the Daily Express under the name of Mr. Chapman Pincher, deserve very careful answers. I, personally, feel that Mr. Chapman Pincher got most of what he wrote from an excellent paper recently read by Air Vice Marshal Crew, Deputy Controller of the National Air Traffic Control Services, reproduced in The Aeronautical Journal in January. Be that as it may, the questions that Mr. Pincher posed, and indeed the Genesis of Linesman itself, raise a number of questions in my mind which I shall seek to outline.
  I understand that Linesman dates from approximately 1961 from a recommendation made by a working party under the chairmanship of the Inspector General of the Royal Air Force. The recommendation from that working party was that the radar coverage and the data-processing requirements for air defence and air traffic control were sufficiently similar to warrant the integration of the two plans, and from that concept came the joint Linesman air defence and Mediator air traffic control system. But according to the Air Vice Marshal by 1965—during the period of the last administration, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) is listening to every word I say—it became obvious —and I am quoting the Air Vice Marshal —that it would not all be just as simple as that recommendation. He goes on:
  "Although the requirements of civil and military air traffic control and of air defence looked similar, in that they concerned the use of air space, used radar data and were suitable for the appliction of on line data processing, they were in fact by no means the same."
  He details the difficulties which had to be faced and then he says:
  "By 1969 it was obvious that the demands of the radar data processing system had been seriously underestimated."
  814
  I want for a moment to break off, Mr. Speaker, because during the defence debate last week I tried to catch your eye, unsuccessfully, but I did interject during the remarks of the right hon. Member for Aberavon that he had a responsibility for the system, and he threw back at me, "When did you come into the House?" I came in 1969 and I can say, as I did during the Defence debate that I do not recall him telling the House about the shortcomings in Linesman. However to return to the remarks of Air Vice Marshal Crew. He goes on to say:
  "There would certainly be no spare capacity"
  …in the system
  "… over and above air defence needs, so that the system as planned could not also meet the needs of Mediator."
  He finally makes the point that Linesman/Mediator had in fact proved to have such shortcomings that it could meet either the Civil Controlled Air-space task or the military off-route requirements for the Middle Airspace but not both.
  From the Minister's statement made this afternoon, it is clear that the system is in fact being re-vamped and improved, but my questions are these:
  Since 1969 why has the House not been told of any of the shortcomings in the Linesman system? Certainly such questions as have been tabled—and very many of those were tabled by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield)—produced what one can only describe as bromide answers with no hint of the problem that the system is now facing. Also I wonder why the last Administration, or even the present one, did not see fit, in any Defence White Paper, to point out the problems that were going to have to be faced. But, be that as it may, the questions that now seem pertinent—and I will list them if I may—are the following:
  How serious are the shortcomings in the Linseman system and does it still constitute an effective air defence system? Has its cost escalated beyond the £78 million estimated for it in 1962 and, if that cost has escalated, by how much? When was the system first found to be wanting, and why was no statement made to the House? Can the Linesman system now be made really effective and, if not, what alternative air defence radar system are we going to use in the future?

  815
  Again, I hope my hon. Friend will forgive my criticism, but Air Vice Marshal Crew's is somewhat less complacent than my hon. Friend's statement this afternoon. While the Air Vice Marshal refers to R.A.F. controllers beginning work at West Drayton in a new operations room, he tells us that the system has had to be modified and he speaks of "some very serious setbacks". He refers to interim measures and of the next phase of development taking us into the 80s, eight years hence. What happens in those eight years when this country will still need an air defence system? If he can find time in his closing speech to comment on some of the questions and, perhaps, provide answers I shall be very grateful.
  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer briefly to the question of the R.A.F.'s facilities at its airfields and stations, and in particular to a visit which I paid to the Royal Ar Force station at St. Athan with the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). The first point I want to make relates to married quarters. The feeling at St. Athan was that there was still a considerable scarcity of married quarters and that today when the Serviceman's wife absolutely is part of his total environment as never before. She travels with him very much as the field-marshal's baton used to travel in a soldier's knapsack; married quarters are part and parcel of the attraction of the Services and also of the overall wellbeing of the Serviceman.
  My second point relates to the problem of married Servicemen and the need for the Ministry of Defence to give rather better notice than has been the case when a serviceman is going to be posted away from his present station. This means, after all, his taking up the roots of his home and putting them down somewhere else; and since this is often a problem, even for those in civilian life, clearly the longer the warning the happier the serviceman.
  Another, which I suspect may have relevance to other airfields and Royal Air Force stations is the need for improved airfield security. I could find nothing in the White Paper which refers to the R.A.F. police or to the military police, but obviously in this debate I shall concentrate my remarks on the R.A.F. police.
  816
  At St. Athan one heard that the R.A.F. police was 60 per cent. under strength, that career prospects in that branch of the Service were extremely unattractive and that many R.A.F. policemen find themselves with too many duties to perform. That in turn produces the low morale which comes from the weary and bored Serviceman. At a time when we are all aware of the need for increased security in the United Kingdom—and I am thinking of the I.R.A. bombing at Aldershot—we are clearly running considerable risks if we do not have sufficient policemen in and around R.A.F. stations to protect them and their airfields.
  I should also be extremely grateful if my hon. Friend would comment on those points.
  6.51 p.m.
  Mr. Brynmor John: First, I apologise to the Minister for having been absent at the beginning of his speech. We sometimes complain about the miserable attendance at these debates, although it is by no means unique in defence debates. At present, that is partly explained by the fact that about 200 hon. Members, including myself, are engaged on the Committee Floor. The public who see these debates should not go away with the impression that we are the only group of persons who are working in the building at this time.
  I am particularly glad to be speaking after the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) because he referred to the Royal Air Force station at St. Athan. That station is in my constituency and I have visited it. The hon. Member will agree that it was a very worthwhile visit. It was the sort of Service visit which illustrates graphically the change which is coming about in the Armed Forces. I would certainly back the Minister in his claims of improved facilities for persons living-in on the camp. We saw some very impressive blocks of accommodation. I can help the Minister—not that he needs my help —in answering the hon. Member about married quarters. A very ambitious building programme for married quarters is about to be undertaken at Royal Air Force St. Athan, and I understand that there is no change in the situation and that the programme will go ahead. When it comes about, it will mean a radical improvement there.

  817
  I share the concern of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East about the comparative dearth of Royal Air Force police. This was mentioned during our visit. But in a sense, my puzzlement is greater than his about this matter, because consequent upon our visit I put down a Question to the Minister about the recruiting short-fall in Royal Air Force police. I was told that there was no short-fall. That surprised me greatly. It means one of two things, I suspect: either that the establishment of R.A.F. police for stations like St. Athan is inadequate, in which case I should be glad of the Minister's attention in redrawing that, or that there is a sufficiency of R.A.F. police somewhere but that they are not getting through to St. Athan. The problem which I can illustrate to the Minister is not only that of defence of the airfield but also the question of the inevitable vandalism and petty acts which occur, particularly on a station which has a training function, such as St. Athan, and consequently has a lot of young men on it. Those to whom we spoke were very concerned about the problem and the lack of adequate cover which they felt they had over this matter.
  It does not stop at being merely an internal matter because the discipline, the supervision they have on the station, in turn affects their behaviour off the camp and that, in turn, affects the good relationship which exists between the civilian population in the area and the R.A.F. authorities.
  My second point about St. Athan is that a change has come about in its function and its projected function. Until December it was projected that the servicing of Buccaneer aircraft would be transferred to St. Athan, or at least a very major part of that servicing. Now there has been a decision that the largest share of that servicing will be continued at Sydenham, Belfast. I say right away that I accept the rightness of that decision in view of the job losses which would otherwise occur in a province hard hit not only by civil disorder but by the constant spectre of unemployment. Therefore, I make no criticism of that decision. But the Under-Secretary will know that there was some talk consequent upon his announcement of reducing personnel at the station, and there are other minor uncertainties. I was glad that in correspondence he was good enough to fill me
  818
  in with a number of details and reassure me upon a number of points. But I hope that he will be able to make a firm announcement as soon as possible about whether any reduction in personnel or tasks at R.A.F. St. Athan is contemplated so that all the uncertainties will be cleared up.
  The Buccaneer aircraft will be serviced at Sydenham by civilians, whereas at St. Athan it was projected that this would be done by Service personnel. I make a constituency point here, as well as a point concerning the Service. What has happened illustrates that giving some tasks to civilians does not affect the Service too greatly. If it is decided at some later date to transfer Buccaneer servicing to St. Athan, I hope that the Minister will draw on the lessons of the Sydenham experiment by bearing in mind that my area, too, is one of high unemployment and that a shared civilian and Service rôle would provide much needed jobs in the area. The decision about Sydenham illustrates that the Forces and the Ministers in charge of the Forces have to be increasingly aware of the social repercussions of their decisions. The Sydenham decision was taken because of the unemployment problem.
  That leads me to the subject of recruiting. I noted what the Minister said about recruiting. I address my remarks in particular to re-engagement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) said that there tends to be at times in the Services an imbalance of structure in the N.C.O. grades. I have had a number of cases from my constituency of people serving in the Forces who have now been refused an extension of service, that is, from their original engagement on to 22 years service because of the numbers in their trade and the year in which they happened to enter. The Minister will know that I have taken up correspondence with him on a number of these cases.
  May I illustrate a serious problem which now exists in a case in which I have not and cannot write to the Minister, because I have been approached by the wife of a serving N.C.O. whose husband knows nothing about her approach to me. She wrote to me in an anxiety borne of a desperate worry about a refusal to allow a re-engagement. The man in question was a sergeant, a Halton-trained

  819
  apprentice, who applied for an extension of service from 15 years to 22 years. He has been refused. In itself, that is a blow to the pride of a conscientious N.C.O. He is bewildered at feeling unwanted. The decision has had severe effects upon his gratuity and the pension. The outside world he faces at the age of 40 is one in which unemployment is high and his efforts to obtain a post to succeed his Service career so far have failed. This man has proved his loyalty to the Service and his ability by attaining his present rank and by his length of service. He is an angry and apprehensive man and his domestic life is suffering, I am informed, because of the strain. I ask the Under-Secretary to recognise some obligation to these long-serving N.C.O.s who, because of an accident of year of entry and choice of trade, are faced with being pushed out into civilian life and the spectre of unemployment.
  The question has been raised this afternoon of anxiety over future recruiting, although it is good at the moment. I always understood that the most effective recruiting advertisement was the satisfied Serviceman. The Minister should ponder the effect of a band of these fairly senior N.C.O.s who have dedicated themselves to the Service, being put out into civilian life and to ponder the effect they would have on recruiting. They should be the best recruiters, telling their friends and their friends' children what the Services are like. But if a man leaves the Services angry and embittered the effect he could cause on recruiting would be wholly deleterious.
  I should like to suggest a solution, but I admit I have no knowledge as to its practicability because I do not know how many men are in this position. Could the Minister look at the prospect of re-engagement, if necessary with a remustering from their existing trades? If the numbers are such that they would not cause a drain on the Service budget, it would be a good gesture by the R.A.F. at a time of economic trouble and it would cast it in a favourable light.
  I very much agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) in what I took to be an answer to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) about the servicing of aircraft. Here again I am in a fortunate
  820
  position because I can speak about the B.O.A.C. factory at Treforest which is in my constituency. It is a very efficient factory which has a high standard of speedy service and I hope the Minister will look at the suggestion by my hon. Friend in his intervention.
  Finally, I come to the R.A.F.'s rôle abroad. The Defence White Paper on page 17 refers to the Air Force personnel serving in Oman. As we understand it, they are there to fulfil treaties which are, apparently, simple treaties. Their rôle is that of training and defence. But reports are appearing in the newspapers which are giving rise to anxiety about what is happening in Oman. We have read about the deaths of two air Service personnel and of four others being wounded. I understand that there are about 100 to 150 Service personnel in the area—I do not claim inside knowledge; I merely quote the newspaper reports. Their rôle is projected as concerned with training and defence, but The Times Beirut correspondent reported two killed in an offensive.
  What exactly is the rôle of the R.A.F. Regiment and the other R.A.F. units in Oman at the moment? Have they been involved in any of the casualties which have apparently occurred there? The Minister or someone in the Defence Department ought now to comment upon what the Sunday Times and the Observer have called "Britain's Secret War in the Gulf". It is time, if British Service personnel are being drawn into engagement, that the House of Commons knew what was going on and was fully and freely informed.
  It is too fanciful to equate this with Vietnam, but I ask the Under-Secretary at least to read the lesson of Vietnam, because that too started with the Americans in an advisory and training rôle and they gradually became more and more deeply involved. Until the Under-Secretary can assure us on this, our fears for the R.A.F. and the other Service personnel are that there will be a deeper commitment to that particular area.
  That said, I add my tribute to the Service men who are not only of high spirit and service but who have enormous expertise in what is now a highly technical and professional branch of the Services. They deserve our admiration.
  7.7 p.m.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: If I do not follow the measured remarks of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) I hope he will forgive me. I express a word of commiseration to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the accidents of the parliamentary timetable which led to the presentation of his first Estimates last year on the first day back after the Easter Recess and this year after an all-night talk-in in which the thorns crackled loudly under a well-stirred pot. It is all the more ironic because voting defence funds is historically the most important function of the House and yet we cannot muster more than a handful of hon. Members to our debate. To mis-quote Sir Walter Raleigh most cruelly, "Those that were most lavish of words last night are most niggardly in action today".
  Last year my hon. Friend, in a wide-ranging speech which is well worth rereading, examined the purpose of the Royal Air Force. He urged the House not to close its eyes to events in Europe where the Soviet Union had increased its financial expenditure by about 30 per cent. in the past five years. Even that was a conservative estimate, because it omitted the Space and science votes from which technical developments in missiles, radar and electronics have been made which are of immense significance to the Soviet Air Force. He said:
  "One has only to look at the Soviet forces which exist, not only on the Western front, but also on the flanks and in reserve, to see that vast numbers of men and machines, greatly out-numbering those in N.A.T.O., could be brought into the front line in a comparatively short time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th April, 1971; Vol. 815, c. 844.]
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State pointed out on 23rd February this year, the Soviet Union:
  "… has achieved now a rough numerical parity in terms of strategic nuclear delivery systems. Of even greater concern to us, though, is the fact that they have been able to build up very powerful conventional forces." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 1313.]
  In my own words in that same debate I summed up the challenge facing the Royal Air Force and N.A.T.O. by saying that the Soviet Air Force probably had
  "the most flexible instrument of mobile blitzkrieg in the world."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 1560.]
  822
  The invasion of Czechoslovakia, which was greatly facilitated by the stealthy arrival of the great Antonov transports unloading their comradely complement of Red Army personnel and K.G.B. men, is not the only example. The Soviet Air Transport Force has shown its airlift capability in military build-ups in Egypt, Yemen and India and, briefly, to the Sudan.
  In Egypt, the most sophisticated air defence system outside the two main power blocs has been established. From six bases, 15 squadrons of Mig 21s operate with Russian crews, and intrusions of Mig 23s into Israeli air space have occurred from these bases. Tu 16 Badger long-range maritime reconnaissance-bomber aircraft have constantly shadowed and menaced the most vital elements of Western power in the Mediterranean, the two attack carrier groups of the United States Six Fleet, and in recent days Soviet air patrols have extended west as far as Corsica.
  In our own air space, Royal Air Force Strike Command had to perform about 300 live interceptions of Soviet intruders last year, the highest number to date.
  With a manpower strength just under 500,000 and an inventory of 10,200 aircraft the Soviet Airforce, not to mention that of its client Warsaw Pact partners in Eastern Europe, is a force able to undertake every gradation of offensive operations, from the nuclear end of the spectrum to parading the outward and visible signs of an expanding political presence. Physical and geographical obstacles to a Warsaw Pact advance diminish before an airlift capability of three to four airborne divisions. With a force of about 5,000 transports and helicopters, the Soviets' potential air superiority over the battlefield could be of dominating significance. It is all the more crucial that we deny to them that dominance since they have a superiority over the West of three to one in armour and a similar amount in manpower on the central fronts. Here, where our own component, Royal Air Force Germany, is assigned to the 2nd Allied Tactical Airforce, the Warsaw Pact has a superiority of seven to one in interceptors, which would be the deciding element in any air war in which we as a defensive alliance cannot chose either the time or the place.

  823
  The situation would indeed be grim were not many current developments in train which enhance the capabilities of the Royal Air Force. The Service has gained immeasurably from the period of stability that my noble Friend the Secretary of State so rightly took pride in when he presented his White Paper to the other place on 22nd February. Uncertainty, precipitate changes of policy, notably in the earlier years of the last Administration, had the result of sapping morale, inhibiting effective planning and causing hiatuses in training and procurement. Now the Royal Air Force can look forward to its essentially European rôle with confidence. The 1,000 million dollar European Defence Improvements Programme of 1970 will enhance its operational efficiency. It is true that there are still insufficient N.A.T.O. airfields compared with the Warsaw Pact. Hardening can never be a satisfactory substitute for dispersal or—preferably, operationally speaking—first strike. None the less, the Royal Air Force is acquiring a formidable trio in Harrier, Jaguar and the M.R.C.A.
  In the defence debate I said that we must go wholeheartedly for V/STOL. I stand by that judgment, although to give it its fullest weight I should say that the potential of the concept will be fully realised only when it is allied to resupply in the field by heavy-lift helicopters. Nevertheless, by dispersal retaliatory potential can be maximised through V/STOL, and hence deterrence also. If the vulnerability can be minimised through V/STOL, the flexibility and indivisibility of airpower can also be exploited.
  To carry that exploitation of airpower further, we should take into account potential inter-operability of V/STOL types from suitable platforms at sea. This highlights a stark reality, the tragedy of the Royal Air Force's pyrrhic victory over naval airpower. It having politically torpedoed in the mid-1960s the aircraft carrier as the main instrument of Britain's global strategy, in favour of land-based tactical strike and reconnaissance aircraft, the total aerial support of the Fleet had to be pledged by the Royal Air Force, while the eyes and teeth of the Fleet, the fixed-wing element of Fleet Air Arm, was to be killed by political fiat.
  824
  When, in search of further economies, the last Government took away the Royal Air Force's long-range, East of Suez, oceanic strike rôle, not only did they necessarily cause the cancellation of TSR2 and the F111, but when they accepted a more modest Air Staff requirement for tactical strike and reconnaissance in the European rôle, upon which the A.F.V.G. and later the M.R.C.A. evolved, the Air Staff did not have the magnanimity to yield over fixed-wing naval aviation. The Royal Navy was to get no quid pro quo for the loss of the strike carriers, unless we take into account the Polaris strategic delivery systems. This was notwithstanding the global expansion of the increasingly missile-equipped Soviet Navy and Soviet Naval Air Arm and experience in a number of exercises of our own air forces operating in support of the Fleet at extremities of range. If all the sterility of the arguments from 1918 to 1937 has been avoided, it is because of the Government's decision to retain "Ark Royal" in commission until 1978, to be succeeded by through-deck cruisers with at least V/STOL potential.
  The options are therefore left open, and while I welcome the rationalisation of shore support logistics and training of naval air squadrons, which is increasingly in train, I hope that the historic lessons of the period from 1st April, 1918 to the Inskip Award of 1936 have not all been forgotten, and that a Fleet Air Arm including fixed-wing squadrons, predominantly Navy-manned, can be retained for the years ahead. This is as much in the interests of the Royal Air Force as of the Royal Navy. The R.A.F. in particular is bound to have areas of higher priority than organic air support of the Fleet.
  There are other factors that augur well for the strength of the Royal Air Force. First, I put great emphasis on the value placed upon training. As the Israeli and Pakistan Air Forces have shown against their predominantly Russian-equipped and trained Egyptian and Indian adversaries respectively, there is still no substitute for superlative training allied to practical leadership and clear decision-making in air operations. These can still outweigh superior numbers and even more sophisticated equipment. In the recent Indo-Pakistan war in particular,

  825
  the Pakistanis, although their Chinese-supplied Mig 19s were outclassed in performance by the Soviet-supplied Mig 21s of the Indian Air Force, gave a very good account of themselves. This was in spite of the use by the Indians of Soviet-supplied airborne control aircraft to direct Indian offensive air operations against targets in Pakistan, and in spite of the deployment by the Indians of surface-to-air missile defences.
  I note that another review of officer training has taken place. I particularly welcome the amalgamation of the Royal Air Force College, Cranwell, and the Royal Air Force College of Air Warfare. The more closely graduate trainees are brought into contact with experienced serving officers and a wide variety of aircraft, the better. I have always welcomed the drive towards a higher level of educational attainment among officer entrants. In my small way, I perhaps pioneered it. However, I have felt that we could combine university opportunity with the best professional training in the Service academies while giving a grounding in an inter-Service cadet establishment. That has been my hope. It is not yet realised, but I hope that it will be in the years ahead.
  I hope also that our graduate trainees receive sufficient professional training in leadership, in discipline and the indoctrination of a loyalty to the service at any early age.
  On the equipment side of the flying-training pattern I would like to know more. From the obviously authoritative article in Flight of 13th January, 1972, I gather that the Bulldogs are to succeed the Chipmunks in the sixteen university air squadrons. I would ask my hon. Friend whether they are to re-equip the 13 air experienced flights. Also, when the Jet Provosts are phased out, and the 1182s enter service will the SM260 be chosen, as I have consistently advocated, to be a basic trainer to lead into the 1182? These aircraft and the 1182 would be ideal common equipment for the reserve.
  As my noble Friend has acknowledged, it is valuable if the weapon capability for the 1182 can be used as augmentation of the fighting capacity of the service in time of emergency or war. Some seem to think that when I have advocated
  826
  the expansion of the reserves that I do so for reasons of nostalgia. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) last year were irrationally obsessed with what they imagined as the Trechardian overtones of mly proposals. They were sympathetic to the call of exclusive professionalism uttered by my noble Friend. "The days of the Battle of Britain when a pilot could go into combat after a few hours' training were gone", it was exclaimed. He would have been gone for ever in the Battle of Britain with just a few hours' training! None the less, I hope that the still small voice of logic was not drowned by the thunder of the imaginary Rolls-Royce Merlins and the call to scramble on the headphones—
  Mr. Dalyell: Could we leave the offensive remarks out of it and concentrate on the issue?
  Mr. Wilkinson: I do not think I was being offensive.
  Mr. Dalyell: I think it was rather offensive. We must concentrate on the issue which is that in the days when the R.A.F. was involved in the Battle of Britain it cost very little money and aeroplanes were comparatively simple. Now we are talking about highly sophisticated aircraft. I do not think the hon. Member would deny the figure of a quarter of a million to train a fast jet pilot.
  Mr. Wilkinson: I do not deny any of those figures, but if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to pursue my argument he will be able to draw it together.
  My noble Friend said last year:
  "For a reserve pilot to be useful today he must be efficient and perfectly trained."
  What I say is that it is not necessary to be perfectly trained to be useful. There is a function for people with a lower level of skill. That is all I am saying. He chose the example of the Harrier and two years before the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) chose the examples of the Lightning, the Phantom and the Buccaneer in answering my suggestion.
  All I was suggesting was a modest re-equipment of the existing air experienced flights with modest and cheap aircraft or helicopters, whatever the Air Staff deem appropriate to fulfil secondary duties

  827
  like mini-coin, air experience, communications, primary training, light attack, search and rescue and aid to the civil power.
  It would be an expansion of what my noble Friend called the "civilianisation" of the Royal Air Force, an attempt to move away from outmoded military concepts and to break away from a static military outlook and image, and to offer nationwide an opportunity to serve within the Royal Air Force on a part-time basis. The trouble is that the service becomes ever more professional, ever more introverted and is located in fewer and fewer places. It is a recognition, to quote my hon. and noble Friend again, that looking into the 1980s and beyond we should aim to increase the numbers by accepting less sophistication in some areas rather than relying totally on a wholly sophisticated Air Force".
  Furthermore, although quite rightly in 1967 we accepted a policy of flexible response, and this justifies every penny we spend on the Royal Air Force, it does seem odd to say the least that we are so resolutely, as far as the Royal Air Force is concerned, denying ourselves without reserves the instruments and capabilities of flexible response which could be demanded in a protracted and costly although limited conflict. The Royal Air Force is still totally wedded to the concept of the three or four day war. It is wedded to the philosophy of Foster Dulles and the doctrines of massive nuclear retaliation of the bomber barons of the late 1950s and early 1960s, much more than to the realities of graduated deterrence in an era of nuclear parity and overwhelming Soviet conventional military power. How else can proposals which are financially so undemanding in scope, which would improve Royal Air Force recruiting and make a modest contribution to its ability to expand, be so lightly dismissed?
  In a Vote which I otherwise commend to the House, making provision as it does for a Service which is invaluable to the nation and is in good shape and good heart, I must in conclusion draw attention to the mere £3 million allocated for the Royal Air Force Reserves. This is as opposed to the £150 million for Service pensions or £290 million for what the hon. and learned Member for Northamp-
  828
  ton (Mr. Paget) calls the tethered goat of B.A.O.R., or £171 million for local administration or even £41 million for the territorial army. If an Air National Guardsman in the United States can operate a sophisticated aircraft of supersonic performance on operations, there is no reason why more limited functions should not be fulfilled by keen part-timers in this country.
  To sum it all up, if nothing else, the Eurocentricity of our strategic posture, and the ever-growing pressure of manpower costs upon budgets that diminish in real terms, must induce eventually an agonising reappraisal if equipment programmes and procurement costs are not going to suffer. It is for that reason above all that I have made these suggestions about the Reserve. I commend the Defence Votes to the House.
  7.27 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Judd: When one listens to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. John Wilkinson) one always realises that he brings a great deal of enthusiasm, expertise and knowledge to the debates. One recognises that what we have gained in these debates in the House is obviously the loss of the Air Force which previously was able to enjoy his services.
  I feel a little humble about intervening in this debate, representing as I do a constituency which contains one of the principal naval bases in the country. Therefore, I want to limit my observations to two or three small, practical points.
  May I start by adding my congratulation and thanks to all those who served the nation so effectively and conscientiously within the Air Force, and add a special word of appreciation for the humanitarian services which the Air Force provides outside its main responsibilities, and which it carries out so cheerfully. Sometimes these are more dramatic, but in the case of my own constituency I have regularly seen the Air Force at work helping to rescue yachtsmen and others who find themselves in difficulties in the Solent. This is as vital and practical a service to the community which should not go unnoticed. I sometimes wonder, quite frankly, what the economics of the operation really are, and how far—whatever contributions may be made—this is a

  829
  taxpayers' subsidy to support those who are able to afford the sport.
  The two practical points on which I really want to concentrate briefly this evening are these. First of all, in Question Time I have been able to ask the Minister opposite about the possibility of his taking the initiative in co-ordinating discussions in the South Hampshire and West Sussex area about the development of civil and military airport facilities. I and the people I represent have noted with appreciation his fairly positive response to the questions that have been put. There is now a degree of urgency about the situation, because the local authority in Portsmouth has decided to phrase out completely the local civic airport and, with the rapid development of population and, we hope, economic activity within this geographical area, there is obviously a need to reach long-term rational solutions which ensure that this community has the best possible services. In terms of the problems of air traffic control and of noise and pollution, it would be sensible to consider joint usage by the Royal Air Force and civil airlines where this can be successfully negotiated.
  This conclusion in the context of the area which I know best, leads me to suggest that perhaps, with the constant development of domestic civilian air services, there is a case for far more initiative by the Minister's department in seeing how and to what extent greater co-ordination can be achieved throughout the country, thereby achieving economy in the interests of tax payers, rate payers and all.
  My second point concerns welfare and humanitarian aspects of life within the Service. I think we all agree that happy family life is of profound significance for the morale of serving personnel. Therefore, one cannot devote too much attention to the welfare and family services which are at the disposal of personnel in the Royal Air Force and other Services.
  I am concerned about a problem with which I have been confronted in recent weeks and on which I should like to hear the Minister's thinking. Basically, I think we would all agree that Service life puts special strains upon families, although perhaps not so much in the Royal Air Force as in the Royal Navy.
  830
  If statistical analysis were undertaken, it would probably be found that there is a proportionately higher rate of family break-up within the Services than within the rest of society. If a family does unfortunately break up, a wife and children can suddenly find themselves projected into an acute personal crisis in terms of their housing needs. The Service Ministers should look seriously at this problem.
  I have in mind a particular family which has sadly broken up. The wife and children are to be evicted from their Service quarters at Ruislip. They have been told that they qualify for consideration for local authority housing only in the London Borough of Hillingdon, because that is where they are at present residing, and that there is a five-year waiting list before they have any hope of accommodation. However, the mother and children want to return to their real home, which is my city of Portsmouth and, despite all the activities of the Service welfare organisations, the firm reply has come from the local authority in Portsmouth that there is no question of putting them even on to the waiting list because they do not fulfil the residential qualifications. If we recognise that Service families contribute to the well being, effectiveness and morale of the Service, we must also recognise that we have a special responsibility to the families as well as to the serving military personnel at times of family crisis.
  I dare say that in the midst of all the wider policy considerations this must seem a very small point, but I hope it will not be overlooked. I ask the Minister whether an imaginative and progressive Service like the R.A.F. could not take some initiative in getting together with other Government Departments to ensure that where a family crisis of this kind arises, as it does, not infrequently, as a result of the special Service pressures, action can be taken on an inter-departmental basis to ensure that we do not have a situation in which, as the mother said to me recently—
  "The boys, aged five and six, have already lost their father; they should not have to lose their mother as well."
  This will inevitably happen if, as seems to be the only practical solution at the moment, the mother is compelled to go into hostel accommodation and the children to a children's home.
  7.35 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: Like the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd), I had not intended to intervene in the debate, particularly as I had a good innings in the defence debate. On looking at the rather empty benches which are no doubt a reflection of our activities last night and early this morning, however, I felt that a few moments might be justified.
  The hon. Member for Portsmouth, West mentioned air-sea rescue. Taking up that theme, I say to the Under-Secretary of State that the Ministry of Defence, with other Ministries—such as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—should give consideration to a form of coastguard service to look after air-sea rescue, fishery protection—which will be particularly important when the new limits are introduced—and pollution of the sea. If the Services contributed towards such a service within a civilian coastguard organisation, we might be able to provide one organisation to perform those three functions. That would be of great use to the community and to the Royal Air Force, because helicopters would play an important part in such an organisation.
  I intervene to ask a few questions about the newer maritime rôle of the Royal Air Force. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend and the Government on the order for more Nimrods. These aircraft are probably among the most important in the R.A.F., and lead the world in maritime reconnaissance capabilities, which is absolutely vital, not only for this country but for N.A.T.O., at a time when the Soviet Navy—both surface and submarine—is expanding so rapidly. I hope that the new order will allow the production line to continue for sufficient time for Commonwealth countries such as Canada and Australia, and also South Africa, to consider whether they, too, will purchase these aircraft. The West would gain very much if these three countries had a common aircraft for the purpose of maritime surveillance. I think that everyone will agree that the Nimrod is far in advance of the American Lockheed Orion and the Breguet Atlantique, which are possible rivals but relatively obsolescent compared with Nimrod.
  I have always believed, as have hon. Members on both sides of the House,
  832
  that it was the intention of the last Labour Government and the present Government as far as possible to have cross-operation between Royal Naval aircraft and R.A.F. aircraft in the maritime rôle. Admittedly, there is to be only one, or possibly two, carriers left in the Royal Navy, but the Americans have a number of aircraft carriers, and so have the French, and there will be a requirement for some time to come, certainly until the 1980s, for R.A.F. aircraft to land on the decks of aircraft carriers. I understand that that was the intention of previous Governments.
  It came as a shock to me to learn only the other day that, in considering the Phantoms and the Buccaneers this may not be possible. Taking first the Phantoms, those that were ordered for the R.A.F. cannot operate from carriers because they have not the necessary naval equipment. I understand that those that are being taken over from the Navy are having their navalised equipment, but not the arrester hook, removed, so that they also will be unable to operate from carriers.
  That seems a very serious matter, and if it is only a question of leaving a certain amount of navalised equipment on the plane surely this should be done, as it would give flexibility of operation, as regards not only our own carriers but also those of our allies in N.A.T.O. I understand that the American F4J can operate from carriers or shore, and that those designed for the R.A.F. cannot. I should like to ask a specific question, therefore. Has any Royal Air Force aircraft in the past few years ever operated from the deck of an aircraft carrier? I am not including the Harrier in that class, because we know that it has, but has any purely R.A.F. fixed wing aircraft—not a naval version—actually operated from the deck of an aircraft carrier and, if so, how often?
  The story is continued with the Buccaneer, which is built in my constituency. It was designed as a maritime strike aircraft and has been extremely satisfactory in that rôle. As the House knows, a number of Buccaneers nave been handed over by the Royal Navy to the Royal Air Force, and a new order has been placed for Royal Air Force Buccaneers to serve in Germany. There is

  833
  one Royal Navy squadron of Buccaneers left which can operate from carriers, because they are designed to operate from the "Ark Royal" during the remainder of her lifetime, but have the Buccaneers that have been handed over to the R.A.F. now been "denavalised", if I may use that horrible expression? Are they, like the Phantoms, not going to be capable of operating from the decks of carriers? I believe that that is so, because I read an article in Flight Review International of August, 1970, which showed that the majority of the special equipment, with the exception of the arrester hook, was being removed from the Buccaneers handed over to the R.A.F. If that is so, it seems to be extremely shortsighted, as it will prevent any cross-operation of these, aircraft.
  On the question of naval operations—we are to build Anglo-French Jaguars for operation in the Royal Air Force. I understand that the French Navy is using these aircraft to operate from its two carriers—"Foch" and "Clemenceau". Is it going to be possible to make our new Jaguars capable of operating, if necessary, from N.A.T.O. aircraft carriers? If that could be done without sacrificing too many of their other capabilities it would greatly increase their flexibility.
  I now come to the whole problem of the way in which the R.A.F. is to perform the maritime rôle that is now being placed upon it. It can probably perform it most efficiently, as it did in the last war, around our coasts, or in the whole of the N.A.T.O. area, but I am thinking of the 50 per cent. of the oil required by Europe and by this country which travels from the Persian Gulf, round the Cape and up from the South Atlantic to Western Europe. I remind the House also that responsibilities of N.A.T.O. to the south end at the Tropic of Cancer. Therefore, there are no N.A.T.O. responsibilities between Cape Town and the Tropic of Cancer.
  The specific question that I want to ask my hon. Friend is how these convoys will be protected. I asked the last Government that question, and I have asked this Government, but I have never had a clear answer. How are our convoys—I understand that there will be up to five a day in wartime—coming from
  834
  the Gulf, round the Cape into the N.A.T.O. area, going to be protected from air attack or from ships with surface-to-surface missiles in the area, shall we say, between Cape Town and the Equator, which is outside the N.A.T.O. area? There are no allied bases, unless we use South Africa and Rhodesia; the Simonstown Agreement allows us to use South African ports, but not its airfields. If my contention is correct and we cannot operate R.AF. Phantoms and Buccaneers from aircraft carriers, British or American, how would this vital protection on which our industrial effort and our war effort would depend be provided, because this is going to be one of the important rôles of the R.A.F.?
  My hon. Friend may say that we are going to have the M.R.C.A. and that it is a world beater. I agree, but I say again that although it may be an excellent aircraft, for various reasons, when it was ordered by the previous Government it was designed for the European theatre, and its range was cut to about half that of the TSR2. Therefore, it is pretty useless in these oceanic areas. I should like an answer to my question how these convoys—and I understand on the highest authority that there are to be convoys in the next war—to be protected from air attack in the South Atlantic or the South India Ocean without bases and without long-range aircraft?
  Finally, how is the R.A.F. carrying out its training of pilots for this new maritime rôle? How many of the Royal Navy pilots pushed out of that Service have transferred to the R.A.F.? Is the R.A.F. going to be able to give proper priority to this very important task? I am second to none in my admiration for the R.A.F., both in the last war and at present, but I believe that it is having a task thrust upon it which it is going to find difficult to perform even if that were its main rôle—and it is not; it is a secondary rôle. I doubt whether the R.A.F., with the equipment that it is likely to have in the next eight to 10 years, will be able to protect the vital convoys in oceanic areas.
  I apologise for repeating that three times, but it is a question that I have asked of Governments in the past and to which I have never received a satisfactory answer; nor have the many people

  835
  who believe that this country stands or falls by sea communications, because we import by sea round the Cape 50 per cent. of all the oil that we use and 25 per cent. of all the food we eat. We must ensure for these ships protection in time of war. The R.A.F., as always, will do its best, but has it got the weapons, equipment and training to fulfil this task on top of its other perhaps higher priority but certainly equally vital tasks?
  7.48 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: When I listen to the sophisticated arguments on hardware that I hear my expert hon. Friends discussing in debates of this kind, I realise that it is a long time since I thought I knew about the eqiupment of the R.A.F. and what it was doing. In those days we were all experts; it was the only thing that kept us operating with any joy in the midst of the last war. I can barely remember who was on the Front Bench in those days. I think it was a National Member of Parliament who was Air Minister at the time, and when we were serving on various R.A.F. stations here, in Germany and elsewhere we could all have told him exactly how to run the war and how the R.A.F. should have performed.
  Things have changed a great deal since those days. Nevertheless, I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) about the high sophistication of equipment so far as airplanes are concerned. I have always been in the military field and I have always believed in the Marks & Spencer argument. I do not really think that if we had another war—which I pray we do not—it would be very many weeks after the start before we should be wanting much less sophisticated equipment, wanting to put people into machines that would be expendable because they were less costly. This is something which this country should consider when it is spending very large sums of money on airplanes or any other pieces of military equipment.
  I do not really want to talk about that at all, however; I just want to say a few words about the R.A.F. and its personnel. I am fortunate that my links with the Royal Air Force have been maintained. First, because I have two Royal Air Force stations in my con-
  836
  stituency, Cottesmore and North Luffenham. In fact, I have three R.A.F. stations, if we count Wittering which is just outside my constituency, and most of the people from Wittering regularly come into Stamford.
  The second reason for my association with the R.A.F. is that there is a branch of the Royal Air Force Association in the House of Commons of which I am Chairman. We do not meet very often, but we like to feel we are there to support the Royal Air Force if it needs support in political terms. There are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who are members of that Association who are anxious to assist when they can.
  I pay tribute to the relationships which the Royal Air Force has with the community in which it is set. I am sure that this applies to every area in the country and it certainly applies to my area.
  There is in all the stations in my constituency a friendly association between the civilian population and the Royal Air Force personnel. The Royal Air Force personnel mix extremely well with the local population and take a full part in various activities. Once a year—sometimes more frequently—the stations open to the public, sometimes by invitation and sometimes by open invitation.
  This connection between the Royal Air Force station and the community in which it finds itself makes the civilian population realise the value of the Service and what it does for the community. Furthermore, it enables the Service to have roots among those who are not in uniform. Nowadays it is difficult to tell who is in uniform and who is not since Service personnel outside Service hours normally do not wear uniform.
  I was interested to see on Vote "A" that the total number of personnel has decreased in the period 1971–72 and 1972–73. For some reason we appear to be losing out on our target. The Air Force appears to have lost some 300 people. At a time when there is a great spur to recruitment and when recruitment generally in the Services is supposed to be good, I cannot understand why the Royal Air Force should have reduced its target. Perhaps an element of productivity is coming into the Royal Air Force in the same way as it has come into industry.

  837
  A curious fact is that we are to have a further 100 nurses to look after a complement that is being reduced by 300. This may be of advantage to those in the Service, but I do not know whether that number of nurses will be able to be recruited. At any rate, it is an interesting statistic.
  I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West said about the auxiliary air force and I regret that it is not expanding. However, one must be realistic. If the opportunities were widened without limit in an auxiliary service, there would be a great demand for a part-time service. There would have to be a limit otherwise the cost would be too great, and in a professional service those who head up the service do not want to dissipate their resources by competing for civilian activities within that Service. One can understand their attitude because they are confined within a budget, and defence budgets do not normally increase but remain fairly static.
  The R.A.F., like the Army and Navy, has to provide more out of less in that value for money has depreciated and therefore the increase does not match the inflation which is taking place. I can understand the resistance to any change, but personally I wish there were some expansion in the auxiliary service.
  The R.A.F. is probably the most technical service of all. Never have so few provided the nation with such technical prowess for so little cost. One has only to visit a Royal Air Force station to realise that some of the best technical brains in the country—lower, middle and top—are to be found in the R.A.F. Industry gains advantage from this because many people who leave the service come out better trained than if they had spent all their lives in industry. I only hope that industry appreciates what it is getting.
  The quality of the intake to the R.A.F. is as high as it has ever been. It is also matched by the quality of the training, which has always been maintained at a high level. I have always been proud of the fact that I was able to be a member of the R.A.F. I am glad that I have been able to maintain an association with it.
  When during the war we used to return from night ops we would come back in
  838
  the early hours of the morning when there were very few people around. There is a similar situation when we look around us tonight. Exactly the same thing happens when the House of Commons does "night ops". Therefore, the attendance at this debate does not mean that the House has anything but the highest regard for the Royal Air Force.
  8.58 p.m.
  Mr. Albert Booth: This debate on the Air Estimates is being conducted against the background of over a million unemployed in the United Kingdom. That fact must colour our attitude towards the total effect of the Defence Estimates, and the Air Estimates in particular, related to the level of employment.
  There has in the past been an erroneous assumption that high Defence Estimates had a favourable effect on employment levels. It is now widely recognised in the trade union movement and in the country at large that high Defence Estimates have the reverse effect—in other words, they depress general employment levels.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the recent announcement about the two new cruisers which are to be built has had a depressing effect on unemployment?
  Mr. Booth: What I am arguing—and I will produce evidence to support it—is that the effect of high Defence Estimates has been to depress the total level of employment or to increase the total number of unemployed. This is not peculiar to this country, but holds good generally in countries with populations of between 40 and 100 million.
  The figures of manpower levels of the forces show that as our defence budget goes up our Service manpower goes down. Annexe "A" of the current Estimates demonstrate the situation. We see that from 1966 to 1971 there was a fall in the total United Kingdom Service personnel from 418,000 to 368,000. I do not believe there was a single year in which the figure did not fall. There is a slight increase in the 1972 Estimate to £372 million, but the forecast for 1973 is that there will be a further drop to £363 million. So, over the period from 1966 to 1973, while we have had an increase

  839
  in our total defence expenditure year by year, Service personnel requirements dropped fairly steadily.
  Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman said that countries with populations of between 50 million and 100 million had an unemployment situation which varied with their defence expenditure; the higher the defence expenditure the more unemployed they had. On that basis, would Poland and East Germany, which have defence expenditures per head of population higher than our own—and as a percentage of G.N.P. defence expenditures higher than our own—have higher unemployment because their defence expenditures are going up?
  Mr. Booth: I will try to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point in detail when I come to the calculation of defence expenditure. There is a difference in the method of calculation between Eastern and Western Europe, and this tends to be reconciled to some extent in the statistics produced by the Institute of Strategic Studies. I suggested figures of between 40 million and 100 million because a much bigger country of high economic strength—for example, the U.S.S.R. or the U.S.A.—can spend not only a higher total defence budget, but a higher proportion of its G.N.P. on defence without the same detrimental effect on its total employment level which we in this country would suffer. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me a little longer, I will explain what I believe to be some of the reasons for this.
  Let us stay with the facts, not the opinions, for a little longer and agree that, with an increasing total defence budget in this country, we have had a pretty steady fall in Service manpower requirements. I am not making a party point. I freely acknowledge that this took place both under Labour and Conservative Governments.
  The more difficult thing to estimate is the effect of the Service and the Defence Estimates upon civilian employment. With the increase in the total defence budget from £2,545 million last year to £2,854 million this year, we have had an increase in unemployment to the highest ever post-war level, and it is now over one million. Industrial nations spending less than us in absolute G.N.P.
  840
  terms are sustaining higher economic growth rates and are therefore tending to have more people in employment. They have far lower unemployment figures.
  Taking the comparative positions of Britain, West Germany and Japan, we see, year by year, that this is the case. Going back to 1965, we were spending 6·3 per cent. of our G.N.P. on defence, West Germany 5·6 per cent., and Japan 1·3 per cent.
  Coming to 1967, Britain was spending 5·7 per cent., West Germany 4·3 per cent., and Japan only 0·9 per cent.
  Bringing the position up to 1970, Britain was spending 4·9 per cent., West Germany 3·3 per cent., and Japan 0·8 per cent. Since then our defence budget has risen to 5·5 per cent., of our G.N.P., and it has stayed there for the last two years.
  The interesting thing to note is that in every year we were the highest of the three nations. We do not need to go to the statistics to agree that the higher economic growth rate in Japan, particularly in civilian industry, is demonstrably—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I am sorry for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but there is a certain difficulty with Defence Estimates. The hon. Gentleman should relate his remarks to the Air Estimates, into which he can go in any detail he wishes. However, any remarks addressed to defence both under Labour and Conservative in general or to the other Services should simply be passing references.
  Mr. Booth: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I strayed from order. I was tempted from the path of righteousness by an intervention from the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) who challenged me on what I admit was a broad and general assertion which I made about employment levels.
  I will turn specifically to the related effect of the Air and other Defence Estimates. I refer, first, to research and defence expenditure. That has risen significantly in this year's Defence Estimates. The demands of the R.A.F. in this sphere have continued to be fairly high.
  Looking at the 1972 Estimates, we see a substantial number of major research

  841
  and development requirements. The interesting thing is that, although defence expenditure in last year's estimates was only £264 million, compared with a total on research and development this year of £330 million, last year's aircraft projects contained the M.R.C.A., which is a collaborative project, the Jaguar, a research and development project to improve the engine performance and aircraft systems of the Harrier and three helicopters, the Lynx, Gazelle and Puma. There is also the Buccaneer Mark 2 research project and the conversion of the Victor Mark 2.
  In the guided weapons sphere there were projects to improve and develop the Sea Dart, medium-range surface-to-air guided weapon, which was admittedly for ships, but there were also the Rapier, the Anglo-French Martel, the Swingfire, the Seawolf, the Blowpipe and other studies on joint communications systems.
  In electronics, there was Clansman, a net radio system for communications in the field, and Linesman/Mediator.
  There were also major projects in nuclear propulsion, gas-turbine development for ship propulsion, ship-borne launching, anti-submarine torpedoes, sonars, and so on.
  The Army also had its share of big demands on research and development.
  It would be helpful if the Minister were to tell us the actual expenditure compared with the Estimates. I put this to the Minister, because I want to question whether it is possible to spend the proposed sum on research and development. It is one thing to put £330 million in Defence Estimates, part of which is the Air Estimates, and it is another thing to expend that amount. The amount which we, or any country of about our size, can spend on research and development depends not only on what the Exchequer is prepared to make available, but on the skilled manpower which is available. Some very elaborate research and development facilities are required to spend that amount. Does the Minister accept or refute the assertion that, over the last few years, irrespective of what we have put in our Defence Estimates, in practice we have not been able to spend much more than £250 million a year on defence research and development?
  842
  There have been limitations on what we should spend related to the size of our research and development establishments and the amount of research and development manpower available for these military projects. If it is the case, as is suggested by these Estimates, that we can increase our defence research and development expenditure to some £330 million, I put it to the Minister that the only way in which we can do it at present is by depriving civilian industrial research and development of its own manpower and facilities which it needs if we are to stay competitive in world markets in a number of highly sophisticated products.
  That contention can be borne out by an examination of the research and development requirements which are taken up by the military. While I am speaking on the Air Estimates, I make it clear that I am not gunning for the Air Estimates. It is equally the case that the Admiralty delves heavily into research and development in marine engineering and naval architecture.
  I have tried to make a proper assessment of the total proportion which has been taken by each of the Services of our total available research and development capacity. I can assure the Minister that it is a difficult exercise for a back bench hon. Member to undertake. It is very difficult to get all the figures that one requires if one is to do the sums properly.
  Lord Lambton: If the hon. Gentleman wants the research and development figures, I shall be only too pleased to give them.
  Mr. Booth: I welcome that assurance. I shall be delighted and surprised if the hon. Gentleman is prepared to give me more than some of his predecessors were. The further back that one goes in the quest for figures, the more that one can get. In 1967, for example, one can get total figures for civil and military research and development. In 1966–67, the total research and development expenditure was £605 million by public and private research associations. Of that, the total military requirement was £275 million. At that time, the military were taking 30 per cent. of all the available research and development capacity in the country. If one breaks that down as

  843
  between the aircraft industry and the marine industries, one finds that civil firms in the aircraft and aerospace industry, with their research and development programmes, took £159 million, whereas the R.A.F. with its programmes took £178 million. In aircraft, 53 per per cent. of all research and development was taken for military purposes, and even at that time the spin-off value of the R.A.F.'s research and development was diminishing rapidly. Many of the projects carried out had little or no value for civil use. I shall give examples of that later.
  I turn to what happened in a comparative area in order to compare the R.A.F.'s total demand for research and development with that of the Navy. In marine engineering, in 1966–67, we spent only £3·2 million in civil research. Naval research ran to £14 million. In other words, the Navy took 82 per cent. of the total research and development effort in that year in marine engineering and naval architecture. It is not surprising, therefore, that Japan ran away with world shipbuilding markets, taking a far higher proportion than we were, while we were sustaining a uniform merchant shipbuilding production at a time when world demand rose rapidly. The Japanese capacity has risen from 2 million to 14 million tons a year while ours has virtually stayed still.
  I have contended that much of the so-called spin-off argument has ceased to be valid. That is partly because weapons systems have become so specialised, anyway, that the researcher who solves the major weapons problems often is producing a result which cannot have any civil application. But if we look at what this has cost the nation over the years, we see that there has been an enormous waste of research and development effort and of public funds. To see that in perspective, one has to examine the amount which has been spent on projects which have been cancelled. In 1952, the Ministry cancelled research and development projects on which £9 million had been spent. In 1954, it cancelled projects on which a total of £13 million had been spent. In 1955, it cancelled projects on which £33 million had been spent. In 1960, which included the Blue Streak cancellation, the figure rose to £92
  844
  million. By 1965, that being the year in which the TSR2 was cancelled, the total cost of cancelled projects had risen to £240 million.
  Not only are we spending an enormous sum of our total research and development capacity in research projects; we are wasting money at a fantastic rate. It is a rate that we cannot afford as a nation which has to sell highly sophisticated manufactured goods in order to earn a living in the world.
  Nowhere is that more true than in nuclear weapons systems. There, one has to develop three major research, development and manufacturing capacities. That is a point which is well understood and appreciated by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). First, one has to produce fissile materials. That in itself is extremely expensive. Materials have to be produced to a very much higher specification than that required in practically any other material production operation in the world. Then one has to set up another industry of warhead assembly which in itself involves enormous research and development capacity. Thirdly, one has to develop and control the delivery system of the missile. The total research and development involved in that triple operation just to produce one branch of our total weaponry is enormous.
  It is because the research and development cost of weaponry systems is so enormous that various Governments over a period of years have become involved in collaborative systems. Today, we have the M.R.C.A. which, I suppose, is the classic case. West Germany. Italy and the United Kingdom have combined to produce one of the weapons requirements of the nation. We also have Polaris, which is Anglo-United States, Martel, which is Anglo-French, combat and reconnaissance vehicles which are Anglo-Belgian, and so on. One can deduce from this that the cost of research and development is leading us into alliances which are based not only initially on the political requirements of defence policy but also upon the economic requirements of the weapons systems themselves. It may be that we shall find ourselves cemented into political alliances because of the technology costs of the weaponry systems.
  The weaponry systems of the Warsaw Pact and of N.A.T.O. to some extent

  845
  may have been cemented together by the technology requirements of weapons production, and this very much affects our attitude towards our Air Estimates, because the use of the tactical and the strategic nuclear weapon, the value that one places on it and the rôle that one ascribes to it determine to a large extent what one would consider to be a proper rôle for the R.A.F.
  Therefore it seems that whether or not these Air Estimates are justified is partly a matter of whether we are ready to assume that we can go on with the present position with Europe divided between the Warsaw Pact and N.A.T.O.
  It is therefore appropriate on these Estimates to make one short but, I hope, relevant condemnation of the Government's policy in this respect. This Government have consistently refused to respond in the way in which it is necessary to respond to the invitation of the Finnish Government to go to a conference on European security. First, they said that they could not go without agreement on Berlin. Now that we have that, they say that they cannot go until it is ratified. When it is ratified, no doubt they will say that they cannot go without the agreement of our N.A.T.O. partners.
  The right response is to say that all the nations of Europe—East and West, N.A.T.O. and Warsaw Pact—have a right to be represented individually in the determination of their own security. Allied to this is the whole question of the weaponry which is part of these Estimates, and particularly its R. and D.
  With more than half the world's population living in conditions of starvation and poverty, we must determine the outcome of our own technological revolution. The choices before us are simple; we can perpetuate the misery of the underdeveloped countries while we produce a more sophisticated and even more terrifying weaponry or we can turn to the ways of peace to bring to the whole world better standards of life and freedom.
  8.21 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister said in opening the debate that he would deal with equipment questions. We are deeply critical of some of the things that he has said today. I could
  846
  not help hearing the Minister of State for Defence say, when we had our dispute over the HS1182, "This is a matter of judgment." I may be doing him an injustice, but I thought that the implication was, "We know in the Ministry and you do not."
  May I be forgiven for a slightly less than reverent attitude towards the Ministry of Defence on equipment matters? Hindsight is easy, I know, but these are the men who were responsible for advising that the Spey engine should be put into a Phantom. Anyone who has cost any nation millions of pounds can hardly be regarded as infallible. I am not one to sneer at civil servants. I do not doubt their motives or their ability. My only deduction is that the Civil Service, like the rest of us, can easily be wrong and that any notion that we must not challenge the advice which is given because they know and we do not is not acceptable to this House.
  I go further. I want to know what the Ministry of Defence has learned from its experience of putting that Spey engine into the Phantom. We should like to know what policy conclusions have been drawn by the Ministry of Defence from the highly expensive example of putting this engine into the Phantom and what general conclusions have been drawn in relation to "modifying" and tinkering with existing mechanisms and equipment. Tinkering is very expensive.
  The cost of putting alien pieces of equipment in existing weapons is a theme which will come out time and again in the discussion on equipment.
  Lord Lambton: The hon. Member is aware, of course, that the decision to put the Rolls-Royce Spey engine in the Phantom was taken by the last Administration.
  Mr. Dalyell: I am absolutely aware of it and I do not seek to hide it. I am not making cheap party points. The conclusion which I am drawing—I thought that this was implicit in what the Minister said—is that we should not accept that because the Government have expert Civil Service advice and we in the Opposition of the Day do not that on such discussions as that on the HS1182, the Opposition should be careful and not vouchsafe an opinion.
  The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): Perhaps we can clear this out of the way. The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said. When I said that this was a matter of judgment I did not intend the implication that automatically the Government knew better than the Opposition. I meant that it was a matter of performance between two different types of engine. That judgment on performance led to the selection of a certain engine. There was no implication that we knew infinitely better, or that we could not be questioned. Of course not.
  Mr. Dalyell: As we have a little more time than we expected, let us go through the example of the Hawker-Siddeley 1182. This is for advanced conversion training to Phantoms, Jaguars and Harriers.
  Mr. Wilkinson indicated dissent.
  Mr. Dalyell: Yes. It is basically for training.
  Mr. Wilkinson: It is an advanced trainer—an applied trainer to succeed the Gnat and the Hunter, which are in service with No. 4 Advanced Flying Training School at Valley and No. 229 Tactical Weapon Unit at Chivenor, and soon at Brawdy. It is not a conversion aeroplane; it has no operational conversion rôle.
  Mr. Dalyell: It is fairly clear that I was referring to the conversion training of pilots to rather faster aircraft.
  Not before time, we welcomed the announcement today, because the decision has been delayed for many months and has created certain problems in the industry. The Government have probably been finding difficulty in making up their minds between the Rolls-Royce Turbomeca Adour engine and the Bristol-Siddeley Viper 600, which is much less expensive. I have been persuaded that this decision is wrong.
  It is not a question of carping, as the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said. It is something much deeper. It is a feeling that some of us have that there are committees in the Ministry of Defence which are forever insisting that on all occasions the best must be provided, that nothing but the best will do. That is a very telling slogan when one is talking of nothing but the best for our boys who are engaged in a fighting situa-
  848
  tion, but it is quite different to argue that we must have nothing but the best in a training situation, because this is entirely different.
  It may be true that the Bristol Viper 600 is thought to be coming towards the end of its life, but the question is whether the Ministry wants to train pilots on an engine that is more powerful. There is a very strong feeling that there would be accidents, if adjustments are not made to the Adour.
  Mr. Wilkinson: No there is not.
  Mr. Dalyell: Would the hon. Gentleman like to deny that?
  Mr. Wilkinson: Yes, gladly. Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that a responsible Ministry or Government—I have the privilege to support both on this occasion, as always—would introduce into service an inherently unsafe aeroplane? We are here considering better fuel consumption, long endurance and low-level capability.
  Mr. Dalyell: Not consciously. There is more to it—and the Government have accepted part of my case. If there were no more to it, why should it be necessary to take out the after-burner? The answer is simple. They dare not take the risk of training people with such a high-powered engine. It would be wrong to say that the Government would do anything to jeopardise the lives of trainee pilots, but that is not the issue. The issue is the expense of having a highly sophisticated engine which, for training purposes, must be altered. Is that denied?
  Lord Balniel: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this aircraft is taking the place of the Jaguar, which is infinitely more expensive.
  Mr. Dalyell: Yes, for highly sophisticated training. But is it denied that training for the Jaguar could be done in an aircraft powered by the Super V 600 engine? I take it from the silence on the Government Front Bench that that is not denied.
  Next, is it denied that the conversion will cost £10 million? If that is not denied, one can draw the conclusion that the kind of cost-effectiveness that goes on in this Department is strange indeed, for it seems that £10 million is being

  849
  needlessly spent, not on teeth but on training. Is that denied?
  Lord Lambton: What on earth has led the hon. Gentleman to believe that it will cost £10 million?
  Mr. Dalyell: I am quoting figures that have been given to us. I said that it is extremely costly to tinker about with engines. Learn from Spey-Phantom!
  Lord Lambton: Who gave the hon. Gentleman the figures?
  Mr. Dalyell: Friends intimately concerned in the industry. I repeat—£10 million!
  Lord Lambton: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman giving him such figures as we have. In the meantime, it is not satisfactory for him to make wild accusations, involving millions of pounds. I am unable to understand precisely what case he is making. He accuses us of using an aeroplane the engine of which is too high-powered, though it is infinitely less powerful than that of the Jaguar. I cannot understand the logic of his case. Does he want us to use a much less powerful areoplane? Is he asking that we should shove people from it into extremely sophisticated aircraft?
  Mr. Dalyell: It is absurd to talk about the "shove"—to use the noble Lord's word—from the Viper V 600 into a highly sophisticated aircraft.
  My worst fears are, in a sense, confirmed about this Department because it is assumed that one must have, by right, the most expensive equipment, whatever the operational requirement. The view is taken that something less expensive must not be used. I look forward to the letter which the noble Lord has promised to send me. When we get down to arguing detailed cases, this great Department is far less impressive than when it sticks to generalities.
  Throughout this discussion I have not been given the figure of the actual cost of these conversions. It was asked for at 5 p.m. Apparently little has been learned from the experience of putting the Spey engine into the Phantom. It may have happened under another Administration, but one would have thought that the departmental officials responsible for procurement would have learned a lesson
  850
  involving not thousands or tens of thousands of pounds but well over £1 million per unit. I gather that that figure is not denied?
  That brings me to the rôle of Ministers in this Department. I hope that they see their job, first of all, as involving the questioning of every piece of advanced equipment that is put forward, possibly getting, from outside the Department, objective help; otherwise our defence budget mounts. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) was right to dwell on the figure of £2,850 million.
  When we get down to detail we find that it has crept up and up. I am surprised that the Minister should be so bewildered, because these are facts of which he has been given notice. If I am wrong, then let him tell the House the cost of altering this engine, because I can only draw the conclusion that the Defence Department has learnt very little, if anything, from the highly expensive lesson that it had when Spey was put in.
  Mr. Wilkinson: What on earth would be the point, with what is basically a subsonic aircraft, of putting in a re-heat to career around the sky at a performance which the design of the aeroplane did not allow it fully to exploit? I can imagine nothing less safe than that. That may be one of the reasons why the Government have not applied the re-heat.
  Mr. Dalyell: Then why chose an Adour engine when it has a re-heat actually encased in it? Keep Viper 600. That is the point that has to get home. It is unusual for the House to have time to go over this in such detail. I make no apology for doing so. This just confirms my worst suspicions that the Department of Defence has learnt nothing from the Spey Phantom fiasco. We can all make mistakes once. But we ought to learn.
  The Government are asking Hawker-Siddeley Dynamics to look—I admit at once that it is only a feasibility study—at the possibility of modifying the American medium-range Sparrow Hawk, to incorporate advanced new British components which are developed by Marconi and E.M.I. This may well be another Spey. I would like to know how expensive it is to install these British variations. [Interruption.] If there is a complaint about Spey and Phantom, I am bound

  851
  to say that this had the attention of the Public Accounts Committee of this House for many hours. One can only assume that the Public Accounts Committee spent a lot of time preparing a report of which the Department of Defence took precious little notice.
  On the subject raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) in the case of the Sparrow Hawk and other collaborative projects with United States, first, are we very happy about the whole system of contractual arrangements? When we are dealing with the French or Germans, the language is different and we know that. When we are dealing with the Americans, we assume that the language is the same, and then find out that what is meant on this side of the Atlantic may be different from what is meant on the other side. The Defence Department knows very well the immense contractual difficulties which arise from that. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that if we were to buy American weapons we would often —not always—be wiser to have them off-the-shelf. I can only assume that putting these British variations into an American aircraft/missile is bowing to pressure from Harry Chapman Pincher of the Daily Express who thinks it is wrong to buy American equipment—it must have something British in it and this is some kind of a face-saver.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The point that I made in my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), was that there was a certain demand coming from the hon. Gentleman's back benches—and his Front Bench—to employ people in this country. Therefore, they are producing something which, whether it is going to the American market or not, is creating confidence.
  Mr. Dalyell: I can see that there are these pressures, but there has to be judgment, and sometimes it is so expensive to make comparatively minor variations that this is what swells the budget. Like many other hon. Members my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) was deeply worried about a defence budget which has now risen to £2,850 million. I remember what was said from these benches when my right hon. Friend the Member for
  852
  Aberavon was standing at the Government Dispatch Box in 1969 and the criticism that he got for not being able to control defence expenditure. Now that we have time, we ought to look at these things. I must express some doubts about the Sparrow Hawk. We are making this feasibility study, but how often is it thought that there will be any practice firing of it? It is extremely expensive to fire. Secondly, why are we doing this feasibility study at all?
  Lord Lambton: How can we possibly criticise the feasibility study when no one knows whether it is feasible?
  Mr. Dalyell: If a feasibility study is being done, presumably it is serious and there is the intention of firing this missile.
  If it is a feasibility study merely to sound impressive the Government ought to tell us. Are they serious about this? It is strange that such a study should be done with what is a comparatively elderly American weapon. What are they up to? Have any discussions taken place with those who developed Sparrow Hawk, namely, the Raythion Corporation? It is our information that should the Government decide to go ahead there would be considerable patent troubles. What consideration has been given to these?
  It is the duty of an Opposition to be constructive. The reason why I have criticised this project is that I contend that there was a good reason for concentrating on S.R.A.A.M.—the short-range air-to-air missile. The Ministry of Defence and Hawker-Siddeley think that they are on to a winner. Is the United States to participate in this programme? There is often a strong argument for partnership. Often the need for partnership on projects depends on whether there is a shortage either of money or brains. In this case Hawker-Siddeley is not short of money, and it is certainly not short of brains.
  A decision will have to be made soon, because the United States would like to come in on this. This is a central policy decision about the extent to which, if we enter the Common Market, we can continue to have joint projects with the United States. We have a few joint projects now. There is the Harrier, and cooperation on the Pegasus engine. There

  853
  have been certain delays. To what extent is it policy to co-operate with the United States, and to what extent should we concentrate on European arrangements?
  This brings me to the Lightning. Why has it gone back to having a rather old-fashioned machine gun? It used to have red-top missiles, such as Firestreak. It is no good the Minister screwing up his face. He said that he would make his speech on the "nuts and bolts" of defence, and these are such things. If members of the Government Front Bench are simply to shake their heads and to say "These details are not for us", I want to know what control they have over their Department and its spending. Returning to the Lightning—is the change the result of the change in the nature of warfare, whereby it is necessary to get close to identify a target and, having got close, a need for a short-range air-to-air missile?
  At the moment there is a gap, because these aircraft have gone back to a pretty primitive machine-gun-type armoury, in the absence of a short-range air-to-air missile. Ministers may shake their heads and say that they wonder why we are asking these questions. It is the job of a Minister who has been 18 months in the Department to know about these things. I am willing to be told that we are wrong and misinformed, but it is our job to probe, and until such time as we get a Select Committee on Defence—which seems rather a remote possibility—this is the only chance we get to ask such questions.
  We were told that the Jaguar would enter service in 1974. Why, if that is true, is it to enter the French service first in 1973? To what extent are Jaguars going to release Phantoms to take over from Lightnings as interceptor fighters in the United Kingdom air defence rôle? I should like to know about the United Kingdom home air defence rôle.
  Then there is the Canberra. It is our understanding that the Mark 9 photographic reconnaissance rôle will be taken by Canberras. I should like to ask how many are going to be retained, and indeed, what the assessment is of the Department of the way in which the Canberras will now be sent to B.A.C., Warton, to undergo a zero timing, a complete reconstruction so that their flying hours start
  854
  from zero and their fatigue life, if one can talk in those terms, is extended, or perhaps doubled.
  Then there is the Buccaneer. The Minister in his opening remarks referred to the Buccaneers going to Germany in a tactical strike and reconnaissance rôle. Presumably it is to supplement the Vulcans which were formerly part of the nuclear deterrent and are now tactical strike and reconnaissance aircraft. The question here is, are the Buccaneers going to last for virtually the rest of the 70s, and how do the Government see the problem of the medium-altitude approach? To what extent are they supplementary in the reconnaissance rôle to the work of, for example, Fylingdales? I think there is a problem here.
  On Nimrod, of course we have got the extra work that is given but I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness that of course we are thankful for these jobs, but, at the same time, we should like to see an organisation of society where in fact it would not be necessary to bring forward military projects with the main purpose of creating jobs because of the situation in which we find ourselves. We understand the position, but it is by no means ideal.
  Can Nimrod take over the maritime rôle from the Shackletons, and are the 12 Shackletons likely to be used as airborne early-warning aircraft? Is this to be their rôle?
  Again, there is the question of the radar gap round the United Kingdom at low altitudes. Is it true that we have to use the Shackletons in this rôle because we did not buy the Grumman Tracker as a supplement to the work done by Fylingdales? I think that is a fairly clear question to the Department.
  On Support Command, the Belfast VC10s and the Britannias are being supplemented by the medium-range Hercules. Here I should like to strike a note of concord with the Minister and pay a tribute to what has been done by the R.A.F. crews flying in and out of Dacca during the recent trouble. There is no doubt that the pilots and the servicemen who maintained the flights did a very remarkable job. The Minister also mentioned the Victor Mark II, replacing the Mark I for in-flight refuelling. Are they to remain in service for the rest

  855
  of the 70s, and, if so, what are dangers of their suffering from metal fatigue, because there is a very considerable danger involved in using aircraft that have been in service for some time.
  What we said about Nimrod applies also to Jetstream, and it behoves a Scottish Member of Parliament not to be curmudgeonly about them because they are going to be built by Scottish Aviation and give employment in Ayrshire, and Scottish Aviation are in the opinion of those of us who know them, a very good company. But, of course, some questions were raised on this by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) and I think the Government have to answer my hon. Friend because we would like to know what precisely is the operational requirement for the R.A.F. of the Jetstream. We would also like to know, he and I, what kind of contract this is to be. Seven and a half million pounds does seem to be rather a small amount of money for 25 aircraft, especially if a great deal, if not all, of a new production line has to be set out at Prestwick. My hon. Friend knows very well from his work before he came here what is involved in the setting up of new facilities. Some of the work could be done at Prestwick before, but we are involved in considerable expense and we want to know that that£7½million is a realistic figure.
  Mr. Bishop: Is my hon. Friend aware that the people in Hawker Siddeley in the Manchester and Stockport area regard the Jetstream as a kind of mongrel aircraft, made in pieces in other parts of the world, as compared with the HS748 which is entirely British made?
  Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend has raised a question which the Government have to answer. They should spell out the reasons why Jetstream was preferred to the Hawker-Siddeley 748. Was the National Defence Industries Council consulted about this? The Government may have a good answer. They may say that Jetstream has prospects of sales to other air forces, air taxi operators and third level airline operators. That may be so, but nevertheless, in fairness to those who work at Hawker Siddeley, which has very many development area sub-contracts in Scotland and elsewhere,
  856
  we should be told why Jetstream was preferred to the Hawker-Siddeley 748.
  It would be interesting to hear the results of the evaluations that took place at Boscombe Down, which I suspect my hon. Friend the Member for Newark knows about very well, when evaluations were also made of the North American Rockwell Hawk Commander. It is right that we should go for a British aircraft, but we ought to be told the reasons why a very much cheaper, in this case, North American aircraft, when small quantities were wanted, was not ordered. That should be spelt out because the extent to which the Ministry of Defence gives employment in the development areas should at least be known. I am not saying that the decision is wrong. It is probably right. But at least we have a right to know the thinking behind it.
  On Jetstream, it is a fair question to ask what is the price of the French Tubermeca engines, because Jetstream is involved across the sterling exchanges, and the Hawker-Siddeley 748 is a wholly British aircraft. We would like to know the payments made to the French company. Again, it may be justified, but we should like to know because any extra cost of getting engines from France—and there may be an extra cost—works itself into the price of the contract, and when we are concerned about the escalation of defence costs, as we must be, at least it is legitimate to ask that question.
  On helicopters, the Anglo-French Gazelle, we take it, is used for training purposes and the Puma for tactical transport. What is the future of the WG13, particularly if there are problems with the Bristol Siddeley 360 engine, and any extra costs that may have resulted from recent troubles at the Rolls-Royce small engine department at Neasden? Before anything is said about the WG13, we should like to know what the latest production cost estimates are.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), who could not be here for the debate, asked that the questions of Linesman and Mediator should be raised. Some extremely pertinent questions were asked of his Government by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson). Those questions should be answered by the Ministry of Defence.

  857
  Before leaving technical matters, I have one other question. For the first time in taking part in, I think, nine Air Estimates debates, there has been no mention of the Meterological Office. I should like to praise its work. It is subject to a good deal of ribaldry. A particular question is how the I.B.M. 360/195 computer is working out and whether the Government can say anything about the work being done at the Met, Office. I come now to what Ministers will realise is a rather less contentious part of my speech. On page 19 of the Supplementary Estimates 1971–72, Class XII, 5, we see that provision for British Indian Ocean territories has gone up from £830,000 to £1,230,000, an increase of about 33 per cent. What is happening the British Indian Ocean territories to warrant the expenditure of that much more money? A great deal could be done with it, for example in the provision of facilities such as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) referred to. These are not insignificant amounts and it seems curious that expenditure should suddenly rocket on these territories.
  I turn for a moment to manpower. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon raised the question of the school-leaving age and recruitment. The Minister was quite right in arguing for a higher standard of recruits. But we are not solely concerned with entrants but with what happens to those entrants when they join the Service. I come back therefore to the scheme mentioned last year called the starred mechanic scheme. My right hon. Friend did a good deal to start the scheme. It offers a guarantee of fitter training within the first two years of entry into the R.A.F. It increases the number of available fitters and I have talked to many young men who have an extremely high opinion of the training they receive. I would say, with some knowledge of these matters, possibly that the Services in general and the R.A.F. in particular offer the best technical training that any apprentice in the western world could hope to have. Very considerable praise should be heaped on those who undertake the starred mechanics scheme. I am sure it is the same in the dockyards. Those of us who have had an opportunity to see it are extremely impressed. I should like the Government to give some kind of report on this scheme.
  858
  There is also the question of university cadetships. This scheme looks good and its second intake of graduates for flying training have arrived at Cranwell. Has there been any estimate of the success or failure of the scheme? I was interested in what the Minister said about the Royal Air Force College and basic training and the changeover from the College of Air Warfare at Manby to be concentrated at Cranwell. A part of this is the engineering training which is very important, and some of us were a little surprised at the ratio of officers to men in the Royal Air Force. I suspect that this is now all to do with the number of engineer and flying officers. Engineer officers are becoming more and more important in any air force and we should keep a careful watch on the progress that is made not only to give them training in the first place but to continue it.
  Reports on the cadet forces are again favourable and I notice in evidence to the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee Mr. Cauthery of the Department judges the schemes were very worthwhile.
  It would be churlish of me not to welcome the good recruiting figures and to welcome that the tail has been trimmed a bit. The Government can claim that perhaps the R.A.F. has been able to dispose of many of those it might have recruited in its endeavour to become more efficient and this is on the credit side. But I suspect this is something to do with the military salary introduced by my right hon. Friends. The sombre fact, as Members from Wales and Scotland know only too well, is that as soon as unemployment reaches a certain critical level it leads to more recruits to the Services—often high-calibre recruits—from among young men who do not want to be idle.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) told a powerful if sad story about a senior N.C.O., who, I believe, was his constituent. I will not go over that story or what my hon. Friend heard from his constituent's wife. I draw the conclusion from what my hon. Friend said that there is an obligation to long-serving n.c.o.s. What have the Government to say about how they can honour such commitments? It is rather difficult to do so at a time when certain sectors

  859
  of the Service are being cut, but this is a very real human problem. It is not wholly a matter of finance; it is partly a matter of a man's dignity.
  I was very struck by the family story told by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West. I do not have statistics showing the incidence of broken marriages in the Services, but there is a general impression that it is significantly more than in civilian life. The suspicion is that this is partly to do with the difficulty of obtaining housing. In fact, it is partly about housing. I suspect that, as was said last year, while many local authorities are very good at meeting their obligations to Servicemen others are not. What will the Government do about the laggard authorities? What pressures are being put on them in areas where obtaining married quarters becomes difficult?
  We welcomed what the Minister said about built-in furniture and movable furniture. I welcome his effort to get single rooms at permanent stations, and the notion of the 12-to-14-room complex built round a sitting room. It is appreciated that there are quarters with central heating at Lossiemouth. I am sure that the Minister will give my hon. Friend the Member for Newark an answer on R.A.F. Syerston. My hon. Friend knows far more about the matter than I do, so I shall not go into that.
  Last year I thought—and here I must admit error—that there was a future in a closer link between the R.A.F., B.E.A. and B.O.A.C., and that a number of pilots due to leave the R.A.F. could go into B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. That is very difficult, because B.O.A.C. has ceased for a period of months to take in any entrants. It has obligations to its own pilots. The rate of expansion in civil airlines has been nothing like what was expected. In those circumstances, R.A.F. pilots may find difficulty. It is calculated that there are 1,156 highly-trained pilots leaving the R.A.F. over a 10-year period. When it came to the crunch many would want to continue in the skilled trade that they know so well. Perhaps it is very difficult for them to be fitted into civil airlines, other than small commercial airlines. I should like to hear the Government's thinking on this problem.
  Mr. Booth: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the present circumstances of a high overall level of unemployment there is a case for pressing the Government to extend the period over which they normally extend assistance to ex-Service personnel seeking re-employment?
  Mr. Dalyell: There is a case for that. Perhaps the Government will comment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd asked about the circumstances in which Servicemen were killed in the Gulf, and what obligations we have in Oman. Paragraph 33 of the Defence White Paper must be explained, and my hon. Friend deserves an answer.
  Last year we went in some detail into language training. I do not propose to go over that again, except to ask what the Government's thinking has been, and whether they have carried out the undertakings they gave then.
  Finally, I want to reflect in rather an interrogatory way on the rôle of the R.A.F. in relation to the space industry. My information is that the procurement agency under Derek Rayner has proved that it looks like being a success; at least there are no signs that it is not going to be success. There is a problem that perhaps in this set-up there is not much room for the scientists, but I can see the other argument that the Service officers have legitimate careers expectations and they, too, should be given key positions. There is competition for key positions in the procurement agency.
  Perhaps I could gently say that I wonder whether there is a slight bias against the scientists in the Civil Service who might expect some of the key jobs. I say it very gently. It would not be sensible to make that a criticism.
  I also understand that the National Defence Industry Council, which was perhaps conceived out of the problem of M.R.C.A., has been a success; that the Secretary of State for Defence has taken the chair at several meetings, and that this is regarded by industry as a success.
  Of course, having said that so much is so good, there is another very real and much wider problem, namely, that if we are going to attract into the R.A.F. that element of the highest quality of recruit—which means some of the most

  861
  technically competent people in our society—what incentives do we give them? It may well be that the incentive of a possible war—which we all hope will not happen—and the incentive of bombing some other country are not sufficient for many of the recruits that the R.A.F. would like to attract. That would be agreed ground.
  Therefore, the question arises as to what other incentive can be given. Here I go back to a question that I raised in the Defence debate—the whole nature of the British space effort. A very urgent decision has to be made by Government, by the summer, and this is the decision of the post-Apollo programme. If the hon. Member for Woking thinks that this is a light matter, I can assure him that industry does not, because industry of the kind that he and I are interested in is vitally concerned about whether or not we are going to participate in the post-Apollo programme.
  It certainly does not lie with me, on this occasion, to say whether we should accept an offer that was first made by the Americans two years ago to this country and to Westerin Europe to participate in the shuttle, or any of the other post-Apollo projects. Whether we do or not is of the utmost consequence to the electronics industry, and if one talks to serious people in the electronics industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark knows very well, one finds great interest, because those jeople will not remain at the frontiers of technological knowledge in microcircuitry unless we, too, participate.
  This is highly expensive. I am just putting it in question form. If we do, should not the responsibility be vested in the Services, and particularly in the R.A.F., because every other country carries out this kind of project for some reason or another—and probably very different reasons—and invests it in the armed forces. The Soviet Union have it in their armed forces. The United States have it basically in their armed forces, and so do the Chinese, with whom I talked in Peking in November, about their satellite and communications capacity.
  Mr. Onslow: What does the hon. Gentleman want to put into the R.A.F.?
  Mr. Dalyell: Responsibility for any British participation in the United States
  862
  post-Apollo space programme. This is a matter of considerable industrial importance to this country. The hon. Member for Woking asks, in a fairly ribald manner, why I want to have it in the R.A.F. I have to ask a different question. Why is the Ministerial Aerospace Board mentioned in the Defence Estimates, when the board is said to be co-ordinating civil projects? This appears in paragraph 19 of the Defence Estimates. If I am asked in a bewildered way what on earth it has to do with the Ministry of Defence, I then say, if I am told that the Government have responsibility for the National Defence Industries Council, to whose success I pay tribute, the Ministerial Aerospace Board which is mentioned in the White Paper is a farce.
  An Hon. Member: This is a filibuster.
  Mr. Dalyell: This is of consequence to industry. It is not a filibuster. There are occasions when the hon. Member laments that we have insufficient time to go into these details. If we had a Select Committee on Defence I would make a much shorter speech but, since we have not been given a Select Committee on Defence, I take the opportunity to make a longer speech, leaving the Minister 50 minutes in which to reply to these questions in some detail.
  I end by asking about the Ministerial Aerospace Board. Either it is of consequence or it is not. If it is not of consequence, why does it appear in the Defence Estimates? Is it a charade or is it meaningful? This is the question to which British industry and the American Government want an answer.
  9.11 p.m.
  Lord Lambton: There have been many interesting contributions to our debate today. I am a little staggered by what I can only describe as the questionnaire directed at me during the last 40 minutes. I can only compare it to the Christmas quiz which appears in our national newspapers and is guaranteed to keep the whole family amused over a long weekend. If I do not answer all the questions which have been asked, and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will get in touch with me, I will answer them.
  Mr. Dalyell: I will.
  Lord Lambton: It is not possible for me to answer such rapid-fire questions without due preparation.
  Mr. John Morris: It was the custom in my time, if defence questions were not answered in the course of the debate, for the Minister himself to write to hon. Members on both sides of the House. It was not a question of hon. Members getting in touch with the Minister, but the other way round.
  Lord Lambton: I shall be only too pleased to do that. Some of the questions I have answered, some I will answer, and I shall also write a good many letters to the hon. Member for West Lothian.
  I will deal first with the interesting and constructive speech of the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris), and try to answer some of his questions. He asked about the forward look in the R.A.F., and how necessary it was for the R.A.F. to have a forward look. In a comparatively few words it is extremely difficult to give detailed information about the manpower requirements of the R.A.F. over the years ahead. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the subject is extraordinarily complex, and conditions change so rapidly from time to time that it is not possible for me to answer accurately too far into the future.
  In 1972–73 and 1973–74 we expect to need substantially fewer airmen recruits than we sought in the previous two years. We expect the requirement to increase after 1973–74 until by the end of the decade it reaches a figure higher than we have been able to achieve in the past. This, of course, is where the crunch could come. But even this has to be qualified, because one really can have no idea so far ahead precisely what the requirements are going to be, and it will depend upon the economy drive, and so on.
  The next question which the right hon. Gentleman asked was if there had been any rationalisation lately in the Ministry of Defence. I would say that the most effective piece of rationalisation has been the establishment of the Procurement Executive as part of the Ministry of Defence, because that really brings procurement under one roof. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is really working very well and this is one really substantial success which we have had in this
  864
  field on which Members on both sides of the House will agree.
  The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of research and development costs, and it was raised also by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth)—the latter in a very brave speech, if I may say so. Although in this House we hold very different opinions we cannot but admire an hon. Member who, coming from a constituency so devoted to the building of ships for warlike purposes, proclaims his point of view with such honesty. Although I do not, of course, accept that point of view, I think it is very refreshing to hear someone so absolutely straightforward in what he says.
  The right hon. Gentleman raised this question of research and development costs, which for 1972–73 are expected to be £330 million. I should like to make it quite plain that only a proportion of this expenditure is due to the development of equipment for the Royal Air Force and thus is strictly relevant to this debate. With permission, however, I will deal with this point on a more general basis as it obviously affects all three Services.
  I should first make it clear that approaching half the increase compared with last year's expenditure is due to pay and price escalation, although there has still been a significant increase in real terms. Expenditure on defence research and development reached its bottom in 1970–71, when it was £222 million, as I think was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. The reason it had sunk so low at that time was really the cuts or reductions in the Services which were imposed by the previous Administration in the 1967 Defence Review.
  As the right hon. Gentleman knows only too well, research and development expenditure on major defence equipment is spread over a long period of time and is planned some years in advance, and many of the projects on which such expenditure is now reaching a peak are those which he himself approved some years ago. I think he has every reason to be pleased with this, because some of the things he set in motion are doing well at the present time. That really explains the matter as far as I can do so without going into details, which the right hon.

  865
  Gentleman will understand that I really cannot do.
  Another point which the hon. Gentleman raised concerned the question of the M.R.C.A., about which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Woking also spoke. There is no doubt at all that we are doing everything we can to ensure that the M.R.C.A. is the success that it looks like being. There will probably be a further announcement this autumn when we can say what further stage has been reached. But at present things have gone in a satisfactory way, costs have been comparatively well-contained and we have every reason for satisfaction in the way things are going at present. We shall be able to tell the right hon. Member more about this matter in the autumn. In July and August we reviewed the progress made during the first full year of development and this was generally satisfactory. I do not know whether there is anything more I can say about that.
  Mr. John Morris: Would the Minister give an assurance that the next statement, as distinct from the last one in September, 1971, will be made to the House of Commons?
  Lord Lambton: Certainly—and the nearer we get to this aircraft going into production, the more possible it will be for statement to be rather fuller. One of the reasons that there have not been many statements is that there is not all that much to say.
  The question of aero-engine repair and overhaul was raised by the right hon. Member for Aberavon and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking. I should like to go into that matter fully. All aero-engine repair and overhaul is undertaken in industry, except for a small number of engines repaired or overhauled at the Royal Naval aircraft yard at Fleet-lands. Under rationalisation agreements the Royal Navy as from 1st April will concentrate its facilities at Fleetlands on rotary wing aero-engines, including some of the Royal Air Force. Most fixed-wing aero-engines will go to industry, and this in effect means Rolls-Royce. There is a continuous dialogue with this company to ensure that it fully understands and makes every effort to meet Service requirements. Studies have been made to
  866
  establish all the factors which have an effect on the total time engines are not available to flying units. Further studies into each factor are being made to see whether any improvements can be made in the time absorbed. There is no intention to duplicate the costly and complex equipment required for engine repair and overhaul which exists in industry.
  There is, however, a need to provide service technicians with a broader experience of work on engine overhaul, especially on future modular types of aero-engine, and to have some acceptable procedure in case the resources of industry become unavailable and in case of emergency. A study is being made of the feasibility of setting up a minimum viable capacity in Maintenance Command. I cannot forecast its outcome.
  Mr. Onslow: Would my hon. Friend widen the study to examine whether the Royal Air Force can support the same kind of study as B.O.A.C. has supported. If an airline can do it, it cannot be all that costly. Would he consider the desirability of taking aero-engine work back into the services and putting airframe work out to industry? This might have an electric effect on Rolls-Royce.
  Lord Lambton: I am afraid I shall have to give my hon. Friend the same sort of reply I gave him before, namely that we are looking carefully at this subject. My hon. Friend may not find the answer totally satisfactory, but that is what we are doing at present. He might like me to go more carefully into the question of the allocation of repair work between industry and defence establishments. This is governed by considerations of the importance of the aerospace industry of having defence aircraft repairs allocated to it and the need for viable repair capacity within the Service. That gives the main lines upon which we are trying to work at present.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) asked about Linesman and the vulnerability of the West Drayton complex to conventional attack. Despite all the talk or mention that there has been in the newspapers about covering up, I should like to try to be as frank as possible on this matter. I have no intention of covering up anything that the House should know.

  867
  The record shows that a great deal of information has been provided about Linesman/Mediator. This system was conceived a number of years ago under a different defence policy with greater emphasis on the likelihood of nuclear escalation than we would think right today. West Drayton was and still is the right location for a system which combines air space management with a defence capability. That needs still exists, and the West Drayton complex will meet it.
  However, the defence situation is not static. Against the background of a flexible defence strategy, we cannot rule out the possibility that conventional strikes into this country might be attempted in certain circumstances. Precisely what this risk is one could argue about all night long. But neither has the Linesman/Mediator project remained static. What now goes on inside this famous building at West Drayton is not something which the House would expect me to describe in public. Its air space management function is crucial and its defence capability is important and valuable. It really is not a white elephant. As far as the defence function is concerned, significant margins of security have been and are being built into the air defence system elsewhere. We are now studying what further measures may need to be taken to maintain the viability of the air defence system.
  I do not know whether that answers my hon. Friend. I have given as much of an answer as I can on this subject, which he must realise has certain aspects which I cannot really disclose.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. However, I also raised the question of cost. I admit that he wrote to me about it, but I have seen varying figures given for the cost escalation. Will he tell me something about that?
  The second point, which my hon. Friend has really answered, is that we have an adequate air defence system. Clearly at the moment we are really talking about Mediator. It is Linesman which, in a sense, has fallen down.
  Lord Lambton: The cost at the moment is approaching £100 million, which is considerably over the original
  868
  estimate. We have an air defence system, but that system, though good, is not perfect. It has run into certain difficulties. However, that system is of the greatest value to us at present.
  Mr. Booth: Will the hon. Gentleman give us a little more information? On page 54 of the 1971 Estimates the total resarch and development costs given for electronic projects is £41 million. On page 53 four projects are listed. Three major projects are named, and the rest are covered by a communications heading. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that one of those four projects cost £100 million and that the £41 million should be in excess of that £100 million?
  Lord Lambton: The total estimated cost of the Linesman project is approximately £100 million.
  I now turn to other subjects which have been brought up in the debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woking asked why we could not develop the Pegasus for the V/STOL for the Fleet. We are completing a feasibility study on the Pegasus 15 engine. It is too early to say whether further steps will be taken. My hon. Friend will recognise that the Pegasus 15 cannot be accommodated in the existing Harrier without some aircraft modification. Indeed, that was a subject which my hon. Friend raised at the end of his speech. The Royal Navy and the Air Force are working very closely together on this at present. The studies have not yet been completed and will not be for some months. As soon as they are, I or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy will inform the House.
  Mr. Onslow: I hope that the manufacturers are not being left out of this and that, when it comes to deciding where the best export markets are, the advice of the manufacturers will be taken seriously into account. It may be that if the prospects are as good as the manufacturers believe, a substantial contribution on the airframe side might be forthcoming from them.
  Lord Lambton: All that we can do at the moment is wait and see how the studies turn out. Anything else would be inopportune at the moment.
  The right hon. Member for Aberavon asked what were the export prospects

  869
  for Nimrods. A number of countries are interested in the aircraft, especially Canada. The firm and the Ministry of Defence have done their best to help the Canadians have all the information that they need. They have not yet made a decision. However the additional order for the R.A.F. and the continuation of the production facilities should improve the prospects of obtaining export orders.
  There is no doubt that by keeping the Nimrod in production, we have widened the possibilities of its being exported. This goes rather across the arguments of the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness, who seems to believe that the more we spend on armaments, the more unemployment there is. There is no doubt that by keeping the Nimrod in production we are employing men who otherwise would have been unemployed. We shall continue to employ them in the future if export orders keep up, as we hope.
  I turn to the humanitarian point raised by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), who wanted to know why the husband of a constituent of his was not allowed to extend his service from 15 to 22 years, and why men with long and useful service behind them should be thrown out before they want to leave.
  There has never been an automatic right in the Air Force to extend the length of an existing engagement to 22 years. A quota system has been necessary for a long time to ensure that the R.A.F.'s structure of age and rank does not become too unbalanced. In present conditions, with a potentially large surplus of airmen over our immediate requirements, it has been necessary to apply stricter control to extensions of service. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's humanitarian interest and that many men who wish to continue serving in the R.A.F. will be disappointed by our inability to retain them. But I am afraid that we cannot afford to grant a completely new right to extend service when the result of doing so will be to overload the R.A.F. with senior N.C.O.s and Warrant Officers and deprive the younger short-service men of their chances of promotion. If we were to allow this to happen, we should not get the short-service men who are so necessary at the moment.
  Mr. John: That was not my question. Could we not cushion these people by
  870
  allowing them, either temporarily or for long periods, to extend their service by remustering so as to give them freedom from the spectre of being thrown into civilian life at 40 plus with no recognisable civilian trade, when unemployment is high?
  Lord Lambton: That is a slightly different question. This is a real problem. We do all we can to train people to go into civilian life. The same argument applies. If this principle went too far, there would still be an overload of a type of service man who would make the R.A.F. uneconomic. But I appreciate the hon. Member's humanitarian interest.
  The right hon. Member for Aberavon asked a question which I have already partially answered—what was being done to reduce engine turn-round time. We have set in motion studies to establish all the factors which make up the total turn-round time for an aero engine undergoing repair and overall. Studies are being made to see whether any improvements can be made in the time taken at present.
  Mr. John Morris: The Minister's reply is exceedingly disappointing—that a study has now been set up. This matter was of immense importance in my time at the Ministry, more than 20 months ago. I raised it in the Estimates debate last year. The Minister now belatedly says that something is being done. This is of great importance.
  Lord Lambton: Something is continually being done to see whether the matter can be improved. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman set up a study into this problem when he was in office. But we are trying to see whether we can improve this turn-round time.
  The right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) who has courteously written to inform me that he could not be here, wrote about the implications for employment of the 1182. The employment implications for Hawker Siddeley Aviation at its factories at Kingston, Brough and Hamble for a programme of work running for eight or nine years will peak at 2000 or a little more. The employment implications for Rolls-Royce at Derby will peak at 275, approaching 300. The engine work is to be shared with France.

  871
  The hon. Member for Newark asked about the future of Syerston. I have written to him about this. From early 1975, it will be needed as the relief landing ground for Cramwell. Meanwhile, it will remain on its present care and maintenance basis. I cannot yet say whether any part of the airfield or its facilities will become surplus to our needs. If so, we will dispose of it in the normal way, and I will get in touch with him.
  Mr. Bishop: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his letter. My right hon. Friend put this in mothballs about three years ago or longer. If nothing is done until 1974–75, deterioration may set in. If it is not to be a relief airfield, does one need it at all? If it is necessary for that purpose, to what extent will it be used and what other facilities will be available to local authorities in the area?
  From the employment point of view, one looks to light industry to be established in this sort of area. There are other uses, such as for local authority services like education. One can envisage the use of this sort of area for leisure purposes, exhibitions and so on. An early decision in this matter would be welcomed, especially to avoid further deterioration.
  Lord Lambton: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern and I will let him know more about this. I assure him that if there is any deterioration, steps will be taken to see that it is checked at once. However, this airfield is required for a relief ground for Cranwell.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) asked a number of general questions. He really wanted to know about the Nimrod maritime use and our policy for getting oil from the fields to this country. In other words, he questioned me about our ability to defend our ships bringing oil from parts of the world—I imagine that he had the Gulf particularly in mind—to the United Kingdom.
  It must be admitted that with the scale of our defences, this is a commitment which we cannot take on. However, as we are entering Europe, perhaps we can try to have a N.A.T.O. European policy which will widen its spheres of interest. My hon. Friend raised a valid point and I agree that it is not possible to say that
  872
  everything inside the Tropic of Cancer should be safe while everything outside should be neglected.
  The prospect of our entering Europe is bright from this point of view. We may be able to extend the area of N.A.T.O.'s activities in Europe and it is to be hoped that our European partners will join us in looking at things in a wider context. To be frank, our present resources do not enable us completely to ensure that ships come safely from the Gulf to this country. I do not think any Government has had the resources to be able to guarantee this.
  Several hon. Members asked if the R.A.F. police were 60 per cent. below establishment. I was also asked if there were poor promotion prospects in the police. This aspect was raised in connection with St. Athan, and I was asked if greater security was needed.
  The R.A.F. police have not found recruitment as easy as the majority of R.A.F. trades, but their strength is nothing like as far below establishment as hon. Members have feared. Promotion prospects in the police vary from time to time, as they do in other parts of the R.A.F. A principal object of our manpower planning is to ensure that serious disparities between promotion opportunities in one branch and another are balanced out so that no one group is particularly badly placed for several years at a time. The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) asked about Bulldogs for air experience flights on basic training. We do not envisage replacing the Chipmunks in the air experience flights with the Bulldog. For basic training we expect to make use of the Jet Provost for a good many years. It will not be necessary for us to decide on the replacement for some time.
  I hope the House will forgive me for taking these questions in such a strange order. A point was raised by the hon. Member for Pontypridd and also by the hon. Member for West Lothian who asked about Oman and Britain's secret war there. There is nothing secret about the United Kingdom's long standing treaty of friendship with the Sultanate of Oman. This was signed in 1951 and published as a Command Paper; it was followed by an exchange of letters also published. Stemming from these understandings and from agreements which

  873
  we have with the Sultanate governing the use of the important R.A.F. staging post at Masirah, it has been policy under successive administrations to provide training and assistance to the armed forces of the Sultanate, to second British personnel and provide facilities for the Sultanate airfield at Salalah.
  All this has been the case for many years; the importance of the assistance has certainly increased since the Sultanate was faced with serious subversion in the Dhofar, supported, we believe, from outside. We believe it is in the interests of stability that we should continue to assist the Sultanate in the traditional ways which we have done in the past.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woking, who has just left the Chamber, asked if any lives have been lost as a result of defects in the Spey engine. I have looked into this and can find no evidence at the moment that any flying accidents have been attributable to the Spey, but I will confirm this and let him know.
  The hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) raised the point of the civil use of airfields and I know that he is particularly anxious about Thorney Island and what one might describe as the Portsmouth complex. This has been the subject of some of his questions. Wherever possible, civil use of R.A.F. airfields is permitted, and a large number are open to civil users provided the prior permission of the commanding officer is obtained.
  As to the joint use of the service airfields in the Portsmouth area, while the provision of facilities for civil aviation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, I can only repeat that we shall be happy to take part in discussions with the local authorities concerned. This suggestion came from the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West, and we are putting it forward as quickly as we can. I understand from the hon. Member that there is some urgency in this matter.
  I turn to some of the points the hon. Member made in winding-up. He asked about the British Indian Ocean territory and if I could explain how the estimates had suddenly risen this year to £830,000. Actually the sum fell this year to £100,000 from £830,000, so there is a very substantial decrease not an increase. In
  874
  the White Paper page 18, the right-hand column is 1972–73, the left-hand column is 1971–72.
  As for our decision to adopt the HS 1182AJ with the unreheated Adour engine, the hon. Gentleman obviously feels very strongly about this. He asked why we did not choose the Viper engine; what were the employment prospects with the 1182AJ, and would it cost £10 million to remove the after-burner from the Adour? He is quite right, we did consider the Viper very carefully. We preferred the Adour because the performance of the aircraft with the Viper engine would not fully have met the requirements of the R.A.F. We are talking of the advanced trainer which took the place of the Jaguar which would have been more advanced. The hon. Gentleman will understand that particularly where contracts have not been completed I cannot comment on his figure of £10 million. I can, however, say, and this has some relation to some of his worries, that the bulk of the expenditure on the Adour programme will not be due to the removal of the after-burner but to the support of the flight development and testing programme. I will certainly let the hon. Member know more about this later. He may well have misconceived fears about this.
  As for employment, we expect that the air frame work will be carried out at Kingston, Brough and Hamble. The programme, including developments and production, will extend over several years and employment is expected to peak at 2,000 or a little more. The engine work will be shared with the French. The United Kingdom share will be rather more than half and will be undertaken at Derby and by Rolls-Royce sub-contractors with employment at peak approaching 300. If as we hope there are export orders these figures could increase.
  I was surprised at the suggestion that we were contemplating an aircraft which could be dangerous to pilots in training. The previous plan adopted by hon. Members opposite contemplated the supersonic Jaguar as an advanced trainer which would, following the logical argument of the hon. Member have been a far more dangerous trainer. Here we are speaking of an aircraft of more modest performance and, this must be stressed, an unreheated engine.
  Mr. Dalyell: We must get this right. I was never suggesting that Ministry of Defence would risk the lives of trainee pilots. My suggestion was totally different, that in order to provide a trainer costly alterations had to be made to an engine. There is a great difference.
  Lord Lambton: I never meant to convey that the hon. Member was saying that but it was better he should make a clear explanation because otherwise his words could have read rather differently.
  He asked me about Jetstream and the £7½ million order. This order is subject to contractual negotiation and I cannot comment on the £7½million. I can say that the H.S. 748 would have been more expensive as well as being larger and more complex than the Jetstream. The hon. Gentleman also asked me when Jaguars will replace the Phantoms and release them for air defence. The Phantoms will replace the Lightning in the United Kingdom, Germany and Cyprus. Canberras will be retained for reconnaisance, until the M.R.C.A. comes into use. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot be too precise.
  I was also asked about the Lightning and the gun with which it is fitted. That gun is additional to air-to-air missiles and it has value in various circumstances, including the situation in which it is desired to fire a warning shot.
  I have tried to pick as many questions as I could and I have gone as far as I can. I will certainly let the hon. Member know the answers to any questions which I may have omitted.
  Mr. Wall: Can my hon. Friend give me an answer about the cross-operation
  876
  of R.A.F. Phantoms and the R.N. aircraft carriers because this is of considerable importance in future?
  Lord Lambton: This is more a question for the Navy than for me. I will certainly get in touch with my hon. Friend about this. I would rather do that than make some comment which was not strictly accurate.
  I end by answering one question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) who asked about R.A.F. numbers dropping from 1971 when recruiting was good. There are two reasons for this. First, we are still seeing the last effects of our withdrawal from the Gulf and of the reductions of our Forces elsewhere outside Europe. Secondly in 1972–3 we shall begin to benefit from the efforts to use manpower more efficiently and economically. My hon. Friend will appreciate we cannot recruit large numbers of men irrespective of whether we use them, simply because large numbers are applying. I have, Mr. Speaker, tried to cover a very large variety of points in a rather staccato fashion. I have tried to give as many direct answers as I could to direct questions. I thank the hon. Members for the courtesy they have shown in listening to me.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That during the year ending on 31st March, 1973 a number not exceeding 113,500 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 13,590 for the Royal Air Force Reserve and a number not exceeding 400 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.

  MAINTENANCE ORDERS (RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT) BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
  9.56 p.m.
  The Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I say that as far as possible I propose to group the Amendments. Should any hon. Member wish to raise a debate, perhaps he will indicate when the time comes.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): There are four further amendments the Chair is aware of that are not on the Notice Paper. They are purely financial provisions taken under previous Amendments in the House of Commons, and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) knows all about them.
  The Chairman: I am much obliged. It will be quite in order to move these Amendments at the appropriate time.
  Clauses I to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

  VARIATION AND REVOCATION OF MAINTEN- ANCE ORDER MADE IN UNITED KINGDOM
  The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 7, line 31, leave out 'sheriff' and insert 'court'.
  This is a simple technical Amendment to Clause 5 which deals with the variation and revocation of maintenance orders made in the United Kingdom. As the Bill stands at the moment, there could be a difference in practice between what happens in the sheriff court and in the court of session. This is a drafting error that has come to our notice.
  I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) would like me to explain in detail, but I assure him that this is simply a drafting Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

  ENFORCEMENT OF MAINTENANCE ORDER REGISTERED IN UNITED KINGDOM COURT
  Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 10, line 18, at end insert:
  'or to an order which is for the time being registered in the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland under Part II of the Maintenance and Affiliation Orders Act (Northern Ireland) 1966'.
  It might be convenient to consider at the same time Amendment No. 4 to the Schedule. The purpose of the two Amendments relates purely to Northern Ireland. Under Part 1 of the Bill, all maintenance orders sent from overseas are to be registered and enforced in the first instance in magistrates' courts. Nevertheless a payee overseas whose order is registered in the magistrates' court in England or Wales is not deprived of the possibility of using the enforcement procedure of the High Court, since Part I of the Maintenance Orders Act, 1958, is to be applied to maintenance orders made overseas and registered under Part I of the Bill. This at the moment does not apply to Northern Ireland, and the purpose of these Amendments, which are proposed after consultation with the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, is that the same arrangements shall apply in Northern Ireland.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

  MAINTENANCE ORDERS (RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT) BILL [Lords]
  Again considered in Committee.
Clause 10

  CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION AND TRANSFER OF ORDER
  Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 13, line 42, at end insert
  ';but any arrears due under the registered order at the date when its registration is cancelled by virtue of this subsection shall continue to be recoverable as if the registration had not been cancelled'.
  The purpose of the Amendment is to remove a doubt that exists about the enforcement of arrears due on an overseas order which has been revoked. By Clause 10, upon notification of revocation of a registered order being received in this country, the prescribed officer of the registering court is required to cancel the registration of the order.
  It might be argued that, with the Bill as drafted, once registration of an overseas order has been cancelled because of revocation, any arrears outstanding at the time of the revocation cannot be recoverable because the power that set up the machinery has been removed. Where the registering court is the court which makes the revocation, there is no difficulty because it can deal with the question of arrears first. But it is felt that there might be difficulties in cases where the overseas court revokes the order and the first thing that the registering court knows is that the court has revoked the order, and then it finds substantial arrears outstanding which it wishes to enforce. The Amendment puts beyond doubt the power of the court to enforce these arrears, irrespective of the revocation of the order in the country in which it was made.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 11–13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

  OBTAINING OF EVIDENCE NEEDED FOR PURPOSE OF CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS
  Manuscript Amendment made: In page 17, line 19, at end insert:
  "(a) if the court is a court in England, Wales or Scotland, out of moneys provided by Parliament; and".
  Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 15 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

  CONVENTION COUNTRIES
  Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: I should like to ask one question of the Minister, which might be helpful for the enlightenment of the Committee, the House and the public. Part II of the Bill, as I understand it, enables this country to accede to the convention of 1956.
  It contains some 14 or 15 Clauses which set out in detail the law which will come into force as a result of that accession or to enable the accession to take place. I wondered whether the Under-Secretary of State could explain why it is necessary to set out the law in detail in this way rather than follow the precedent which has been followed on another occasion in another Bill when the same object has been given effect to in a single Clause.
  Mr. Carlisle: As far as I can understand it, Part I of the Bill deals with bringing up to date provisions relating to those countries which have similar legal systems to our own and it replaces the existing law under the 1920 Act. As the hon and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) says, the whole of Part II deals with our ability to sign the United Nations Convention on this matter which has been signed so far by 36 other countries. It sets out the methods by which one can enforce claims made in countries which have totally different legal systems from ours. The answer to the question must be that it is necessary to set out in the statute the law which is to be applied when we are a signatory to that

  881
  Convention. If we sign the Convention without setting out the law, there would be no provisions under which our courts would be acting when they were enforcing claims made in a foreign country whose laws were totally different from those which applied in this country. That is the best I can do for the hon. and learned Gentleman for the moment.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 26 to 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

  TAKING OF EVIDENCE AT REQUEST OF COURT IN CONVENTION COUNTRY
  Manuscript Amendment made: In page 39, line 26, at end insert
  (a) if the court is a court in England, Wales or Scotland, out of moneys provided by Parliament; and'.—[Mr. Carlisle.]
  Clause 38, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 39 to 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43

  EXTENSION OF LEGAL AID.
  Manuscript Amendment made: In page 43, line 25, at end insert
  "(1) At the end of paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule I to the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 (which specifies the proceedings in a magistrates' court or the Crown Court for which legal aid may be given under section 1 of that Act) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph:—
  "(d) proceedings under Part I of the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 relating to a maintenance order made by a court of a country outside the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Mark Carlisle.]
  Clause 43, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 44 and 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 47 to 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause

  FINANCIAL PROVISIONS
  There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament—
  (a) any sums ordered by a court under section 14(2) or 38(3) of this Act to be paid out of moneys so provided; and
  (b) any increase attributable to the provisions of this Act in the sums payable under the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 or the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967 out of moneys so provided.—[Mr. Carlisle.]
  Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule

  CONSEQUENTIAL AND MINOR AMENDMENTS
  Amendment made: No. 4, in page 46, line 33, at end insert:
  The Maintenance and Affiliation Orders Act (Northern Ireland) 1966
  5. In section 10 of the Maintenance and Affiliation Orders Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 (orders to which Part II of that Act applies)—
  (a) in subsection (2), after the word 'means' there shall be inserted the words 'an order made outside the United Kingdom and registered in a court of summary jurisdiction in Northern Ireland under Part I of the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 or'; and
  (b) at the end there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
  '(5) For the purposes of this Part an order made outside the United Kingdom and registered in a court of summary jurisdiction in Northern Ireland under Part I of the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 shall be deemed to be a maintenance order made by that court'.—[Mr. Carlisle.]
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill reported with Amendments; as amended, considered.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order 56 (Third Reading) and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

  PLANNING PROCEDURES (DELAYS)
  10.11 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Gurden: I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate this Adjournment debate. I do not propose to take up any more of the time of the House than is necessary because I have in mind the heavy load that has been placed in recent days on my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment by the programme before Parliament. But the matter that I wish to raise is very important, and it has been neglected in the past.
  My subject is the effect on the environment of delays in planning procedures and public health controls on housing and other properties in urban areas, which causes properties to be left open to vandalism in almost every urban area. In my area of Birmingham there has been continuous vandalism to property for years. At a time when housing property is scarce, every bit of it that is available should be occupied and not left to vandals. Moreover, such property is an eyesore of dilapidation. It is an awful waste of dwellings and vacant land and dereliction resulting from years of delay in planning and other procedures.
  It is not my object to criticise my hon. Friend, his Department or the local authorities, which mainly have to carry out the provisions of the housing and other laws in this respect, but rather to try to find out whether the Department has the matter in mind and is trying to do anything about it.
  My particular concern is the vandalism resulting from the delays. In many instances, they are not undue delays. Some are, but delays automatically follow from fulfilling the law, with consequent loss of housing accommodation in days of shortage, loss to owners of property, and serious detriment to the environment in almost every urban area. These laws and rules alone are responsible for vandalism on a huge scale. There is little anyone can do about it as long as we have to conform to the laws. Houses would be repaired and occupied without delay were it not for these laws.
  I use the instance of a slum house that I bought in Westminster. It was more or less derelict when the previous tenant
  884
  moved out. I realised at once that unless I could get the repairers into the property very quickly the house would be no use to anybody, and would probably have to be completely destroyed. We know that this has happened in the large urban areas on a large scale.
  I got the repairers in quickly on other work that was not concerned with the laws of planning and repair, so that the house was at no time empty and subject to vandalism. That is not always possible. It is easier for an owner-occupier, who is not so dependent upon the local authorities. Clearly the best safeguard against vandalism of housing property is occupation, and it is more a problem for local authority property and tenanted property.
  I quote as an example the case of a widow who dies and who is either a tenant or an owner-occupier of the property. She has not wished to modernise the house but rather to live out the rest of her days with it in a condition which is satisfactory to her. Clearly it is an old house, which needs improvement before relet or for sale. There are thousands of that type of house. After the death of the owner or the tenant, in most cases application has to be made for improvement grants and, very often, a planning change, so the property goes into the filing baskets of the local authority. Whether or not there is undue delay, the house remains empty and there is little one can do about it. The vandals move in. In some cases the vandalism is so bad that the house never gets repaired. It is useless to start improvements, and everything has been wasted.
  As I say, this applies not in just one or a dozen cases but in hundreds of cases throughout the land, and nearly always in urban areas.
  Another example was pointed out to me by a Birmingham owner. It concerned a house suitable for conversion into two flats. Before it was repaired and reconditioned it was valued at £1,800. It was likely to be worth double that, or more, when the job was done. The usual applications were made without any delay, and the various inspectors and the like moved in to consider the situation and consider all the applications that were put before them. Then, of course, the vandals took over. Day after day attempts were made to secure

  885
  the property, but the floorboards vanished, all the water tanks, piping and fittings were removed, and, finally, the house had to be sold in this vandalised condition for £1,000 to somebody who would move in quickly and get something done about it, disregarding all the laws, rules and regulations, and probably committing an offence. But it did save the house.
  It may be said that the public or the police should do something about it. I am not here to criticise the police, but we all know how difficult it is for them to act when there are hundreds of vandalised houses. It is difficult for the police to make sure that the house is not being vandalised even while a police car is passing. Whatever our views about police protection, it is fairly ineffective. Again, I stress that I am not criticising the police.
  Whenever we elaborate or increase the housing laws, rules and regulations, these problems become more acute. Many owners abandon all interest in otherwise repairable houses because of the labyrinth of controls.
  I have here a letter from the City of Salford which is concerned about this problem. The authority has raised it with the Association of Municipal Corporations, and the letter states that the authority is glad that I am able to raise the matter tonight. Salford proposes to put forward legislation—perhaps in the form of a Private Bill similar to the Private Bill presented by Manchester in 1967—to empower it to have the property boarded up and secured. The property should be occupied, and it will be dealt with in this way only if there is delay in the planning procedure or in the local authority health department. If authority could be given to get on with the job tomorrow there would be no need to board up houses; workmen could come in and get on with the job. So bad is the situation in Salford that sometimes the owners cannot be traced. They are not interested in the property because they know that it will be of no use to them.
  I also have a letter from Birmingham Corporation quoting another case, but I will not take up the time of the House with it. It is well established that this is a serious problem. Its seriousness was first brought to my attention by the Birmingham Property Owners' Association,
  886
  which told me that week after week there were so many cases in Birmingham that I was convinced that some thought must be given to the problem.
  The question of the loss to owners who sometimes wish to be owner-occupiers must be considered, and there is certainly a loss of tenanted property Will my hon. Friend tell me whether the Department has given any thought to the overall problem, and what he thinks is the possible solution? I am sorry not to be able to be more constructive, and suggest a solution, but emergency legislation may be needed to enable local authorities to get property on the move rather than allow it to be boarded up.
  10.23 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) for his courtesy in the brevity of his remarks and for the way in which he explained the care which the Department that I represent brings to the cases placed in front of it. As one of the Ministers responsible for the administration of the road programme, I am aware of the problems that he has mentioned. We have the same problem whenever we acquire houses for that programme.
  I want to make detailed comments on what my hon. Friend has said and make one or two observations of my own. I will look carefully at the problem to which he has drawn the attention of the House and will follow up the debate by writing to my hon. Friend, setting out my views on the detailed points that he has raised.
  This is an important matter. Not only do houses fall into disrepair and become vandalised, but there is a spin-off effect on the neighbourhood. The litter associated with these houses and their general atmosphere can have a most unfortunate effect on neighbouring properties. I certainly take very seriously what my hon. Friend has said.
  I want to say a word about the problem as I see it. As a Government, we have to provide a satisfactory framework within which local authorities can operate planning procedures. It would be unthinkable to go back to a situation in which there were no planning procedures. I am sure that it is quite obvious to everybody that the moment controls are imposed

  887
  they have to be obeyed. Exceptions of the sort that might be tempting in certain genuine cases cannot be allowed, because some people will always find ways of rushing through any loopholes that result from such flexibility.
  During the reorganisation of local government we have been reviewing all kinds of controls over local authorities, to ensure that approvals or consents from central Government which may be suggested to be holding up the procedure are scrutinised with a view to their repeal. In the Bill now being examined by a Standing Committee upstairs a whole range of minor controls of the frustrating sort that my hon. Friend would want to see abolished will be abolished. The Bill before the House deals with some of them, but others will have to wait until appropriate legislation comes before the House in which the abolition of the superfluous controls can take place.
  One is left with a situation in which the local authorities are essentially responsible for the running of their own affairs and the rôle of central Government is one of offering advice and guidance. My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that my Department is very active on this front. We have announced to the House that we propose to give advice to planning authorities on ways in which local planning procedures can be speeded up. In the first place, a memorandum will be put to the local authority associations for discussion. In the light of the consultations that follow we shall issue a circular. We have in mind to dispense with the special period of three months for dealing with cases affecting the Department's trunks roads, which affect houses.
  There is no getting away from the fact that there are pressures on the planning machine which tend to lengthen the time taken in reaching decisions. There is a whole range of consultations through which the authorities have to go, and the Department's experience is that the range of consultation is being widened continually, as more and more people seek to come within the framework. Certainly one of the most substantial campaigns that I have witnessed since I became a Member of this House has been the campaign to widen the range for the notification of planning
  888
  applications. Local government development has gone a long way towards accepting the purpose of that campaign. Further, there is now the need to consult river authorities and the factory inspectorate in their respective fields.
  Participation by the public, which is ever more demanded, is very much the sort of thing that is bound to lead to more balances. These balances give a very good idea of the difficulties that the planning authorities face and with them in mind and with the reorganisation of local government pending we certainly intend to look at the whole system of development control. It may be practicable to devise some means of simplifying and streamlining planning procedures, and we shall certainly make every effort to find a way.
  In the meantime, we have no alternative but to get the best out of the present system. I know that in Birmingham there is a problem with the conversion of older houses, and the damage and vandalism that occur when houses are left standing for any period before reoccupation undoubtedly raises a problem. Housing associations are among the agencies which carry out these conversions, but a whole range of procedures has to be gone through before they can get on with the job—planning permissions, building regulation approval and, in some cases, approval for improvement grant purposes and loans approval for the acquisition of properties.
  The important thing is to ensure that the handling of planning proposals is coordinated with the local authority. There is no doubt that developers can do a great deal to help if they have early discussions with planning authorities. My mind searches in vain for an answer to the case of the elderly widow in owner-occupation who dies, and whose executors have to come in to solve the problems and sort out the difficulties. I do not know how one anticipates a situation of that sort. I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my difficulties. Developers can assist a good deal by having informal discussions with the local authorities before drawing up detailed proposals which might, in some crucial way, offend the likelihood of their getting applications at a later date. I do not think that there is any question of unnecessary delay in my Department. My hon. Friend has

  889
  been generous in making this point for me, and therefore I do not think I need answer it.
  I want to say a word about empty houses which are awaiting slum clearance. These present a difficult situation and very much illustrate my hon. Friend's point. Thirty-one authorities have taken power in local Acts under which they can ensure that vacant buildings in clearance areas are made secure. This places the onus on the owner of the building and in other cases empowers the local authority to make the building secure, notwithstanding the fact that the building is still privately owned and is not to be acquired by the local authority. It is desirable for houses to be demolished as soon as possible after families are re-housed, but that is not practicable where individual houses in an area are vacated some time before other families can be rehoused.
  About 25 of the larger authorities and six county councils, including districts,
  890
  have taken local Act powers to meet these situations. The Government will consider taking general powers as soon as a suitable opportunity arises. Where the houses are purchased by the authority they can be made secure, quite apart from such powers.
  I have tried to show how, in practice, planning matters are affected by the relationship between developers, local authorities and the Government. I accept the responsibility to provide an adequate framework of legislation and administration. It is fair to stress that only the closest co-operation between applicants, local authorities and, in some cases, departmental branches, can ensure that the system works smoothly. I shall read my hon. Friend's speech with great care and contact him to see whether there is anything further that I can add.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Youth Employment Service
  Youth Employment Service
  Minimum Wage
  Minimum Wage
  Dudley and Stourbridge
  Dudley and Stourbridge
  Trade Unions
  Trade Unions
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Scotland
  Scotland
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Wage Settlements
  Wage Settlements
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Interviews (Travel Vouchers)
  Interviews (Travel Vouchers)
  "Training for the Future"
  "Training for the Future"
  Arbitration Procedures
  Arbitration Procedures
  South-West Durham
  South-West Durham
  Vacancies and Skilled Labour
  Vacancies and Skilled Labour
  Factory Closures (Harlesden)
  Factory Closures (Harlesden)
  Wages and Prices
  Wages and Prices
  Training
  Training
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Accidents
  Accidents
  Prices (London)
  Prices (London)
  Apprenticeships
  Apprenticeships
  Industrial Relations Act
  Industrial Relations Act
  Sheltered Workshops
  Sheltered Workshops
  Police and Fire Services (Vacancies)
  Police and Fire Services (Vacancies)
  Building Industry (Scotland)
  Building Industry (Scotland)
  Rotherham, Maltby and Darrington
  Rotherham, Maltby and Darrington
  Picketing
  Picketing
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  Toxic Materials
  Toxic Materials
  Unemployment Benefit (Fraudulent Claims)
  Unemployment Benefit (Fraudulent Claims)
  Industrial Concentration
  Industrial Concentration
  Oil Exploration (Scotland)
  Oil Exploration (Scotland)
  Manchester
  Manchester
  Unemployed Persons (Benefit)
  Unemployed Persons (Benefit)
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  "People and Jobs"
  "People and Jobs"
  National Training Agency
  National Training Agency
  Mine Workers (Retraining)
  Mine Workers (Retraining)
  Oil Technology
  Oil Technology
  Irish Citizens
  Irish Citizens
  Industrial Practices (Co. Durham)
  Industrial Practices (Co. Durham)
  Commission on Industrial Relations
  Commission on Industrial Relations
  Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Women
  Women
  Lower-paid Workers
  Lower-paid Workers
  North-West Region
  North-West Region
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Disputes
  Manpower and Economic Division
  Manpower and Economic Division
  Wages
  Wages
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Minor Works (Lancashire)
  Minor Works (Lancashire)
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Comprehensive and Coeducational Schools (London)
  Comprehensive and Coeducational Schools (London)
  Works of Art (Conservation)
  Works of Art (Conservation)
  Schools (Building Standards)
  Schools (Building Standards)
  Primary Schools, Derbyshire
  Primary Schools, Derbyshire
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Road Fatality, Forest Gate
  Road Fatality, Forest Gate
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Detention in Custody
  Detention in Custody
  School Crossings Supervisors (Advertising)
  School Crossings Supervisors (Advertising)
  Urban Aid Programme (Lambeth)
  Urban Aid Programme (Lambeth)
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Irish Residents
  Irish Residents
  Fraud
  Fraud
  Mr. Twedlyn Davies
  Mr. Twedlyn Davies
  Ashford Remand Centre
  Ashford Remand Centre
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Shipping (River Humber)
  Shipping (River Humber)
  Coal-Fired Power Stations (Conversion)
  Coal-Fired Power Stations (Conversion)
  Advance Factories (Mid-Glamorgan)
  Advance Factories (Mid-Glamorgan)
  Jute Products (Imports)
  Jute Products (Imports)
  Cardigan Bay (Oil and Natural Gas)
  Cardigan Bay (Oil and Natural Gas)
  Small Firms (Power Cuts)
  Small Firms (Power Cuts)
  Cotton Textiles (Imports)
  Cotton Textiles (Imports)
  Motor Insurance
  Motor Insurance
  Cunard Steamship Company (Loans)
  Cunard Steamship Company (Loans)
  Marine Surveyors
  Marine Surveyors
  M.S. "Blue Calypso"
  M.S. "Blue Calypso"
  Mining Industry (Royal Commission)
  Mining Industry (Royal Commission)
  Govan Shipbuilding
  Govan Shipbuilding
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Value-Added Tax Centre, Southend
  Value-Added Tax Centre, Southend
  Overtime (Taxation)
  Overtime (Taxation)
  Imported Candles (Kent County Council)
  Imported Candles (Kent County Council)
  Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
  Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
  Child Tax Allowance
  Child Tax Allowance
  ENERGY POLICY (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
  ENERGY POLICY (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
  PRESIDENT POMPIDOU (DISCUSSIONS)
  PRESIDENT POMPIDOU (DISCUSSIONS)
  SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY (GOVERNMENT STATISTICS)
  SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY (GOVERNMENT STATISTICS)
  CONFEDERATION OF BRITISH INDUSTRY
  CONFEDERATION OF BRITISH INDUSTRY
  POST-APOLLO PROGRAMME (BRITISH PARTICIPATION)
  POST-APOLLO PROGRAMME (BRITISH PARTICIPATION)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Lobbying
  Lobbying
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Labour Costs
  Labour Costs
  Bacon Industry
  Bacon Industry
  Agricultural Workers (Output)
  Agricultural Workers (Output)
DEFENCE
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
ENVIRONMENT
  Office Development Permits (London)
  Office Development Permits (London)
  Old Buildings (Preservation)
  Old Buildings (Preservation)
  Housing (New Towns)
  Housing (New Towns)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Timothy Davey
  Timothy Davey
SCOTLAND
  Oil Exploration
  Oil Exploration
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Strikers (Benefit)
  Strikers (Benefit)
  Children (Accidental Poisoning)
  Children (Accidental Poisoning)
  Unemployment Benefit (Eire Residents)
  Unemployment Benefit (Eire Residents)
  Family Planning Services
  Family Planning Services
  Vasectomy
  Vasectomy

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

PRICES AND INCOMES POLICY
LORD BESWICK: 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 further steps they propose to take towards securing an agreed and equitable prices and incomes policy.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, the Government's policy was made clear in our debate on January 31. Considerable progress has in fact been made in securing moderation in wage settlements in both the public and the private sectors. This is of benefit to the whole community. It remains our policy to ensure that the progress which has been achieved so far is not put at risk. In addition, my Lords, we have made it clear that we would welcome discussions on an agreed voluntary policy. That remains our position.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the noble Earl thinks that the policy was made clear in that debate, he is the only one in the House who does. Is he aware that on Sunday last his Prime Minister made a broadcast in which he said, despite that debate, that he was prepared to discuss these matters with the T.U.C.? May I ask, therefore, if we are to understand that no approach has been made to the T.U.C. since Sunday?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord was referring to our Prime Minister rather than to any particular Party's Prime Minister, if I may say so. I am not quite certain what the inwardness of the noble Lord's second observation was, Would he repeat it?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, for the time being we do not have a Prime Minister on this side, and I used the word "your" in the sense that I thought there would be some liaison between the noble Earl and the right honourable gentleman who is the Prime Minister of our country. The point I am making is that on Sunday last, subsequent to our debate, the Prime Minister said that he would be happy to talk with the T.U.C. on this matter. Are we to understand that approaches have been made to the T.U.C. since that invitation on the television, which, as the noble Earl will no doubt agree, was scarcely a personal invitation?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should have thought that that invitation was in fact an approach to the T.U.C. What I have just said in answer to the noble Lord's Question about the degree to which the Government would welcome discussions on an agreed incomes policy, or voluntary incomes policy, is a reiteration of that invitation.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, does the noble Earl not realise that my noble friend Lord Beswick's Question was about "an agreed and equitable" incomes policy? Would he not accept that the one factor which has been left out in the Government's policy is the factor of equity? Would he not further agree that unless we have an equitable policy which is also agreed the Government have no hope of defeating inflation, even at twenty strokes?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I agree that the noble Baroness has read her noble friend's Question aright, but I would dissent from the conclusion she draws that the Government's policy in this field has been inequitable.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, may I ask whether the policy which the noble Earl is adumbrating at the present time—and I am speaking from experience of it—is simply to declare that there shall be no more than 8 per cent. advance in wages, and that this shall be applied in the nationalised industries and we must hope it will be applied in the private industries? Having regard to the varying increases in wages which have operated in the past three months, does he think that policy is a sound one?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the policy which the Government are pursuing in this matter applies equally in the private as in the public sector. From what I have seen of the statistics available from the Department of Employment, it would seem that it has been equally successful in the private as in the public sector.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, could the Minister say that with an incomes policy of the character he has depicted he can expect people in industry to accept an increase in wages which is 5 per cent. less than the 13 per cent. increase in the the cost of living that has taken place in the past twelve months?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am not certain to which settlement the noble Lord may be referring, but that certainly does not apply to any of the settlements that I personally have had anything to do with.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, are we to take the noble Earl's declaration to mean that the policy of general pressures instead of an equitable and agreed incomes policy has come to the same lamentable end as the policy for "lame ducks" which has been given up with such panache?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I would not agree with the noble Lord's conclusion on this or indeed on certain other matters.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, may I follow up the point I made about the difference in private and public industries so far as wage advances are concerned? May I ask the noble Earl whether he has heard of a tool-room settlement that was made that was well in advance of the figure the Government have laid down?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, there are, of course, exceptions in this field—I should not wish to argue to the contrary—but there has been a de-escalation as much in the private sector as in the public sector, and that statement of mine is based on a statistical foundation.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl one further question, reverting to one of his supplementary answers to me? Does he really suggest that it is adequate for the Prime Minister to give an invitation out over the broadcasting
1180
system and not follow it up with any postal, telephonic or Telex communication?
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: It is because of the high price of postage, my Lords.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not think that that is a correct inference to draw from my words.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, would not the noble Earl my Leader agree that as the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is based on the problem of a television broadcast, it is extremely important that political exchanges should, so far as is possible, be kept away from the television screen?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think I would.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question, because I should be very loath to withhold praise for what the Government have done? Could he publish as soon as possible the increases given in the private sector and the increases given in the public sector, in the first case taking perhaps the last fifty major increases that have occurred?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I will certainly take careful note of the noble Lord's suggestion and ensure that it is conveyed to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, would not the noble Earl accept that a wages policy is not an incomes policy, and that if we are to have regard to equity we must have a policy which affects all incomes, whether they are earned or unearned?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it would take a rather long answer to deal categorically with the noble Baroness's question. This is a matter of considerable dimensions. We have already debated it at some length in your Lordships' House once or twice recently. I should certainly not be averse to a further debate on one of the most pressing issues of our time, in which I think complete success has eluded Governments of most political complexions. I would suggest that it might be easier and better to treat this subject by way of debate rather than by the admittedly and inevitably rather perfunctory question and answer method.

EIRE CITIZENS AND UNITED KINGDOM PARLIAMENT
3.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: 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 there are any restrictions which prevent citizens of the Irish Republic from sitting in either House of Parliament.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, the disqualifications for membership of either House of Parliament which apply to citizens of the Republic of Ireland are the same as those which apply to citizens of independent Commonwealth countries. They are summarised in Chapter III of the eighteenth edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he would not agree that it is an absurd anomaly that the holder of an Irish Peerage who is a resident of the United Kingdom and a citizen of the United Kingdom cannot sit in the Upper House of Parliament, whereas an individual who is a citizen of Eire and is not a citizen of the United Kingdom or the Commonwealth can in fact sit in the Upper House of Parliament? Further, may I ask my noble friend this question? If in fact, as I understand it, aliens can sit in Parliament, would it not be wise for Her Majesty's Government to institute some machinery to ensure that they adhere to their Oath of Allegiance?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, as I said in the original Answer, the position of citizens of the Republic of Ireland is exactly the same in this respect as that of citizens of any independent Commonwealth country. I think your Lordships will agree that a number of noble Lords who have been citizens of independent Commonwealth countries have made a considerable contribution to the proceedings of your Lordships' House, although they may not have held citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, would my noble friend still not agree that it is an absurd anomaly that a resident of the United Kingdom and a citizen of the United Kingdom cannot sit in the Upper House of Parliament, whereas a citizen of Eire can?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the position is that under the Ireland Act 1949 the Republic of Ireland is not a member of the Commonwealth but its citizens are treated in our law as though it were.

EXPENDITURE COMMITTEE AND CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
3.18 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: 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 can explain in more detail the answer given by Air Marshal Sir Harold Martin in paragraph 1737 of the second report from the Expenditure Committee 1971–72 when he said "the O.C.U. as a ' guesstimate' has about * * *"; and whether they can state how this compares with the corresponding figures for the five preceding years.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, the Air Marshal was discussing the possibility of reinforcing the Harrier force in R.A.F. Germany, in an emergency, from the Harrier Operational Conversion Unit. It is not the practice to publish the size of operational squadrons or of the associated Operational Conversion Units.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, whom I hold in very high esteem, but does he not think that this Report treats Parliament with contempt when 69 of its pages are bespattered with asterisks which conceal information from Members and thus prevent them from intelligently debating the facts in issue? Furthermore, if the idea is to hide the information from secret agents, do not the asterisks themselves constitute a kind of spies' guide? Do not they really say to Moscow: We've

1183
marked several important secret matters with asterisks to show you that they are specially worthy of investigation by your agents"?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the Sub-Committee in their Report—and probably the noble Lord has read it—acknowledged that they had received more classified information from my Department than anybody had ever received before. I think it is one thing to tell the Committee a number of facts: one has to be a little more careful in what one publishes. I accept that this is not a very satisfactory way of doing it. The other way, of course, was not to tell the Sub-Committee. I think what we must do is to examine carefully whether it was necessary to withhold all this information, but I think one should be a little careful not to get too much the other way.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is it not slightly unfortunate that this gallant officer used baby language invented by the Economist newspaper?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I imagine that my noble friend is referring to "guesstimate" as a word. I have always believed that a "guesstimate" was an estimate in the days of noble Lords opposite.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, surely the noble Lord is not naive enough to think that the Russians have not got all the information about the size of the Harrier force that was concealed from the readers of the Select Committee's Report. Why is it that we insist on retaining far stricter security control against the release of this information than the United States of America, whose contribution to Western security is of an order of magnitude greater than ours?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, as a matter of fact I am naive enough to believe that our enemies do not have all that information.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, does not the Question ask how one figure compares with another? If an Answer cannot be given in actual figures, can it not be given in percentages as between one figure and another?
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, this Question was asked seriously because I thought it was a matter of importance, but as the noble Lord has said that he will examine it to see what happens next year, that closes the matter so far as I am concerned.

A.45 ROAD IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES
3.23 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is correct that they are carrying out a feasibility study on the A.45 (Ipswich to the Midlands) to ascertain the type of improvement to be carried out (i.e., ordinary dual carriageway or motorway); and how soon the study will be completed, so that work can proceed as rapidly as possible.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, there is no feasibility study, In June, 1971, the whole length of the A.45 from Cambridge to Ipswich was included in the preparation pool for comprehensive improvement. Some schemes on this route were already in preparation before June, 1971. The larger schemes are still being carried forward towards construction stage and the comprehensively improved route will be designed to fit in with them. However, it is necessary to take a comprehensive look at some of the smaller schemes in case they involve abortive expenditure. Most of these smaller schemes provide for dualling along the existing alignment, but it is possible that in some places an entirely new route might provide the better solution from the point of view of the local environment and in giving value for money. We will aim to complete this comprehensive look as soon as possible so that these schemes, if they can be accepted as part of the overall solution, are not unnecessarily delayed.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask him a supplementary question? In view of the fact that Felixstowe Docks are about to be doubled in size and there is every possibility that

1185
this country will go into the Common Market, and as this route between the Midlands and the East Anglian ports is of vital importance, is it not necessary to try to speed up the work? Because although some of the by-passes have been authorised and the Bury St. Edmunds By-pass is out to tender now, nothing at all is happening in regard to the dualling between by-passes, and that is worrying a great many people.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I completely take what the noble Lord said about the ports. This is an urgent review and we should have the answer within a few months.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend if instead of dualling along the existing alignment he would ask his Department to consider making two carriageways along the same line?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I have a certain sympathy with my noble friend.

IMPRISONMENT OF TIMOTHY DAVEY IN TURKEY
3.25 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice; namely,
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to make representations to the Government of Turkey regarding the sentence of six years and three months' imprisonment and a fine of £4,190 imposed yesterday on the British schoolboy, Timothy Davey, for a drug offence?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the House will have heard with deep concern of the sentence of 6 years' imprisonment passed in Turkey on Timothy Davey, a boy of 14 years of age, after conviction for conspiracy to traffic in drugs. I understand that an appeal is being made and that the case is therefore sub judice. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs asked the Turkish Ambassador to call to see him last night to express Her Majesty's Government's concern about Timothy Davey. My right honourable
1186
friend made clear to the Turkish Government his hope that the remaining legal processes can be hastened to the greatest possible extent. If the trial court's decisions are nevertheless confirmed, I understand that there will still be an opportunity for an appeal for clemency.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that full rely, may I ask whether he is aware that the last thing one wants to do is to prejudice a friendly response from the Government and Parliament of Turkey of which there is some hope; and would Her Majesty's Government consider not only the long sentence but the fine, in view of the fact that under Turkish Law the prisoner might have to serve two years' conscripted service at the end of the sentence if that fine is not paid?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the dilemma here is that the judiciary in Turkey is independent of the Executive, as it is in this country. At the same time, it is impossible not to feel sympathy for this 14-year old boy. As I said in my original Answer, the proceedings are still before the courts, since an appeal is pending against the sentence, which includes the fine as well as the sentence of custodial imprisonment. My right honourable friend has made it clear that he feels it is of the greatest importance that there should be the minimum delay in hearing the appeal.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, I think we should all wish to thank the noble Lord for the sympathetic Answer that he has given and the very helpful attitude that Her Majesty's Government are taking. Perhaps most of us—indeed, probably all of us—would agree that it would be most unwise on an occasion of this kind to do or to say anything at all which might make it more difficult for clemency to be exercised in a case of such delicacy.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that most people will agree with the concern which has been expressed by the Secretary of State to the Turkish Ambassador? Could the noble Lord say whether the Foreign Secretary was able to find out how long the appeal proceedings are likely to take, and whether he has satisfied himself that the Davey family are in a position to be adequately represented at the appeal and to

1187
pay the legal costs that they will incur in Turkey?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am not in a position to add to the original Answer as to what passed between the Turkish Ambassador and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Answer refers specifically to the Foreign Secretary's hope that the remaining legal processes could be hastened to the greatest possible extent. I understand that the lawyer representing Timothy Davey was chosen by him and those advising him, and that certain funds have been made available by charitable organisations and others which should be adequate to meet the cost.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be making a Statement on the Report of the Parker Committee of Privy Counsellors at a convenient moment after half past three. This will be followed by a Statement to be made by my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir on the all-Party delegation to Rhodesia.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg leave to move that the Road Traffic Bill be now read a third time, and in doing so to remind your Lordships that it is pure consolidation.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

TRANSPORT HOLDING COMPANY BILL
3.30 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, we on this side have no intention of opposing the passing of a Bill of this kind which comes from another place, which has received a Second Reading in this House and, of course, has received Second and Third Readings in another place. Nevertheless, it would be wrong of me not to delay your Lordships for a moment or two to make clear why we think that this is one of the worst Bills that this Government has introduced—and that is indeed an achievement! The reasons why we take this view are, first, that this is a Bill which, as your Lordships know, deals almost exclusively with the hiving off of a well-established public enterprise business which has served the nation well, which has served the nation throughout Labour and Conservative Administrations without being interfered with. The purpose of this Bill is purely to hive off that business exclusively to the private sector. I am bound to remind your Lordships that this is so because your Lordships will not find one word in the Bill that says that it is so.
Therefore, my second complaint is that not only is this a piece of pure unjustified dogma, because not one word of justification has been put before your Lord-ships, who have been expected to pass it with some unexpressed philosophical approval; not only has not one word been said in justification of the principle of the Bill, but the Bill itself has been drawn so as to make it perfectly clear that the Government have power to dispose of this business either to the private or to the public sector. Of course, the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has made it absolutely clear—nobody could have been more straightforward and candid than the noble Lord, Lord Sandford—that notwithstanding the fact that the Government are taking these wide powers in the Bill they propose to exercise them narrowly by the Secretary of State concerned approving only a transfer to the private sector.

1189
Although I am a comparatively new Member, I have a deep appreciation of your Lordships' House. I should have thought that was something we all wanted to share, and therefore that we all wanted to see that your Lordships' House had good reasons for justifying the way it deals with Bills. Here is a Bill for which no justification has been put forward, for which the only justification in another place was questionable management of Cook's, which, to be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, he has not repeated in this place; he carefully avoided saying one word in criticism of the management of Cook's. This was the sole consideration in another place, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was, if I may be permitted to say so, extremely wise in his self-denial. First of all, there is no evidence of bad management; and secondly, so far as your Lordships' House is concerned, there were only two speeches from the Back Benches, one from the Conservative Back Benches and one from the Cross Benches, and both were in support of the good management of this business.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, as ex-Chairman of the Consumer Council, said that the Consumer Council had never had any problems so far as Cook's was concerned, although it had had many problems so far as other travel organisations were concerned. They will be familiar to your Lordships and I need not remind you of them. She was also good enough to say that as a Member of Parliament she was anxious to record her appreciation, shared by all those present in your Lordships' House, for the good work Cook's had done for all Members of Parliament and all Ministers in assisting them in their travels. That was the evidence of the noble Baroness.
As I say, there was a speech from the Cross Benches, from perhaps the most authoritative person in your Lordships' House in this particular field, the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, who was concerned with setting up the nationalised transport organisation and, once it was set up, was for many years concerned as the Chairman, and therefore had experience both as the most senior civil servant at the beginning and as the Chairman running the nationalised Board. His view, as he expressed it to us, was that the management had been quite unfairly
1190
criticised in another place. So while not wishing to detain your Lordships longer than is absolutely necessary, I am bound to register our deep dissatisfaction with the way the Bill is drafted, with the determination of the Government not to justify to reasonable, open minds the proposal which they, as the first Conservative Government to do so, now make, Cook's having been left completely undisturbed throughout the 13 years of the previous Conservative Government's Administration.
They have not attempted to justify it, as they could not, in terms of competition. We may not share the same philosophy, but at all events we are under a responsibility to judge any proposal that is put before your Lordships' House. We could take the view that competition is not so simple as it was at the beginning of the century. Nevertheless, nobody has ever attempted to put forward, even within the Conservative philosophy of competition, that this transfer hiving off to the private sector could possibly increase competition. It will either leave it as it is or reduce competition. So in those circumstances, where the only thing one can say is that the decision must have been prompted by sheer dogma, having regard to the lack of candour in the Bill, we are bound to register our regret and our opposition to the Bill: our opposition to what it proposes to do, and our deep regret that the Government has gone about it in this way.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, may I intervene briefly? Yesterday we had a very interesting debate on the interests of the consumer. As one who has been a "consumer" of Thomas Cook's for a good many years, may I say that I have never had the slightest cause for dissatisfaction about the service that they give. I should have said that bad management generally resulted in the dissatisfaction of customers. That certainly has not been so in my case.
3.39 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to respond briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. I am grateful to him for acquitting me of any lack of candour in my handling of this Bill. He referred

1191
to Thomas Cook's recent history and to its existence for 13 years under the previous Conservative Government; but I should like to remind noble Lords that Thomas Cook's is much older than that. It began its existence 130 years ago. It began in the private sector; it prospered in the private sector. We believe that it ought to continue in the private sector, and we are sure that it will continue to prosper in the private sector. That is the reason for our introduction of the Bill; it is the reason I have given all along, and the reason I should like to leave before your Lord-ships.
On Question, Bill passed.

NORTHERN IRELAND DETAINEES: INTERROGATION METHODS
3.41 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg leave to repeat here a Statement about the Report of the Privy Counsellors, under the chairmanship of Lord Parker of Waddington, which by now will have been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"This Report is published to-day; and copies are now available in the Vote Office"—
that will be the Printed Paper Office here.
"The Government have not found it necesssary to omit any passage on grounds of security; and the Report is published with only minor amendmendments which do not in any way affect the sense.
"The terms of reference of the Committee were to inquire whether, and if so in what respects, the procedures currently authorised for the interrogation of persons suspected of terrorism, and for their custody while subject to interrogation, require amendment. The Government are indebted to Lord Parker and his colleagues for the scrupulous care with which they have examined this very difficult subject.
"The Committee found themselves unable to agree; and they have therefore
1192
submitted a Majority Report signed by Lord Parker and my right honourable and learned friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames"—
that is of course, Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter—
"together with a Minority Report signed by Lord Gardiner.
"The majority find that the methods in question, which had been applied on a number of occasions in the past under successive Governments in various parts of the world, were applied in Northern Ireland in August, 1971, to 12 detainees, and in October to two more. They consider—and I quote—that 'there is no doubt that the information obtained by these two operations directly and indirectly was responsible for the saving of lives of innocent citizens'. They conclude that the use of the methods involved could be justified in exceptional circumstances subject to further safeguards which they recommend. They consider, however, that the use of these techniques in some, if not all, cases would offend against English law; but they refrain from expressing any view about the position in Northern Ireland where legal proceedings which raise this issue are pending. Lord Gardiner in the Minority Report considers that these methods are objectionable in all circumstances.
"The Government, having reviewed the whole matter with great care and with particular reference to any future operations, have decided that the techniques which the Committee examined will not be used in future as an aid to interrogation."
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that we shall all wish to thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating that Statement. I believe this is also a case where thanks are due to Her Majesty's Government for setting up this Commission in the first place. I personally should like to pay tribute to the courage which the Government showed in the composition of the Commission. Our thanks must also go to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, and my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, and to Mr. Boyd-Carpenter for the way in which they undertook something which, as the noble and learned Lord said, must have been distasteful.

1193
I imagine that we shall all wish to study these two Reports with very great care. Both the Majority and the Minority Reports are of some length and will need to be studied with some care. May I say that all of us will express some relief at the decision to which Her Majesty's Government arrived in their final paragraph, whether for the reasons expressed in the Majority Report or in the Minority Report. I think there will be general satisfaction that the methods used will not in future be used. May I ask in this context whether one can assume that these methods were not used after the Compton Report? May I also ask whether we can assume that after the legal proceedings in Northern Ireland are completed, steps will be taken to regularise the position as between Northern Ireland and this country?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to repeat his last question? My attention was diverted.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I was asking whether we could assume that after legal proceedings are completed in Northern Ireland steps will be taken to assure that the legal position will be the same there as in this part of the United Kingdom?
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that we very much welcome the decision that has been made by the Government in this case? May I ask him whether the cases mentioned in the Statement were the sum total to whom the techniques were applied? That is to say, that only the 14 individuals who were questioned in August and October respectively were subjected to the procedures involved? Is he also aware that we very much endorse the request that has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that the law in Northern Ireland, which appears to be in some doubt, should certainly be brought into line with that which operates in this country where such procedure would have been illegal.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the way in which they have received this Statement. I think that the assumptions made by the noble Lord are correct. I cannot of course speak for
1194
Northern Irish law, but I have an assurance that the R.U.C. will not in future use these techniques as an aid to interrogation in Northern Ireland; and that, I think, covers the position. So far as I understand it, the use of the particular methods was confined to the fourteen cases. There was a further aspect which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked about—
LORD BESWICK: My Lords. I asked whether we can assume that the techniques were not employed after the publication of the Compton Report.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that is my understanding: that the fourteen cases (I am not quite sure of the date of the Compton Report) referred to in the Parker Report are a complete catalogue of the cases in which the techniques were used.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I express the hope that we may be able to debate this matter perhaps in a wider context, because it is quite impossible to comment on just hearing the Report. May I ask the Lord Chancellor this question? If I understood him correctly, the Government have agreed that, despite the Majority Report, these practices shall not be applied in the future. Does that agreement cover all the three main methods: the black bag; the noise; and the spreadeagling against a wall for a considerable period? Does it cover all those three matters?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the question of a debate is of course not for me but for the House and the usual channels. If the noble Lord wants to pursue it, he can pursue it by that means. As regards the second question he raised, of course all methods which will not be used as an aid to interrogation are covered.

ELECTRICITY BILL
3.50 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill has three main provisions: it increases the statutory limits on the borrowing powers of the Electricity Council and Boards in England and Wales and of the Scottish Electricity Boards; it authorises contributions to

1195
accelerated expenditure by the industry designed to promote employment; and it removes certain impediments to the transfer of property between Boards. The immediate effect of Clause 1 is to raise the limit on outstanding borrowings from the present figure of £4,400 million to £5,200 million for the Electricity Council and Boards and from £800 million to £950 million for the Scottish Boards. The clause makes provision for the borrowing limits to be raised further—by orders made by the Secretary of State—up to a maximum of £6,500 million for the Electricity Council and Boards and £1,200 million for the Scottish Boards. The interim limits are expected to meet the borrowing requirements of the industry up to about the middle of 1974 and the final limits up to March, 1978.
In the past two years the industry's borrowing has risen because increases in electricity prices have not kept pace with the increases in the industry's costs. The increases in electricity prices made by the Boards in the early months of last year were the first general increases since 1967, and were smaller than would have been justified by costs. Since July, 1971, further changes to match prices more equitably to costs have been restrained by the Boards' compliance with the C.B.I, initiative. Price increases are being made by most of the Area Boards at present, and these comply strictly with the C.B.I, guidelines; that is, they do not exceed 5 per cent. and follow after an interval of at least 12 months since the last increases. The Government recognise the strain that this is imposing on the industry's finances, and the question whether any assistance may be needed to restore the industry to a commercial footing is being considered with them. The need to check inflation was overriding, however, and the Government are most grateful for the industry's co-operation in this task.
In Scotland, the pattern has been a little different. Further legislation was needed to increase the borrowing powers of the Scottish Boards in 1969. The Electricity (Scotland) Act 1969 set the present limit of £800 million which took effect last August through the Electricity Borrowing Powers) (Scotland) Order 1971. The exhaustion of these powers is
1196
also in sight, however, and new powers are required in the present Session. The new borrowing limits provided for in Clause 1 of the Bill are based on estimates of capital requirements and internal financing submitted by the Electricity Council and the Scottish Boards. These estimates cover the period up to the end of March, 1978. Your Lordships will appreciate that in looking so far ahead there are bound to be uncertainties about the growth of demand for electricity, and about the longer-term forecast of costs and prices: uncertainties, that is, about capital requirements and the internal resources that will be available to meet them. The estimates of borrowing requirements can therefore be only tentative. The aim, however, is to provide for the legitimate borrowing requirements of the industry over the next few years. We are of course dealing with very large capital programmes. Over the seven years from April, 1971, to March, 1978, these are expected to average about £700 million a year for the Electricity Council and Boards and more than £100 million a year for the Scottish Boards. This investment is necessary to meet the future industrial, domestic and other requirements of the country for electricity.
Clause 2 empowers the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, to pay out of public funds to the Electricity Council or any Electricity Board contributions towards the expenses of the capital projects which they are bringing forward. This provision was foreshadowed by the Government's announcement last November, that the nationalised industries, at the Government's request, were making arrangements to bring forward about £100 million-worth of capital expenditure into the years 1972/73 and 1973/74 as part of the measures to promote employment, and that in some cases there would be special payments to these industries in respect of expenses incurred. It is the Government's view that the extra costs consequent upon the acceleration of expenditure should fall upon the community as a whole rather than on the industry's consumers alone.
Of the £100 million-worth of expenditure brought forward, about £60 million is attributable to the Electricity Boards, and Clause 2 of the Bill provides for the Secretary of State, with Treasury

1197
approval, to contribute up to £25 million to the expenses involved. This sum has been designed to cover all the projects now being considered and also allows for the possibility of the acceleration of some other small projects. The amount of compensation paid will depend on the extent to which the projects have been brought forward, in addition to the amount of capital expenditure involved. The contributions to be made by the Secretary of State will relate to additional interest charges and other expenses involved in advancing expenditure. The projects being brought forward include one major project: the construction of Ince B power station. It is not possible to estimate the full effect of these measures in creating employment. Their indirect effects will be spread fairly widely through the economy, by means of sub-contracts, capital work of contractors and sub-contractors and so on, and are difficult to assess. But rough estimates—and these must necessarily be rough—have been provided for some of the projects concerned, and these suggest that the projects being advanced by the Electricity Boards should create jobs for at least 5,000 in 1972–73.
Clause 3 extends the powers of the Secretary of State to transfer property between Electricity Boards. The transfer of property between Boards is necessary from time to time in the process of technical reorganisation; for example, the transfer of the 132Kv transmission network from the Central Electricity Generating Board to the various Area Boards. Financial responsibility for this network has already been transferred to the Area Boards with effect from April 1, 1969, but because of the legal complexities it has not been possible to transfer the assets. The C.E.G.B. has retained ownership, though Area Boards have responsibility for the network. The transfer of the various property rights, including wayleaves, some of which were compulsorily acquired, is a matter of considerable legal complexity and could best be effected by an order or orders made under Section 19 of the 1947 Act. However, in its present form the powers of this section would not be adequate. The amendment has been sought by the Electricity Council and Boards in England and Wales. At the same time, the Scottish Boards have asked that it should cover Scotland as well, although
1198
no immediate reorganisation is under consideration in Scotland. The clause is not concerned with the general organisation or reorganisation of the industry. The Government have no intention of reorganising the structure of the electricity industry in the immediate future. With that explanation, I trust that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Ferrers.)

RHODESIA: MR. SMITH'S REFUSAL OF ALL-PARTY VISIT
4.0 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, although I much regret interrupting a debate, perhaps it would be the wish of the House to give me leave to repeat now a Statement that is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"I said that I would report further to the House on the possibility of an all-Party delegation visiting Rhodesia".
"Mr. Smith has finally replied that he would feel unable to agree to the visit of the delegation proposed. He gives as his reason not only the strongly expressed opposition to the settlement of certain members of the proposed delegation, but also their alleged support for movements in Africa which make use of terrorist methods.
"Since both the Labour and Liberal Parties have stated that they are not prepared to change their nominations to the all-Party delegation, a position which I quite understand, I regret that there is now no point in pursuing the proposal further."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for repeating that Statement, may I ask her whether it would not have been better if Her Majesty's Government had expressed

1199
some feeling of regret at this gross act of discourtesy to the Parliament of this country? Noble Lords will agree that it is quite unprecedented for any country to refuse a Parliamentary Delegation. Further, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she can give an undertaking that Her Majesty's Government will uphold the rights of Members of both Houses of Parliament to carry out their legitimate pursuits in all countries, and particularly in a country which is seeking recognition from this Government while in rebellion against the Crown? With regard to the alleged support for terrorist methods, we know that Mr. Smith has many times said that the Labour Party has had resolutions at its annual conference supporting terrorist movements in Rhodesia. Would the noble Baroness confirm what has been pointed out in both Houses of Parliament, that this is completely untrue? My Lords, does this not show that the Smith Government is totally uninterested in the truth, and seeks to invalidate the work of the Pearce Commission since it is probably going to bring back an answer which Smith did not expect?
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Baroness for repeating this Statement. I will limit my comments to the references to the Liberal Party, of which I have the honour to be a member. Would the noble Baroness agree that there are some completely false assumptions in this reply from Mr. Smith? Is she aware that neither Mr. Steel nor any other Liberal Member of Parliament who might have been nominated supports the use of terrorist methods, any more than they support the repressive methods and shockingly illiberal actions of the illegal régime? There is one other assumption which perhaps the noble Baroness can correct. It appears to be assumed from this reply from Mr. Smith that the Conservatives, on their part, would have been willing to make or change nominations merely to satisfy Mr. Smith. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to give us some assurance that that assumption is ill-founded.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, first of all to the noble Baroness, I would say that perhaps
1200
she will recall that the Statement specifically said:
"… I regret that there is now no point in pursuing…"
and obviously we must all of us regret that an all-Party Delegation from either another place or both Houses cannot in fact be received. In answer to the question raised by the noble Baroness as to whether we would do our best to try to ensure that Members of both Houses could go about their legitimate business and observe what is happening in Rhodesia, she will of course recall that three Members of another place have in fact gone—the Member for Surbiton, the Member for West Bromwich and the Member for York.
The noble Baroness then asked whether these allegations were not quite untrue. I could not possibly comment on what resolutions have been passed or have not been passed by political Parties in this country, but I would say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State conveyed very firmly to Mr. Smith that undertakings were given by all the members of the delegation that they would not work either for or against a settlement while they were in Rhodesia. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, I would say that the Conservative members of the delegation were never named, and therefore there was no question of changing them.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I am afraid that I must press the noble Baroness a little further. With regard to the word "regret", the Statement says:
"Since both the Labour and Liberal Parties have stated that they are not prepared to change their nominations … I regret that there is now no point in pursuing the proposal further".
Would the noble Baroness have wished them to have changed the nominations at the wish of Mr. Smith's Government?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I think that if the noble Baroness has time to look at the Statement more closely she will observe that just before the words, "I regret", it says, "a position which I quite understand". In other words, this confirms that Her Majesty's Government do not expect the Members of the Labour Party in another place to change their

1201
delegation. It is a position which is perfectly understood, and that is why my right honourable friend said,
"I regret that there is now no point in pursuing the proposal further".
LORD BROWN: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the form of words used by the Foreign Secretary in this Statement give the impression, if they do not in fact actually support the idea, that the Foreign Secretary has accepted the logic of Mr. Smith's arguments against accepting this all-Party Delegation? Would it not have been possible for him to say something in such an important Statement to make it clear that he himself felt that Mr. Smith was taking up at least a totally illogical position?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the great difficulty in this case, as I am sure the House as a whole is aware, is that, however much all of us may regret it, the Rhodesians have had the right of control of access to their country since 1923.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, should not the noble Baroness in one sense welcome rather than regret what has happened, since it shows Mr. Smith up in his true colours?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: No, my Lords, I certainly do not welcome it, because we hope that the Pearce Commission will continue their task.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I regret having to disagree with the noble Baroness, who is so pleasant and, I am quite sure, believes entirely that what she says is the truth. But is the noble Baroness aware that those of us who were on the "Fearless"—and I was one of the people present and took part in the negotiation—knew within our hearts that there was no possibility of coming to an open, democratic agreement with this (and I use the word) gentleman, Mr. Smith? Consequently, I repeat the end of the speech that I made when the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, went to Rhodesia. I said that the Foreign Secretary and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, had been taken for a ride. Why should this great Government be taken for a ride?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I hesitated to
1202
interrupt the noble Lord, but it would assist me greatly if he could couch his remarks in the form of a question, because it would make it easier for me to remember what it is he wishes me to say. I should be most grateful if he would say it again.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I do not want to repeat it. I only wanted to ask whether the noble Baroness was aware that her Government have been taken for a ride.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I would say briefly that I am not at all aware of this fact. It is entirely up to the Pearce Commission to decide whether they have the conditions in which they can fulfil their work, and up till now they have said that they have.

ELECTRICITY BILL
4.8 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, we now return to the Electricity Bill. I wish to say straightaway that we welcome this Bill. We are grateful to the noble Earl for the careful explanation he has given us and for some additional information which he has made available tentatively—I understand the reason for that very well. Nevertheless, we feel that there are matters in the Bill which require fairly careful scrutiny. There is no problem in this case of differing philosophical approaches. Indeed, there is no great philosophy in the Bill. It deals with nuts and bolts—rather big ones, rather expensive ones; but nevertheless with machinery, as opposed to any new principle. Therefore, I turn, as the noble Earl did himself, to the respective clauses, and I shall ask one or two questions on them.
The first clause deals with borrowing, and we understand the reasons for increasing the borrowing powers. But the noble Earl did not say anything about the recent coal strike, which has undoubtedly affected the earnings and the profits, or probably the losses, of the Electricity Boards. Could the noble Earl, in replying to this debate, give us information, if any is yet available, as to the likely additional cost falling on the

1203
electricity supply industry as a result of the interruption caused by the coal strike; and can he say whether the borrowing he is proposing is affected by that in any way? I assume that the figures of borrowing are so large that they are not likely to be affected, and that the only result would be that the Government might have to come to the House earlier than otherwise anticipated. Nevertheless, I should like to give him the opportunity of supplying this valuable piece of information.
Then the noble Earl referred, properly I thought, to the way in which prices had been artificially kept down. He referred to 'the C.B.I. arrangement which had been acceded to by the electricity supply industry. That, as he made clear, will undoubtedly have meant that income which would otherwise have been earned has not been earned. I want to pursue this matter a little because I am interested in knowing where the cost of artificially keeping down the prices is ultimately going to fall. It can fall either on the general body of taxpayers by the process of Government subsidising in one way or another or on the existing consumers. I think that all electricity consumers would like to know whether or not the method of keeping down prices artificially is merely a method of postponing an increase in the price.
Your Lordships will immediately appreciate that if the present system continues under which a target of profit has to be achieved by the industry, and that target has to be irrespective of additional small borrowing. then the additional sums which have been borrowed as a result of the artificial keeping down of the prices are merely going to fall on the consumer, albeit at a later date. So the question I am putting to the noble Earl is a simple one. What, according to the arrangements which are prevailing. is happening about the additional cost of keeping down the prices? Are those prices merely being kept down temporarily or is the benefit of that reduction in price an all-time benefit?
Next, I should like to turn to Clause 2 which provides for a subsidy of up to £25 million. The noble Earl made it clear that this was a fair compensation for accelerating, work to the tune of £60 million. I should be grateful if your
1204
Lordships would compare those two figures. What the Government are doing—and they are not the first Government to do it—is bringing forward work to provide additional employment. The amount of work brought forward is worth about £60 million and the additional cost involved in that bringing forward is £25 million. That is a very large proportion. It presumably means that this work, which would have cost £60 million if it had taken place in the normal way at the normal time, will now cost £85 million. That is a very large increase. Of course, it could mean that work which would have cost £35 million will now cost £60 million; and that is an even higher proportion. So I am being generous in assuming the first calculation to be the more accurate one. In either event it is a very high proportion, and what it is doing is providing, in what I hope I may truthfully, but possibly optimistically, call the relevant period of 1972–73, an additional 5,000 jobs. So there is to be £25 million additional cost, wasted cost, to produce 5,000 jobs in the relevant period.
We are all anxious that where circumstances of unemployment at the rate which we have achieved have arisen, where those tragic circumstances apply. methods should be adopted of alleviating them as far as one can; but it is to be considered whether this is an appropriate method, and whether it is not such an expensive method that other methods ought not to have been used in its place. This is not an unemployment debate and I cannot go into all the alternatives, but many have been put forward. I am asking: within the principle of providing work at some additional cost. is this a good bargain, is it value for money? Is it worth doing in comparison with other methods?—and I am speaking of £25 million on £60 million worth of work to provide 5,000 jobs only in the relevant period. Of course, it will provide additional jobs a year later; although I hope that the pressure for additional jobs a year later will not be so great. I hope that the Government are not contemplating one million unemployed in 18 months' time. So that is the question I am putting to the noble Earl about the £25 million and whether the Government have exercised their judgment wisely in spending that amount in this way as opposed to

1205
another way in order to achieve additional employment.
The Bill refers in Clause 3 to transfers between Electricity Boards. I note the noble Earl's statement, although it was hedged about a little, that the Government have no intention of restructuring this industry in the immediate future; that in that period they are not proposing to pull it out by the roots to see how it is growing. But I consider that that statement was not sufficient in itself and certainly not sufficient in relation to a similar statement made by the noble Earl's colleague in another place. I am still assuming, although this assumption has been challenged many times in the short period I have been in this House, that it is not surprising for Government Ministers to speak with the same voice in the two Houses. I am referring to the speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Development at the Scottish Office, the hon. George Younger, in the debate on this Bill on February 1, in the other place, when he said:
" … we do not have any proposals in hand just now for any major reorganisation of the electricity industry. I wish to make this clear because we do not want those concerned to feel that they are operating in an atmosphere of uncertainty…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, col. 379.]
That is fine.
I now go on to the following sentence:
"The hon. Gentleman then asked about hiving off. I wish to make it clear that the consideration of whether, and to what extent, parts of the industry can be hived off is still very much under way and that no decisions have been made at this time."—[col. 380.]
I do not know how much satisfaction those who have the duty of operating this industry can draw from that statement. The Government have made it as plain as a pikestaff that those operating the industry need to act with certainty, and need to have the cloud of uncertainty removed from them so that they may make sensible decisions regarding the future. But with this bad habit of considering hiving-off proposals wherever they can in regard to nationalised industries, the Government have not been prepared to make that clear statement. Therefore I hope that the noble Earl will widen the statement he has just made to include a similar comment about hiving-off.
Precisely the same principle disturbs management and creates inefficiency as
1206
underlies the uncertainty about major reorganisation. It is exactly the point, and I hope the Government will soon learn their lesson. The lesson I refer to is, of course, that taught by the coal strike, which started off when a Bill just like this came before your Lordships' House, and under which parts of the whole industry were hived-off, much against the wishes of those running the Coal Board and much against the acceptance of the then Chairman of the Coal Board. I refer to a Member of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Robens of Woldingham, who refused to continue his appointment. The result was dissatisfaction and a lack of confidence among the miners. They knew that the Government were "going for" their industry and that their representative, in the sense that he was the Chairman of the industry, was leaving the industry and was therefore no longer present to protect them.
A train of events followed which led to a greater distance between Government, the industry and the miners. It resulted in the absence of a chairman who could stand up to Government bullying as we all know that the noble Lord, Lord Robens, could do very well. It enabled a chairman to say two things that I doubt very much whether the noble Lord, Lord Robens, could ever have been persuaded to say: first, that lie could not possibly afford another farthing—and we can see how much that has cost—and also to say that as the offer made by the Board had not been accepted it was withdrawn, and that those negotiating would have to start again from the bottom. That infuriated the miners, their union and their negotiators. I am saying that the costly trouble which resulted in the loss of electrical supplies, and which has had its effect on this very Bill, started with a provision to hive-off part of the coal industry and it had a material effect on the attitude of the miners and the chain of events which caused this disaster.
It is to be hoped that the Government have no intention of carrying on with this dogmatic approach to every nationalised industry, including the electricity supply industry which has been praised by most Members of the Government for the way it handled matters during the coal strike. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to make absolutely clear

1207
that those charged with the responsibility of running all the parts of their industry may go ahead with a clear conscience and with the same keen endeavour that one would expect to find in all kinds of industry, public or private.
Finally, my Lords, I would turn to the larger question of the choice of fuels. The noble Earl did not say anything about that. I wonder whether he is in a position to say whether the Government have reached a conclusion on that all-important question. In the meantime it is right to maintain flexibility. We have all seen how forecasts have been belied and how impossible it is to be sure of the future. I understand that at present some three-quarters of the electricity generated comes from coal. That may sound a high figure, but such information as I have from those connected with coal and with other forms of energy supply indicates that they take the view that it is none too high a figure and that in twenty years' time we shall be leaning more on coal than we do to-day. That, my Lords, is one of the many subjects about which my ignorance is profound, but I think it is a subject about which we must know more. As the Government are coming forward for these very large sums, they should let us know whether they have reached any conclusion on this very difficult and baffling question of the choice of fuels.
I hope that the noble Earl can give a clear affirmative on this question. When comparing the cost of the different fuels will the Government take fully into account the anti-pollution costs? We all know that when we are dealing with different fuels inevitably there is a pollution element. We all know that we are moving to a period when that pollution element will have to be removed, or reduced, at some additional cost. There is no longer any need, therefore, to omit that calculation, and the cost should be included. No proper comparison will be achieved unless the anti-pollution costs are included in all comparable cases. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to deal with that question, and the other questions which I have put to him. I have made clear that we thank him for giving us the information, and that we shall do our best to expedite the passage of the Bill.
4.28 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, may I intervene, very briefly? I wish to ask the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, a couple of additional questions which I hope he may be able to answer. We have been waiting a very long time for the Vinter Committee to report. This has caused a state of uncertainty among those working in nuclear industry about what type of reactor will be chosen for the next generation. Is it the intention to proceed with the advanced gas-cooled reactors which are the mainstay of the existing programme or should we change over to the steam generating heavy water reactors, as the Institution of Professional Civil Servants and others have recommended, partly on the ground that there may be a very good export market for this particular type of reactor? Or should we move as fast as we can to developing the sodium-cooled fast breeder, of which I believe the prototype comes into operation next year? Until these questions are resolved it seems to me very difficult to undertake with any degree of precision to say what the capital expenditure of the Electricity Council and the Boards is likely to be in the time-scale with which we are concerned in this Bill.
As I understand from the noble Earl, we are going to 1978, and the orders for power stations coming into operation in that year would not normally be placed until late 1973, or even early 1974. So the decision of the Vinter Committee and the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, was discussing, about what is to be the basis of our fuel policy in 1978, raise an extremely important matter. I do not think it is good enough to pass this over by saying that in a Bill of this kind the uncertainties are so great that they are covered by the limits that we have chosen. Ideally one would like to have a new edition of the 1967 White Paper so that we may see what contribution is to be made by each of the four fuels to the energy economy of this country eight year ahead, as was done at that time.
When the 1967 White Paper was issued we were talking about the contribution to be made by gas, coal, oil and nuclear energy in 1975. Similarly, at the time when we produce a Bill of this kind, which talks about the expenditure of thousands of millions of pounds, I think we should

1209
have some idea of the relative proportions of fuels which are going to contribute to make up the energy economy generally, and in the case of the electricity supply, in particular, in 1978. It was asserted in the other place that the decision on Ince B was not to be taken as committing the Central Electricity Generating Board to any particular policy in the future. It just happens that it is one of the projects to be brought forward as a result of the need to create employment.
I should like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said. It seems to me to be a very expensive way of doing this. I listened carefully to the figures quoted by the noble Lord, and I did a little division. The £25 million which has been allocated under Clause 2 to create 5,000 jobs means that each of these jobs will cost £5,000 to create. I am not aware that the workers in the electricity supply industry are paid £5,000.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble Lord is doing me a great courtesy by supporting me in these figures. Perhaps he will forgive me for saying that I think the position is even worse than that, because the £25 million is only the wasted element. The full cost of providing the jobs is probably three or four times as much as that.
LORD AVEBURY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing that out, because the £25 million in fact relates to capital expenditure brought forward in the case of the Boards, as I understand it, of £60 million. Am I correct in saying that there is another £40 million on top of that for the Electricity Council itself? That is how I understood the noble Earl's explanation, but perhaps he will say a few more words on that when he comes to reply.
The final question that I want to put to the noble Earl is this. Can he say what rate of growth of electricity demand and of maximum simultaneous demand these capital expenditure figures represent? For a long time—I think almost 15 years—if the maximum simultaneous demand on the C.E.G.B. system was plotted on logarithmic paper it fell on to a beautiful straight line—8·6 per cent. per annum growth. Then at the beginning of the 'sixties it slackened off. Argument continues among the technological forecasters
1210
as to whether we shall ever return to that growth rate again. Certainly we have not done so in the last few years. This has an effect on the manufacturers who supply turbines, generating equipment and so on. They are unable to depend on a regular programme of work, and this increases the costs of the electricity industry, because they have to carry additional overheads which manufacturers incur in periods of slack. Of course, as the noble Earl will be aware, a thorough investigation of this was undertaken under the previous Government which said that, so far as possible, steps should be taken to even out the flow of orders by the C.E.G.B. and the Scottish Boards. This is why the question that I am putting to the noble Earl is an important one. If manufacturers know what the rate of growth of maximum demand is going to be, this tells them how much plant is going to be ordered. They can then arrange their manufacturing capacities to suit, and the Electricity Boards will get a better deal from their suppliers.
4.34 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords who have spoken, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for saying that there was no difference in basic philosophy, because of course this is a Bill merely enabling the Electricity Boards to have their borrowing powers increased. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked what was the effect of the coal strike on the Electricity Boards. I think he will understand if I say that these are very early days. It would be difficult to say precisely what the effect in cash terms has been upon the Electricity Boards; and no decisions have been taken on coal prices following the strike. The implications of the coal strike on the finances of the electricity industry cannot yet be determined, as I am sure the noble Lord will realise.
The noble Lord also referred to the fact that, because electricity prices had been kept down, this was in fact preventing the Boards from obtaining a higher revenue, and therefore from making a higher profit, or less of a loss, than otherwise they would have done. Of course the electricity industry has been a most profitable industry until recently. It was as a direct result of

1211
policy, in order to try to keep down the rate of inflation—upon which electricity has a great effect—that the Boards did not increase their prices as much as they would otherwise have done. But the noble Lord will realise that this price restraint was also shown by a number of other industries, not least of which was the Coal Board. When the noble Lord asks what would be the difference had they been allowed to increase their prices, again it is difficult to say because the assumption would be that the Coal Board would have increased their prices as well, and therefore the cost to the Electricity Boards would have been correspondingly higher had there been no restraint on prices.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, were concerned about the figure of £25 million and how it is arrived at in view of the £60 million worth of projects being brought forward. The limit of £25 million allowed in the Bill has been set to cover all proposals likely to be approved, with a margin for unforeseen contingencies. I think it can be reasonably said that the Ince B project and the associated work that goes with it does extend over a five-year period, and it is of course the biggest single project which is being brought forward. As I explained to the House in my original speech, the object of the £25 million is to reimburse the Electricity Boards or the Electricity Council to the extent of the interest required for bringing the projects forward; and the fact that the Ince B project will be brought forward and will extend over a period of five years will account for the largest proportion of the sum of £25 million.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for allowing me to interrupt. This is an important issue and it is something that we may have to come back to in more detail. Meantime, may I ask the noble Earl whether it is the case that, although the Ince B project is being brought forward and will take five years, it is not being brought forward five years.
LORD AVEBURY: Only one year.
LORD DIAMOND: Exactly. So the additional employment about which we are talking at a cost of £25 million is
1212
perhaps from one year's to eighteen months' employment. I want the noble Earl to be good enough to consider whether there is not a better and less expensive way of creating additional employment.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. As usual, with his clinical accuracy he has put his finger on a very germane point. The Ince B project is in fact being brought forward some eighteen months and, as I said, it accounts for the largest proportion of the money that is being spent. But it does not account for the whole of the £25 million.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, we can return to this point on the Committee stage, but perhaps the noble Earl will let us have a note of the calculations before that stage is reached.
EARL FERRERS: Yes, my Lords, I shall certainly do my best to see that noble Lords have the facts they require. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the choice of energy and of fuel. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned, the Vinter Committee has been studying this problem and is due to report shortly. It would therefore be imprudent of me to anticipate what this Report is likely to say; indeed it would he imprudent for the Government to anticipate any long-term position until the Report has been received and considered. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, recognised, any energy policy has to be flexible and must be considered as a whole; and the choice of the type of power stations to be built in the future depends on taking a long-term view, not only on operating costs but also on the anticipated performance and construction costs. There are very long-term social, economic, engineering and pollution aspects to be taken into account. These the noble Lord has raised again, as he did on an earlier Bill. I can assure him that these aspects will be considered.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will not wish me to go into too much detail over the long-term fuel requirements and the way in which these will be split up between various methods, because this depends very much on the

1213
Report of the Vinter Committee, and indeed on the decision as to the type of nuclear fuels which should be used in those power stations which will be powered in the future by nuclear fuels. I trust that your Lordships will agree that this Bill be now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to to a Committee of the Whole House.

SOLICITORS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
4.42 p.m.
LORD TANGLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. First of all, on behalf of solicitors I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for the Statement he made as to his action under the Courts Bill. I am very sorry that I was not in my place when he made it. I should like to have been here to thank him for the way he gave effect to the Amendments I moved when the Bill was in Committee. I am tempted to say that my absence was per incuriam, but those words have received such intensive consideration by the Judicial Committee of your Lordshops' House in the last few days that perhaps I ought to avoid the phrase altogether. Secondly, I should like to say, again by way of thanks, that I am very grateful to the Government for having made the services of Treasury Counsel available to me on the drafting of this Bill. I also thank them for the skill and assiduity with which they have applied themselves to the task.
The third and last preliminary observation I should like to make relates to the form of the Bill. It could have been cast in a somewhat similar form particularly so far as the Schedules are concerned, but the object has been to put the legislation, when this Bill has been passed, in a shape which is convenient for consolidation. I think it is time that the Solicitors Acts were consolidated, and that accounts for the form of this Bill and particularly of its Schedules. We were proceeding by way of re-enacting, subject to Amendments, which is always a bit complicated. You might call this Bill "The Solicitors (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill", and it is notoriously difficult to deal with such a Bill on Second Reading. In fact I
1214
really do not know how one deals with so many different subjects in a connected fashion. However, I should like to refer to the principal provisions in the Bill, to explain them and to justify them if I can; and if I leave out anything that any noble Lord thinks ought to have been explained or dealt with I will endeavour to do this at a later stage.
With those preliminary observations, I come to Part I of the Bill and Clause 1. The effect of this clause will make it unnecessary in future for a solicitor to be a British subject. There are two reasons for this. The first is that it is already becoming a little difficult to find out who is technically a British subject and who is not, having regard to the great changes that are taking place in the Commonwealth. In the days of William III of course it was very easy indeed to distinguish between a British subject and a "Hanover rat". It is not quite so simple as that to-day; and when we come to consider the Treaty of Rome the problem will he greater. I have to try to please noble Lords on every side of the House to-day, and therefore I suggest that I ought to say to those on the Government or Liberal Benches "when the Treaty of Rome becomes binding in this country"—and to other Peers perhaps I ought to say "if". I think that would be a tactful thing to say. But when or if we have to deal with the Treaty of Rome it is quite obvious that we may have to consider the admission to the Roll of people who are not British subjects; that is inherent in the Treaty and in particular in those Articles which deal with the right of settlement. Of course, anybody coming from abroad who wishes to become a member of the Bar or a solicitor will have to subject himself to the full training necessary for that purpose. But subject to that there seems to be no particular reason why a solicitor should necessarily be a British subject. The reason why he has to be, under the Act of Settlement, is that as an officer of the court he holds an office of trust within the meaning of the Act. But I trust that your Lordships will think this is not a thing which we need necessarily bring into discussion to-day.
Clause 2 is fairly obvious, I think. At the present time the Law Society, before it accepts an articled clerk and again before a solicitor is admitted, has to consider whether the candidate has the moral

1215
fitness to be an officer of the court. That is a very difficult phrase to apply. I do not know that it is very easy to find any other form of words, but it is proposed rather to widen the inquiry and to say that the test shall be the character and his fitness and suitability to be a solicitor. I do not think I need particularly labour that point.
When we come to Clause 3 we are dealing with a purely administrative matter. At the present time if a solicitor wants to take his name off the Roll, to become a barrister or for some other reason, he has to apply to the Disciplinary Committee who alone can strike him off. This has nothing to do with the disciplinary proceedings at all. The proposal in this clause is that the Law Society itself shall be able to take this action without having to refer it to the Disciplinary Committee. The concurrence of the Master of the Rolls, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, is needed because there can always be an appeal if the Law Society does or does not do what the solicitor wants.
When we come to Clause 4 we are dealing with what is primarily a domestic matter; that is to say, the amount the Law Society may charge for issuing the practising certificate which all solicitors require. We are proposing that the statutory limit of £20 should be omitted (inflation is hitting the costs of the Law Society as it is hitting everything else); but we also propose to retain the protection which exists at present, that the amount must be approved by the Master of the Rolls, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice.
Next we come to Part II of the Bill, and here we are dealing with the Schedules. The Schedules are really designed to protect clients; they are not for the protection of the solicitors at all. The Schedules are mainly the old Schedules amended and revised in certain respects, and they are brought into effect by Clause 5. I do not think I need say very much about them; they are mainly a repetition of the existing law. Clause 6 enables the Law Society to take over quickly the papers of a solicitor who has been practising on his own and has died. I am afraid that solicitors are not
1216
always as careful as they should be in arranging their own affairs—sometimes they are too busy in arranging their clients' affairs to consider their own. It may well be that the solicitor appoints executors who are not solicitors and who have no idea of what to do about the practice. In such cases the Law Society seeks power to take charge of the situation. That is wholly for the benefit of the clients.
In Clause 7 we deal with a situation which is rather awkward in practice. It is absolutely cardinal that no solicitor, or his partner, should practise before another solicitor, or his partner, who is a justice of the peace in a particular area. It sometimes happens that solicitors who are justices of the peace in one particular area are called upon to serve from time to time in other courts, and even, in certain circumstances, in the Crown Courts set up by the recent Act. We think the right course to take there is to distinguish between the court in which the solicitor usually sits and the court in which he may occasionally sit. With the first type of court we retain the existing prohibition; with the second type of court we prohibit the solicitor from sitting. In that way the principle that I have indicated is preserved.
Clauses 8 and 9 contain the provisions about the Disciplinary Committee, and we propose that the name be changed from the "Disciplinary Committee" to the "Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal". The reason is that at the present time there is a certain amount of confusion in the lay mind between the Law Society and the Disciplinary Committee. The Disciplinary Committee is not a committee of the Law Society; it is a committee appointed by the Master of the Rolls from among past or present members of the Council of the Law Society; but they are quite different bodies and the Law Society acts, as one might say, as prosecutor before the Disciplinary Committee. We think it would be desirable to change the name to the "Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal", to draw the clear distinction between its functions and the functions of a committee of the Law Society. At the same time we seek to enlarge the powers of the Master of the Rolls as to who may be appointed to the Disciplinary Tribunal. We think that it

1217
is undesirable to emphasise the connection between the Law Society by retaining the provision that the Master of the Rolls may appoint only past or present members of the Council, and we consider that it should be thrown much more widely open to any solicitor of 10 years' standing.
Clause 10 deals with a purely technical point. At the moment the position is that the Disciplinary Committee is required by law to state the facts of a case before giving its decision. That means there is a good deal of drafting to be done before a decision can be made known. It is highly desirable that the decision should be made known immediately, if possible, and the drafting done afterwards. For that reason it is suggested that it would be much more convenient not to require the facts to be stated before any decision is announced, but to give power to the Committee—the Tribunal, as it will be—to announce the decision and then draft the full statement of facts and reasons afterwards.
Now we come to the provisions in Part III with regard to the Compensation Fund. I ought to remind your Lordships that the Compensation Fund is a great work undertaken by the whole of the solicitors' profession on behalf of the very small number of people who suffer as a result of the dishonesty of solicitors. Such cases are very rare, but they unfortunately exist. The principle of the Compensation Fund is that the whole profession stands behind every solicitor, so that any client who suffers from dishonesty can make a claim on the Compensation Fund. We call it the Compensation Fund because that is what it is; but ever since it started it has operated as an indemnity fund. We do not dare call it that yet, but that is what it has been in the past, and in this sense no admitted claim has yet been rejected by the fund. It is a very tiny proportion of people who suffer, but there it is. I took power in the 1965 Bill, which I had the honour to take charge of in your Lordships' House, to raise the maximum levy which could be made on the profession to £50 in any particular year. I am thankful to say we have never had so far to exercise that power.
There are one or two provisions here to which I think I ought to draw attention. The first is that under the present
1218
law if you are an unfortunate client you have to prove actual loss before you can make a claim on the Fund. We propose to alter that to empower the Fund to make payment if it is satisfied that the client is likely to suffer loss. That is a very important provision from the point of view of the client, because as a rule these matters take a long time to work out and settle; and if a grant could be made to a client who is likely to suffer loss it might relieve a great deal of hardship which would otherwise be suffered through the inevitable delay. Another interesting provision of this clause relates to cases where the innocent partner of a guilty solicitor has had nothing whatever to do with the dishonesty of his partner—and this often happens because sometimes, unfortunately, the dishonest partner goes to great lengths to conceal from his other partners what he has been doing. We are taking power in this clause—and I think it is a very wise provision; I hope your Lordships will agree—so that not only can a grant be made to a client but a grant or a loan, as the case may be, can be made to the innocent solicitor in order to enable him to make reparation to the client; because, of course, clients are entitled to look to all the partners—they are jointly and severally liable—and this is a different method of awarding compensation to clients. It makes good sense, I think your Lordships will agree, to enable the innocent solicitors to make reparation themselves. I think that is all I need trouble your Lordships with in regard to the Compensation Fund.
When we come to Part IV, Clause 12, we find there is a curious quirk in the law to-day. If a solicitor and a client make an agreement in contentious matters about what the costs shall be, it may very well be that the client does not want to challenge all of the bill; he may not want to challenge any of it; but before the solicitor can sue on it the bill has to go before the taxing master and the taxing master has to consider on behalf of the court whether this was a reasonable agreement to be made. The effect of this clause is that if the client does not want to challenge the bill, or wants to challenge only part of it—shall we say, the disbursements or part of the costs, and not other parts of the bill—then he can go to the court and have that

1219
limited right of challenge. Of course, we retain the existing protection for clients under a disability, such as infants and so forth.
Clause 10 deals with a purely techcality about the time within which certain applications must be made, and is designed to meet the criticisms in the particular case made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cross, when he was Mr. Justice Cross, in 1961. Clause 14 deals with a curious point under contentious business in the county court. At the moment there is a distinction in the county court, as indeed there is in the High Court between party and party and solicitor and client costs; that is to say, between the costs which can be awarded against an unsuccessful party and the costs which can be awarded as between a solicitor and his own client. As it stands at the moment there is no discretion in a county court case to depart from the party and party taxation, whereas in the High Court, which of course has jurisdiction which overlaps very much with the county court, there is power, if the taxing authorities in the county court think fit, to draw a distinction between party and party and solicitor and client costs. That is, as I submit, a perfectly reasonable provision.
Clause 15 deals with quite a different matter. As it stands at the moment, a solicitor cannot become a commissioner for oaths without being separately enrolled, separately appointed by the Lord Chancellor. This gives a great deal of extra work to the Lord Chancellor's Department and to the Law Society for the purpose of keeping the Register and getting these appointments made, and so forth. It is suggested that all solicitors should automatically be commissioners for oaths—which most people seem to think they are, but in practice they are not. We of course preserve the right to the Lord Chancellor to appoint anybody other than a solicitor to be a commissioner for oaths, as is occasionally done at the present time.
Clause 16 is a rather technical clause but I think I ought to say a word on it. It relates to termination of a retainer of a solicitor. At the moment, a solicitor is not entitled to throw out a case unless his client refuses to put him in funds to meet disbursements. The object of
1220
this clause is to enable the solicitor to make a reasonable demand on account of his actual costs. It is quite unreasonable to expect a solicitor to go on acting for a client when he has no prospect of being paid. So the object of this clause is to put disbursements and costs on the same footing so far as that is concerned.
The rest of the Bill I do not think I need comment on at all. The Schedules are amended, but for the most part they apply the existing law with only procedural changes. If any noble Lord wishes me to deal further with that, I shall have an opportunity of doing so. However, there is just one point I ought to mention. It is supremely unimportant but it raises a point where I am asking your Lordships to depart from a decision which you came to on the 1965 Bill. It arises on paragraph 6 of Schedule 1. There we have this odd situation to-day that this notice which has to be served under paragraph 5 must be served—this is quoting from the existing law
"Within eight days … or within a further six days thereafter".
They are rather like the days of grace in an insurance policy. It arose in this way. A manuscript Amendment was put in at the last moment in another place; we had reached practically the end of the Session and I humbly advised your Lordships to accept the Commons Amendments, including this curious Amendment, on which I ask your Lordships to have second thoughts and to correct to-day.
My Lords, I think that is all I need trouble your Lordships with concerning this Bill. I have tried to deal with it in as general terms as I can, and if any noble Lord thinks that I have left anything out which ought to have been included in my statement I will try to take the opportunity of remedying that defect either to-day or at some later stage. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Tangley.)
5.10 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, may I also at the outset make one or two preliminary observations, the first of which is that I should like to express my gratitude to the Law Society for placing at my disposal written material which enormously facilitated my task in studying this extremely important and technical

1221
Bill. I am most grateful to them and I can assure them that I have made full use of it.
May I next say to the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, who has introduced this measure, that I think he has discharged, and is in the process of discharging, a really valuable service, not only, as I am sure members of the profession would readily agree, to the profession of solicitors but to the public at large. That profession is one on which the public tremendously relies. It is an important public interest that it should be well conducted, well organised and fully manned. It is a profession which has, and has always had, an extremely high standard of honour, of which it is justly proud and which it must maintain in order to deserve and enjoy, as it does enjoy, the complete confidence of the many members of the public who have to have recourse to it in order to vindicate their rights and secure protection in the eye of the law.
The noble Lord, in what, if he will allow me to say so, was a most admirable explanation of this Bill, described it as being in effect a miscellaneous provisions Bill. I should think it obviously was so. It is one which is extremely difficult, as he said, to discuss on Second Reading because it comprehends such a number of diverse matters of great import to the profession, and perhaps the importance of which is much more easily understood by practising solicitors who have come into contact with the matters with which the Bill deals, than members of the general public would find it easy to evaluate. The noble Lord managed to make his address not only interesting but, if he will allow me to say so, easy and agreeable to listen to, which is a remarkable achievement in the case of such a very technical Bill.
My Lords, looking at the Bill as it were from the outside, what I should think might well strike one is particularly Clause 5 and Schedule 1, for this reason. In that clause and in that Schedule, if this Bill passes into law (as I hope it will) the Law Society is given extremely drastic powers to deal with the very occasional delinquent solicitor who is dishonest in his conduct of the affairs of a client or of a trust. They are drastic powers and at first sight they seem to be extremely severe. I think the public will be grateful to the profession for being
1222
ready to ask for, and to take upon itself, such very drastic powers for the purpose, after all, of protecting members of the public who have the misfortune of coming into contact with the very rare solicitor who for one reason or another departs from his strict sense of duty to his client. I have examined the powers and I would not venture to submit to your Lordships that they are too severe. Severe they are, but as I have said we should be grateful to the profession for having armed themselves in this way, and I personally would not criticise them as going beyond what is reasonable in any particular instance. I should like to return to that aspect of the matter a little later when I have dealt with some of the individual matters to which the Bill has reference.
If I may, my Lords, I will follow the plan of the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, in going through the clauses one by one, pausing at those which seem to involve some topic of rather general application. I will start with Clause 1, to which the noble Lord referred, and that clause enables non-British subjects to become solicitors. The noble Lord explained the two reasons which in particular had actuated the Law Society and himself in seeking from Parliament this change in the existing law. I think the noble Lord will also agree that the change is in accordance with a recommendation of the Report of Professional Services of the Monopolies Commission in 1970, which is perhaps a third and additional reason.
The second reason given by the noble Lord—namely, the likelihood of this country joining the European Economic Community; and in my particular case the appropriate word would be "when" and not "if"—is one of far-reaching consequence. I suppose he had in mind the Article which is relevant to this particular topic—Article 52 of the Treaty of Rome. That Article is drawn in very general terms and I have no doubt that the Government, as the noble and learned Lord may be able to tell us, has given consideration to its full implications. If I may quote just part of Article 52, the words are:
"Within the framework of the provisions set out below, restrictions on the freedom of establishment of nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member State shall be abolished by progressive stages in the course of the transitional period."

1223
Then I omit some words, and the Article continues:
"Freedom of establishment shall include the right to engage in and carry on non-wage earning activities."
My Lords, I should have thought that the meaning of those words—and I speak without having considered them with any great profundity but indicating what they seem to me to mean—is that most, if not all, professions should be open to non-British subjects, or rather members of the Community countries, provided of course that they are able to demonstrate that they have passed—as the noble Lord said—the necessary tests to show that they have acquired the knowledge and expertise necessary to enable them to practice in the particular professions. We are concerned to-day with the profession of solicitors, but I should have thought that those words—and I do not know whether or not the noble and learned Lord will agree with me—would apply to most professions, if not all. I do not ask him to reply now because I know the point is one of difficulty, but no doubt it will have to be considered in due course.
I should like to pause for a moment on Clause 2, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, has said, substitutes as the test for practising the profession of a solicitor for the existing words which are to be found in Section 3 of the 1957 Act—namely, "moral fitness to be an officer of the Supreme Court", these words:
"character and his fitness and suitability to be a solicitor".
I pause on those words because I personally have had some experience of rather similar phrasing which is applicable in the case of a student who wishes to be called to the Bar. The words which his sponsor has to certify are that he is a "fit and proper person to be called to the Bar". The words which Clause 2 seeks to introduce into the Bill have been in the 1967 Training Regulations for Solicitors and therefore they are well known, and it may well be the case—and I should have thought that it probably was the case—that the Law Society has, as it were, developed a case law of its own to indicate the kind of application that those words would have in particular cases. If I may say so, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that it is not desirable
1224
that the Law Society should have to act as a kind of moral censor, which was requisite when the words were, "moral fitness to be an officer of the Supreme Court". It should not be for them to decide whether an applicant should become a solicitor if he has been suspected perhaps of an irregular association with a member of the opposite sex to whom he is not lawfully married. I should have thought that the extension of the phrase may at any rate pose questions. The words are "fitness and suitability". I very much hope that nobody would ever be excluded because of his political views. There might be some cases of difficulty. Supposing one had an applicant who was a very convinced anarchist and against any kind of legal system of any sort or kind. I would hope that the Law Society would not exclude him if he was in other ways a fit and suitable person to become a solicitor. All sorts of situations can be imagined. Long-haired, bizarre dress, I should have thought clearly were out. But suppose a young man was found at a party at which "pot" was being consumed. These sort of difficulties may arise, and common sense will no doubt dispose of them. I simply call attention to the kind of difficulties that might arise in unusual cases, and I pass on from it.
I entirely agree, if I may say so, with what the noble Lord said on Clause 3. It is quite absurd that a solicitor who for admirable reasons may wish to have his name withdrawn from the Roll should have to ask a committee which is called a disciplinary committee. It has absolutely nothing to do with discipline, and he may have admirable reasons for wishing to have his name withdrawn. It has been recognised recently that it is desirable in the public interest that transfer between the Bar and the solicitors' profession should be facilitated. It is accepted that a student of law very often does not make the right choice, from his point of view, at that stage in deciding which of the two professions he wishes to join, and he might, having joined one, find later on that he would have preferred to have joined the other. Therefore, the arrangements now have facilitated transfer, and I think that makes it all the more important to make it unnecessary for a young man who has become a solicitor and wishes to have his name

1225
withdrawn in order to join the Bar to have to apply to a disciplinary body. Discipline does not enter into it in the least. Therefore, I would agree with that change.
On Clause 4 may I ask one simple question, which I am sure the noble Lord will be able to answer? Does the fee payable for a practising certificate qualify as a deduction for the purpose of assessing income and surtax liability on a solicitor? When I had something to do with this sort of problem, I remember thinking that possibly it did not, because it was a fee he had to pay not in the course of the conduct of his practice, but in order to qualify him to practise. In these days it makes rather a difference whether or not it is an allowable deduction. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will be able to answer that from his experience, and I should like to know the position.
I come to Clause 5, which has to be read together with Schedule 1 to which I referred earlier. It is a very striking clause and Schedule 1 is striking. At first sight, the powers seem very drastic. In point of fact, if one looks at Schedule 1, it is closely modelled on Schedule 1 of the 1965 Act, although it is extended in scope. I would not ask your Lordships to look at it in any detail, but it may he of some value to look at what I might call the high peak of severity. It is our duty as a legislative House on Second Reading of a Bill to examine it and be fully conscious of what we are enacting. May I examine that high peak by directing your Lordships' notice to the following changes? To begin with, under Section 31 of the 1957 Solicitors Act the Council. before it could use the powers conferred by Schedule 1 in the form in which it ultimately appeared in the 1965 Act, had to have "reasonable cause to believe" that there had been dishonesty on the part of the solicitor. Only in that situation could the powers be exercised.
One significant change that is made is that the words "reasonable cause to believe" have been deleted, and the words "reason to suspect" have been substituted for them. If, therefore, the Council has reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of the solicitor it can, in terms of Schedule 1 of this Bill, by notice put into operation in relation to
1226
that solicitor the full powers which are contained in Schedule 1 of this Bill. I think it might not be unnecessarily trespassing on your Lordships' time if I quote from paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 in order to indicate what can be done by the Council of the Law Society if that notice has been given; in other words, if the Council has reason to that solicitor the full powers which are contained in Schedule 1 of this Bill. I think it might not be unnecessarily trespassing on your Lordships' time if I quote from paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 in order to indicate what can be done by the Council of the Law Society if that notice has been given; in other words, if the Council has reason to suspect dishonesty it can give notice, and then it can exercise among other powers the following:
"The Society may require the production or delivery to any person appointed by the Society at a time and place to be fixed by the Society, and may take possession of all documents in the possession or control of the solicitor or his firm (whether or not the documents are the property of the solicitor or his firm), or relating to any controlled trust.
"If any person having possession or control of any such document fails to comply forthwith with any requirement made under this paragraph, he shall be guilty of an offence and he liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50."
That means that if the Council has reason to suspect—not certainty; simply reason to suspect—it can give notice and it can then require documents to be delivered at any time and place to themselves or any person they may indicate as recipient of the documents, whether the documents belong to the solicitor or to somebody else; and anybody who fails to comply forthwith, excuse or no excuse, can be subject to criminal process and fined up to £50. That is the power.
It has to be considered against the words to which I have referred, "reason to suspect". When the phrase was "reasonable cause to believe", I assume that the requisite was in the first place that the Council should in fact have believed that there was dishonesty and, secondly, that it should have had reasonable grounds for so believing. "Reason to suspect" is far more restrictive. I should like to hear from the noble Lord whether he has formed a view about this. All that is requisite to bring into operation the words "reason to suspect" in the first place is that those responsible must think there is a likelihood, or perhaps just a possibility, of dishonesty and, secondly, they must have a reason for so thinking which must be respectable in the sense only that it is not bogus. It may fall far short of something that is reasonable in the sense that it might influence the judgment of ordinary reasonable people.

1227
I said at the outset that I do not criticise these powers; I simply call the attention of the House to their drastic and far-reaching quality. In the very nature of things the Council must be able in the event of dishonesty, in order to protect the client or the beneficiary under a trust, to act at once and effectively before the funds in which the client or the beneficiary are concerned disappear. Speaking for myself, I entirely accept that in order to make this action effective at once, within the necessarily short period of time, it needs just precisely these powers which the Bill asks from your Lordships' House and I hope that your Lordships will think it right to grant these powers.
A word on Clause 7. It is in the public interest that the services of experienced solicitors should be available as justices of the peace. As the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, said, in the existing situation there really is often a very strong deterrent against a busy solicitor's offering his services and accepting the honour and duties involved in being a justice of the peace. If he is a justice of the peace for a Commission area, his practice is prohibited in the whole of that area. That means that a solicitor who sits perhaps in one court in one petty sessional division of that area and not in others, simply cannot practice—nor can his partners—anywhere else in that Commission area. I think that restriction is quite unnecessary, although everybody accepts that it must be apparent that there is no question of any solicitor sitting on the bench being otherwise than completely independent and uninterested personally in any issue which comes before him for trial.
Clauses 8, 9 and 10 are technical. The noble Lord, Lord Tangley, has explained their purpose very clearly, and I need not add to what he has said, except perhaps one word about Clause 10, the importance of which may have escaped those who are not immediately concerned with the operation of the functions of what will be the Disciplinary Tribunal. If, as is necessary at present under Section 49 of the 1957 Act, the finding of the Tribunal has to be preceded by a full statement of the facts, it will often be impossible to deliver the decision of the Tribunal at once. The solicitor who
1228
appears before the Tribunal wants to know immediately what his fate is going to be. Supposing there is a case in which there are a great many documents and a number of complicated facts to decide. It may take a considerable time before a proper and carefully considered statement of those facts and documents can be prepared and made available, and therefore delay is bound to ensue. This imposes great hardship on the solicitor concerned, who is no doubt most anxious to know what his fate is, and this delay is obviated by the change proposed in Clause 10.
I say nothing on the Compensation Fund beyond associating myself very warmly with what the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, said about it. It obviously is a most important and excellent institution, which gives very great protection to members of the public who might otherwise suffer loss. I will go quickly through the remaining clauses because, as the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, said, they are technical in nature and do not, I think, involve any point of general application. I should just like to ask one general question on Clause 15. The power of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor under the Commissioners for Oaths Act 1889 is preserved by Clause 15(5). I gather that is because he has the power to appoint as commissioners for oaths persons who are not practising solicitors. Is that power often used? Is it really necessary? The noble and learned Lord has very kindly shaken his head, and has given me his answer. I wonder whether he really wants to retain it—but that is a matter for him and those who prepared the Bill.
One final observation on the Bill. The last clause, Clause 19(4), extends Clause 1 (which relates to the eligibility of solicitors who are not British subjects to become solicitors) to Northern Ireland. None of the other provisions of this Bill, however, are extended to Northern Ireland. I should like to know why that is. I assume that this change in the Act of Settlement is a change which has a constitutional flavour about it, and that that is the reason why that particular clause is extended to Northern Ireland. The others do not have that characteristic, and therefore it is left to the Government of Northern Ireland to make such changes as they think in their own discretion are necessary.

1229
My Lords, I want to make only one concluding general observation. The law relating to the profession of solicitors at the moment is found in two major Acts: one, the Solicitors Act 1957, and secondly, a second major Act, the Solicitors Act 1965, with which the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, will always be gratefully associated because of the work he did in relation to it. I believe I am right in thinking that the present Bill is a step in a rather more far-reaching purpose to consolidate the whole of the law relating to solicitors. It certainly should be found in one place, and I am very glad to hear that this Bill, which indeed is precisely in terms framed in order to facilitate that, will in due course, find its place with the Acts of 1957 and 1965, in one large consolidated measure. I hope your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading.
5.37 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, as Master of the Rolls I have a special relationship with solicitors. Historically it was the Master of the Rolls who was in charge of solicitors, but now solicitors are the one great profession that is under the control of Parliament. It needs a Statute to regulate the profession of solicitors. May I say, as Master of the Rolls, that there used to be a parchment Roll of solicitors. It is now the only Roll left to the Master of the Rolls, but it is simply a foolscap list. On the few matters relating to the Roll, may I say that I should welcome the extension to people who are not British subjects. People who are not British subjects can be called to the Bar now, and there is no reason why they should also not be called, to be admitted to be solicitors, especially in view of this country's early advent into the Common Market.
The next requirement in this Bill withholds and takes away the old qualification that the Society must be satisfied as to the moral fitness of the candidate to be a solicitor. Nowadays, students and others object to their morals being the concern of others: they say that their morals are their own private concern. So the Society are now proposing to be satisfied only as to their character and fitness and suitability. It comes very much to the same thing, but in modern language.
1230
May I come to the next clause of the Bill which my noble friend Lord Stow Hill mentioned, and that is the drastic power for the Society to intervene when it has reason to suspect that the solicitor may have been guilty of dishonesty or, indeed, of not acting for the funds and the like. The previous provision required that the Council of the Society had a "reasonable cause to believe", and before they could act they had to have sufficient evidence in their hands to warrant a prosecution and to obtain a verdict of guilty. That did not enable them to act quickly enough, and the amended version reads that if they "have reason to suspect"—that is, good cause, good information in their hands whereby they feel the circumstances are so suspicious that steps must be taken to protect the clients and the public—then they can act. I would submit to your Lordships that that is a good practical amendment.
The next part of this Bill with which, as Master of the Rolls, I am particularly concerned is the tribunal for disciplinary matters. In the past there has been a disciplinary committee, as it is called, appointed by the Master of the Rolls from the 50 or 60 solicitors who are members of the Council of the Law Society. It has always been the Master of the Rolls who has appointed the members. Naturally enough, members of the public thought that the disciplinary committee was just another committee of the Law Society, such as the Professional Purposes Committee, and that there would be a solicitor brought before a committee of the Law Society by the Law Society. The Law Society, it was thought, was being judge in its own cause. That was a wrong and erroneous impression, because the committee was completely independent. As a member of the Bar, I have appeared before it and I have often said that it is one of the best tribunals that I have known and have ever appeared before. But to remove all suggestion that it is a committee of the Law Society itself, this amendment is to describe this as the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. In addition, the Master of the Rolls is not hound to confine himself to the mere 50 or 60 members of the Council. He can select the members from all the solicitors throughout the profession, and the number is increased

1231
to 15 to enable that to be done. I should hope your Lordships would think that that would be a further improvement in the disciplinary machinery of the profession.
There is nothing more that I would say about these provisions. I have had the benefit of seeing the President of the Law Society and the members of the Council and have gone through the provisions with them, and we have had the benefit this afternoon of having my noble friend Lord Tangley explain them to the House. All I would say is that I warmly commend them to your Lordships' consideration.
5.43 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, as we all expected, the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, delivered a remarkable speech which gave the House the benefit of his very deep knowledge of the subject with which he was dealing. He, and the noble and learned Lords who have followed him, have lucidly explained practically all the provisions of the Bill. They have all commended the acceptance of the Bill by your Lordships, as do I. A measure of this nature must of necessity contain a large number of technical terms and provisions, but it is in the main a further step in the development of a professional service of considerable value for the benefit of the community at large—a service which unfortunately all too often is misunderstood and consequently misrepresented, even in some political circles which certainly should know very much better. The provisions in this Bill are put forward for your Lordships' approval after diligent inquiry into the present legislation affecting solicitors, in an attempt to rectify any defects which have been disclosed by such study. The skill and experience of officers, members and staff of the Law Society drawn from all parts of the country, and other eminent knowledgeable persons, have been used for this purpose. The intention is also to bring the law relating to the profession up to date in consequence of legislation which has been passed, particularly after the Solicitors Acts of 1957 and 1965.
As your Lordships are aware, before being enrolled as a solicitor a person has
1232
to pass some difficult examinations and serve under articles in a solicitor's office. He has to undergo exhaustive tests to satisfy the Law Society as to his fitness, first to be allowed to take articles and later to become a solicitor. Among those tests at present, under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the 1957 Act which has already been referred to, is the one that no person shall be admitted as a solicitor unless the Law Society is satisfied as to inter alia his
"moral fitness to be an officer of the Supreme Court".
As we have already heard, Clause 2 of the Bill seeks to alter that provision by substituting for the reference to moral fitness, a reference to the applicant's
"character and his fitness and suitability to be a solicitor."
That would correspond with the test to be satisfied on enrolment as a student under the Training Regulations 1957, which itself derives from the Solicitors Act 1936 where this form of words was used. The purpose—and I refer to this again, because it is very important—is to enable admission to be a solicitor to be refused on the grounds, for example, of nervous disorder or mental illness. Of course the profession itself is very anxious that the people who enter the profession shall be suitable persons to do so and shall be in a position to fulfil in a suitable manner their duties to their clients and, through their clients, to the public.
When a solicitor enters into practice he is bound by strict rules as to his conduct towards his clients, as to the keeping of proper books and banking accounts, and as to his financial ability to continue in practice. All of these matters have been controlled under the provisions of current Acts, and, as has already been stated, it is proposed in this Bill to tighten up those measures which, by experience and examination in depth, have been found to be not sufficiently effective. I use the opportunity of this Second Reading to say that I hope your Lordships will realise that at this time it is perhaps important that some consideration should be given to where the profession stands, to what it does, to the difficulties of entering the profession and to the strict manner in

1233
which the actions of the solicitor are controlled.
May I point out that a solicitor is entrusted with millions of pounds of clients' money in the course of his activities? More important, perhaps, are the countless clients of meagre means who trust solicitors with their life savings in the course of small property and other transactions. Innermost secrets are divulged to, and discussed with, their solicitors by clients in the firm knowledge that their confidence will not be betrayed. I believe that there are some 25,000 practising certificates issued, and some 18,000 solicitors in practice as principals. The defaulters are very few indeed. So far as possible every conceivable reasonable precaution is taken by the Law Society to prevent abuses. The clauses in the Bill dealing with supervision and safeguards are designed to help in this regard, as I am sure they will. I think the Bill once again alerts the public to the special relationship which a solicitor has towards his client; one which is, for example, similar to that of a doctor towards his patient. The man in the street is, all too often, misled into placing legal affairs in the hands of unqualified persons who have not had appropriate training, and whose activities and funds are not supervised by a responsible authority. This is a risk which obviously should not be taken by any reasonable person. It is like placing his affairs in the hands of somebody who, in the case of a patient, (if I may use the expression) a "quack" doctor.
As a member of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills for over 30 years, I feel that the amendments which are included in the Bill for the purpose of consolidation are of considerable value. They will result in the saving of much time of the legal draftsmen, and will remove some ambiguities which exist in the law at present.
An illustration of this is contained in Clause 1 of the Bill, which again has already been referred to. Section 3 of the Act of Settlement 1700 provides that aliens are incapable, inter alia, of holding certain offices or places of trust under the Crown. In 1900, the Law Society was advised that this provision had the effect of preventing the admission of non-British subjects as solicitors. Apart from other arguments for the removal of the
1234
restriction, a query has arisen as to whether a solicitor who ceases to be a British subject after admission is not thereby disqualified from being or practising as a solicitor. There is uncertainty about this. Unless Clause 1 were passed, the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills would have difficulty in deciding what the position is in law, and possibly might have to leave the uncertainty unsolved in the consolidating Act. I refer to this because we have frequently had experience in the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills of endeavouring to decide what in fact the law really is; and I think that, in so far as the consolidation of Acts affecting solicitors is concerned, this Bill provides something which will be extremely useful and which has been very well thought out.
I do not want to go into all the clauses. Your Lordships have already heard about them, and I think that practically everybody in your Lordships' House will agree that they are measures which, either in their present form or perhaps with some Amendments which may occur to your Lordships on Committee stage, make up a Bill which is an acceptable one and which should be passed.
I want to conclude by referring to one provision which I think is extremely important. I am going to talk about the position of solicitors as justices of the peace. In my view, a solicitor who gives his time for the purpose of sitting on a bench, in addition to rendering the usual invaluable service of a justice of the peace, is rendering a further service to the community by giving the benefit of his professional training and knowledge to the country; and if a solicitor is prepared to do that, then in my view every encouragement should be given to him to act in that capacity. We now know, of course, that solicitors will be sitting as judges in the Crown Courts; and it would have been an absurd thing to have prevented a solicitor who wanted to give his services without any remuneration from sitting with a fellow solicitor who was giving his services for remuneration—and I am glad that the Law Society has taken this point into consideration.
Under the present law, as I understand it. a solicitor is not only prevented from acting in the petty sessions in which he is practising, but is, alas! prevented from

1235
practising in the Commission area—which, in a case like Inner London, for example, is a very wide area indeed. Solicitors' firms are now joining up in partnership with other firms. The general trend to-day is that practices become larger in so far as the personnel is concerned; and it would really have been absurd, as indeed it is to-day, I think, for a solicitor not to be able to sit in a court which may be many miles away (as in the case in Inner London to which I have already referred) because he or his partners happened to be practising in a petty sessional division which was part of that particular Commission area.
The provision in this Bill to remove that anomaly is, I think, something which is of very great importance. When we consider a Bill of this nature, with its technicalities and the language which is used, we are apt to regard it as being something dealing only with the machinery of the profession. But this is not only machinery. The machinery is that which affects the destiny of hundreds of thousands of people in our country. From the cradle to the grave they have the need of assistance from the profession of which I have the honour to be a member; and I think that everything which has been produced here—in addition, of course, to the Acts which are in existence at present—is not just a matter of prosaic interest. There is more in the Acts which deal with a profession of this nature than just technicalities. They are dealing with human lives. I make no apology—and I hope your Lordships will agree with me that no apology is necessary—if, in speaking on a measure of this kind, I have sometimes strayed from commenting on the wording of the clauses themselves, and have perhaps dealt in a more general sense with the subject matter, which is so important to me, as I think it is to all of us. I think the Bill should commend itself to the House. and I hope that it will receive an unopposed Second Reading.
5.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, if I may detain your Lordships for just a few moments, I would do so for two reasons. First, I should not like it to be thought that there is no member of our profession who sits upon these Benches. Secondly, I should not like it to be
1236
thought that those of us on these Benches do not also support this Second Reading. May I also add a further argument to those which have been advanced in favour of Clause 3 of the Bill? Clause 3 provides that the removal from or restoration of the name of a solicitor upon the Roll at his own request shall be dealt with in future by the Law Society instead of by the Disciplinary Committee. As your Lordships have already heard, the Disciplinary Committee is an entirely independent body; and in the case of a voluntary removal of this sort it really does seem quite illogical that an independent body should have the right to remove from the Roll a solicitor who has been appointed to it by the Law Society.
A further small point which has occurred to to me, and which I hope we shall be able to consider further in Committee, concerns sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 3 of the First Schedule. That is the paragraph which has attracted considerable attention this afternoon, and the particular phrase which perturbs me slightly is:
"If any person having possession or control of any such documents fails to comply forthwith with any requirement made under this paragraph, he shall be guilty of an offence …".
It occurs to me that there might be considerable difficulty in the person in question being able to "comply forthwith". I hope that we may consider the possibility of reducing to some extent the strictness of that provision; though I recognise that so far as is possible speed is essential to render it practicable. I listened with great interest and pleasure to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. I must admit that he frightened me somewhat on one occasion when I rather got the impression that he was advocating that an anarchist should not be debarred from enrolment as a solicitor. I would assure him that I would regard my responsibility to my own clients with great perturbation if I had at least one anarchist, known as such, in my office.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I was not advocating a view either way. I was simply saying that the words might pose difficulties and that that is the sort of difficulty to which they might give rise.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that explanation. I would not say that it altogether relieves my anxieties.

1237
The other point I should like to raise is in association with the noble Lord, Lord Janner. Like him, as a member of the Consolidation Committee, I regard the action taken to bring this measure into line with and ready for consolidation as a good step and one which is exceedingly helpful. I hope very much that your Lordships will grant this Bill a Second Reading.
6.2 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think it is desirable that someone should speak on this Bill on behalf of the Government and I suppose it is inevitable that that someone should be me. We have listened to a number of attractive and charming speeches from all quarters of the House, and it is hardly necessary for me to go into the details of the Bill. However, I think it is important for me to say that all of the provisions, without exception, have been the subject of quite exhaustive discussion (I do not think that "negotiation" is the right word) between my Office and the Law Society. They all have my approval. The contentious ones have my personal approval; and at least three of them have been not merely approved but rather actively fomented by me for inclusion in the Bill. I refer in particular to the enlargement of the Commissionership of Oaths to the entire profession; the enlargement of the right of solicitors to sit on a magisterial bench except in their petty sessional division, on the assumption that they do not sit on cases in which their partners are appearing as advocates; and the removal of the bar on the admission of aliens to the Roll. All these proposals have not merely my approval but my active support; and I hereby record that fact.
I want to say this in addition. This is a Private Member's Bill and therefore it depends upon the good will of all Parties in both Houses of Parliament for its chances of getting on the Statute Book. It will of course pass through this House without difficulty; but if my voice could for a moment reach to the hubbub going on at the other end of the Corridor I should like to say that this is a very badly needed Bill. The fact that it is technical, that its provisions are miscellaneous and that its content by any standards is not throbbing with human interest should not prevent people from
1238
understanding that this Bill is very badly needed indeed and that a real disservice would be done to the administration of law in this country if for any reason it were held up, either by the excessive zeal of its supporters or by the undue conscientiousness of those who would introduce relatively minor Amendments. It is important that it should reach the Statute Book. I promised the Law Society that the little I can do—and I am afraid it is very little—to induce both Houses of Parliament to pass it this Session will be done. Although as a Private Member's Bill, it cannot command Government time, we have, as the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, reminded the House, lent our drafting support so far as we can; and any help that we can give will be available. In the end, however, the question whether it reaches the Statute Bill will depend on the co-operation of members of all Parties in both Houses of Parliament. I hope myself sincerely that such co-operation will be generously forthcoming.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, began with gracious words of thanks about a matter unconnected with the content of this Bill; namely, my Statement about the right of audience in the Crown Court. I was very glad to give that matter my attention and I was grateful to him for what he said about it. It gives me the opportunity of reiterating in this House, and therefore possibly reaching a wider audience, some of the things that I said at greater length when I was addressing the Law Society at their annual meeting at Folkestone last year. I am sometimes very distressed to get letters from Members of Parliament whose constituents are solicitors indicating that they are somehow under the impression that I undervalue the solicitors' profession. I do not think that anyone who was at Folkestone last year, or who heard or read my speech, will be under any misapprehension at all about that. I have worked with, under and against the solicitors' profession for all my professional life, for 40 years. I know innumerable members of that profession quite intimately. There are no words that I can utter too high in praise of the skill, the integrity, the discernment and zeal of that profession in serving their clients, the public and the courts of which they are officers. Almost everything that I have achieved in life would have been

1239
totally impossible without a mutual confidence between myself and numerous members of that profession.
The solicitors' profession is in the hands of Parliament, as my noble and learned friend (if I may so call him, in the professional though not in the political sense) the Master of the Rolls reminded the House. The Lord Chancellor's influence over it is really peripheral except as Chairman of the Statutory Committee in which, although he owns a vote and a veto, he does not command, and does not seek to command, a majority. On the other hand, as I said at Folkestone last autumn, I regard myself in some ways inside Parliamentary and Government circles as a sort of shop steward for the legal community, and I do everything I can to promote the interests of all parts of the legal community, the judiciary, the teaching profession, the solicitors and the barristers, to the very best of my ability. And in doing so I think that I am both discharging my constitutional function and also paying a debt of honour.
My Lords, if I may add this, on this part of the matter, which the noble Lord, Lord Tangley gave me the opportunity to say: I regard my own political life and standpoint, except in so far as it can be identified with any particular sectional interest (and I suppose that we all have particular sectional interests at heart more than others) as identified with that of the professional classes in this country. I am a professional man and the son of a professional man, and I have been brought up and lived in a profession and in a professional context all my working life. When I have made speeches, as sometimes I have, to solicitors and barristers, and also to engineers and doctors, I have always stressed the immense value and importance of the professional classes, and of the members of professions, to the standards of public life and social integrity in this country. I believe that they add something absolutely distinctive, something without which a free society would be wholly impossible and which, I think, tends to be undervalued since they are not persons who command big battalions in the way of votes. They are neither captains of industry nor members of vast trade unions. They are sometimes derided. They are frequently
1240
abused. But on the whole I believe them to be the salt of the earth.
My Lords, I do not want to do more than underline what the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, very charmingly said from the Opposition Benches. He asked, I think, only one question of me and that I will seek to answer. It was about the relatively small point of my humble power to appoint commissioners of oaths. I am very glad indeed that this Bill relieves me of the obligation to appoint solicitors by the simple process of making them all commissioners of oaths, without the necessity for the signature of the Lord Chancellor. Lord Chancellors used to be remunerated largely by the number of signatures they appended to documents. This was a valuable source of income because my predecessor, Lord Eldon, who was Lord Chancellor for 27 years—a longer period of office than I hope to achieve myself; he was Lord Chancellor during the reign of George III and George IV—had an average income of £14,728 a year, in the days before income tax and when pounds were weighed in sovereigns made of gold. So this power of making signatures was very important in those days. However, my Lords, I am not remunerated in that way now, although I sometimes think that some of the signatures required of me date back to that time, at any rate in philosophy, and could be reduced in number. This is one way of reducing quite a lot of them.
I do, none the less (this is in answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill) wish, at any rate for the present, to retain the residuary power of making people commissioners of oaths who are not solicitors. There is a mysterious body of men in English law called "notaries" who are not all solicitors. They are mainly there to impress the foreigners. It is on the Continent of Europe that notaries are extremely important and sometimes the office is handed down from father to son. They "protest bills" whatever that may be, and they perform a number of wholly indispensable functions in international law. I think that the Archbishop of Canterbury makes some, but I make others, and, very often at any rate, they have to be commissioners of oaths. I should like to keep that residuary power at any rate until we see how well the

1241
public is served when we have made all solicitors commissioners of oaths.
I was grateful indeed to my noble and learned friend Lord Denning for coming in as Master of the Rolls. I am afraid that the Rolls now as he says are somewhat notional objects and I do not know whether he really masters them any longer. But it is a dignified title. He administers the Oath to the Lord Chancellor and sometimes keeps him in order. He was very welcome this afternoon. I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and to my noble friend Lord Brentford for their tributes to their own great profession and for the support that this Bill has had. I do not think that there were very many points in either of their speeches with which I need to deal in detail.
To the noble Lord, Lord Janner, I would say specifically that the clause which enlarges the capacity of solicitors to sit on the magisterial bench, as I think I have already observed, is not merely something which has my approval; it had also my active support in the discussional stage of this particular measure. There must of course be a limit for it, because a solicitor cannot sit in his own back yard. His clients might be thought—even if they did not—to have an advantage; and, of course, his partners could not appear before the bench when he was sitting and so it is really an advantage to exclude him from that. Otherwise I wholly agree that they make absolutely admirable magistrates and I am glad that this Bill will give them an even greater opportunity to demonstrate that fact.
My Lords, I do not think that I need to deal with the Committee point raised by my noble friend. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, will have noted it. With those words may I simply reiterate that this is a Bill which is very badly needed, and I hope that, despite other difficulties in one place or another, it may have the active support of all Parties in both Houses of Parliament.
6.17 p.m.
LORD TANGLEY: My Lords, may I first express my very deep and warm thanks to the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I am blushing on behalf of my profession at the thought
1242
of all the kind things said about it during the debate—mostly deserved I must admit, but very nice to hear all the same.
There were two or three points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, to which I think I ought to reply. He first raised the question of Article 52 of the Rome Treaty, the Article which provides for the right of settlement or establishment. I do not know what that Article means. I think it will be a long time before we come to any final conclusion about that. But one element in it must be that it is an anachronism to insist that only a British subject can become a solicitor. That must be inconsistent with the Rome Treaty, whatever view one takes of it.
The second point which the noble Lord raised was about the question of moral fitness, or suitability, or what should be the criterion applied by the Law Society in deciding on applications from would-be solicitors. I think I said that it is very difficult to devise any phrase which is completely free from criticism. I believe that the phrase we have at present is unduly restrictive and could, for the reasons given by the Master of the Rolls, be offensive. I believe that the second one is more sensible. and certainly it will be applied with common sense. He asked also whether the fee payable to the Law Society for the practising certificate is allowed as an expense for income tax purposes. I can only say that I have had over fifty of them, and nobody has ever raised any question about that: the inspector of taxes has always taken it as a matter of course. I believe it is a fact that the practising certificate fee is part of the expenses of carrying on one's practice and is universally allowed for tax purposes. I have never known there to be any question about it.
The matter of changing the words "reasonable cause to believe" to "reasonably expect" has, I think, been so adequately dealt with by the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls that I do not need to say anything more about it: I certainly could not improve on anything said from that quarter. The last question asked by the noble Lord was on Clause 19. He asked: why is it that only Clause 1 of the Bill is made to apply to Northern Ireland? The answer is that Northern Ireland has its own

1243
Code of Practice for solicitors and its own machinery for dealing with them. Therefore, it would be quite inappropriate to apply to Northern Ireland most of the provisions of this Bill. But Clause 1 is of general application and therefore quite properly applies to Northern Ireland. The other clauses by definition do not.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, raised the point which I thought was quite a bad one. There is no difficulty whatever, in the circumstances he mentioned, for anybody to comply forthwith with an order that has been made. The reason why people do not comply forthwith is that they do not want to. They ought to be made to, and I hope that we shall have no weakening of our attitude in that respect in the course of the proceedings on the Bill.
It only remains for me now to thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for his very kind remarks, and for his admirable advice with regard to the future conduct of this Bill both in this House and in another place. I remember the acute anxiety that I suffered when I was in charge of the 1965 Bill as to whether it would get through or be lost in the massacre of the innocents. But it survived, with the one stupid compromise which I mentioned earlier. I hope that this Bill will have an equally satisfactory passage, because I believe, for the reasons which have been given on all sides of the House to-day, this is a very good Bill and very much in the public interest.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

REDUNDANT MINEWORKERS (PAYMENTS SCHEME) ORDER 1972
6.23 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I beg to move That the Draft Redundant Mineworkers (Payments Scheme) Order 1972, laid before the House on the 1st February, be approved. The purpose of the Order is to continue for a further two years the arrangements which were established five years ago for providing financial benefits to mineworkers who become
1244
redundant. The arrangements stem from the recognition that difficulties following redundancy are especially acute in the case of older miners who have spent all or most of their working lives in the mines. They arise out of the contraction of the industry and the exhaustion of mines. Between 1960 and 1970 the number of men working in the mines was exactly halved. It is not possible to forecast from these figures what the contraction is likely to be in the next two years. But whatever happens, the fact remains—and this is our concern today—that any mineworkers who become redundant face particular difficulties because of the generally below average prospects of alternative employment in mining districts and because of the extremely specialised character of their training and experience. The introduction of this Order recognises the claim of those men for special consideration.
The Coal Industry Act 1967 gave power to establish a scheme for making payments to mineworkers made redundant between July 17, 1967, and March 28, 1971, and the scheme was established by the Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme Order 1968. The Coal Industry Act 1971 extended the power to make schemes up to March 31, 1974. This is being done in two stages: first the existing scheme was extended to cover men redundant up to March 25, 1972, and a revised scheme has now been drawn up to cover men redundant between March 25, 1972, and March 31, 1974. It is this revised scheme, which has been laid before the House as the draft Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme Order 1972, that we are now considering. During the Committee stage of the 1971 Coal Industry Bill, the Minister for Industry undertook to bring in a new scheme as soon as he had completed the requisite consultations. In the preparation of the new scheme the National Union of Mineworkers were fully consulted. They submitted a memorandum setting out the changes which they wished to see made and they had two meetings with Ministers and a number of meetings with officials during which they put their views orally. The National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shot-firers, the other union most concerned with the scheme, were informed of the proposed changes and their comments invited. The National Coal Board were

1245
consulted at all stages in the re-drafting of the scheme.
The purpose of the scheme was clearly stated by the Labour Minister of Power in July, 1967, when he said:
"We are, therefore, preparing a scheme whereby mineworkers who become redundant and have to leave the industry at or after the age of 55 will have their income supplemented by the Board for a period so that they can adjust themselves to their new circumstances".
The House will note from this that the scheme was intended, not to provide indefinite financial help, but to tide over a difficult period in a man's life if he should find himself redundant. The present Government accept that this is the right objective. We have now had some four and a half years' experience of the working of the scheme. A total of 37,000 men have benefited at a cost of about £30 million, and I think I can safely say that, on the whole, the scheme has worked well; it has been welcomed by the men concerned, and it has helped to cushion the hardships inherent in redundancy.
A number of suggestions have been put forward for changing the basis of the scheme, and we have considered these very sympathetically, but it still seems to us that for a scheme of this type a starting age for benefit of 55, a duration of three years, and a level of benefit of 90 per cent. of previous net pay is the best combination we can achieve. We have therefore preserved the basic shape of the scheme and have endeavoured to improve it as much as possible in detail.
There arc two major changes. The first is the introduction of a cost-of-living increment, and the second is the increase from £3 per week to £6 per week of the level of benefit which a man may keep if he finds another job. The cost-of-living increment takes account of the union's claim that the real value of benefit should be preserved. The method of making the cost-of-living adjustment perhaps needs explaining. The House will appreciate that total benefit consists of two elements, unemployment benefit and basic scheme benefit. Now that the Government have announced their intention of adjusting unemployment benefit annually, that element of total benefit will automatically be taken care of. The basic benefit will be adjusted by adding to it an increment based on the rise in the cost of living.
1246
This will be done to each man's account at the end of his first and second years of benefit. These arrangements are detailed in Article 5(2) of the Schedule.
Under present arrangements a man who finds himself another job is allowed to keep up to £3 of scheme benefit. But with his new job a man will probably find that lie has to pay income tax, possibly some union dues and travelling expenses and certainly National Insurance contributions. He could well find himself no better off with a job than without one. For this reason we are putting up the sum that he may retain from £3 to £6 per week. We hope this will be an added inducement to redundant men to try to find other employment. This change is contained in Article 7, paragraph 4.
There are also other ways in which the scheme has been made more advantageous, in addition to the introduction of a cost-of-living adjustment and the increase in the value of benefit during re-employment. There has been strong pressure from the Union and other people to ensure that if a man has engaged in trade union duties or useful social work such as a councillor, or if he has lost an occasional day's work through sickness, allowance should be made for this in calculating his pre-redundancy payments, so that he shall not lose thereby. We have agreed to this, and administrative instructions have been given so as to ensure that these factors will be taken into account in calculating pre-redundancy earnings. No change is therefore required under the scheme itself.
Under the present scheme a rent allowance is tied to the house in which a man was living when he became redundant. We are now proposing that he should keep the allowance once he has established the right to it, even if he changes house. We have greatly eased the rules regarding the off-setting of various State and industry benefits against scheme benefit. We have also introduced a provision which allows a man who is re-employable in the industry and who becomes redundant for a second time to have his wages before his second redundancy taken into account in assessing the level of benefit he should receive. We are arranging that these provisions covering rent off-sets and reemployment in the coal industry should

1247
also apply to men in the present scheme. We have also removed a number of minor anomalies which have caused difficulties in the present scheme.
To summarise, therefore, in framing the new scheme the Government have consulted with the unions principally concerned and have accepted much of what they have proposed. We consider that no change is necessary in the broad outline of the scheme, which has worked well. We have introduced two major improvements: an annual cost-of-living increase and an increase in the amount of benefit which a man may retain if he finds alternative work. We have also made a number of other detailed improvements, and we believe that these are welcomed by the unions. Finally, we have also arranged that, where appropriate, provisions for the new scheme will apply to men now in benefit under the present scheme. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Redundant Mineworkers (Payments Scheme) Order 1972, laid before the House on February 1, be approved.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
6.35 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords it is certainly not my intention on this, the third occasion on which I have risen to address your Lordships this afternoon, to make a long speech, but I must thank the noble Lord for what he has said and the care with which he has explained this Order. Indeed, if it will not embarrass him, I should like to thank his Government for the care with which they have negotiated with the National Union of Mineworkers and also the relevant parties concerned, before putting this Order before your Lordships' House. As the noble Lord said. this is based on an earlier Scheme, with which those of us in the previous Government were very familiar. I recognise immediately that there have been certain improvements, mainly stemming from the negotiations which have taken place. So far as this Order is concerned, I have nothing but appreciation and gratitude to extend to the Government and to the noble Lord. I would merely underline what he said and draw two short conclusions from it.
1248
I should like to underline that this is a scheme for redundancy payments and not a premature retirement scheme. The noble Lord was good enough to underline that point himself. That being the case, what is of equal or even greater importance for a redundant miner is the prospect of work. Therefore the obvious point to be made here is that of the very large numbers who have been affected by redundancy, who have benefited from this scheme and who get their situation alleviated, as the noble Lord said, as a result of these payments but whose main concern is to find new jobs, something less than 5 per cent. as I understand it, have been successful. This illustrates that the Government should spend much greater effort in trying to devise, both in terms of the background of economic climate and in the particular circumstances affecting mining areas which, as we all know, bring very special problems, the means of introducing possibilities of work for miners who are declared redundant. That is one conclusion which one draws from the nature of this scheme.
The second point I should like the Government to look at—though of course I do not expect a reply this afternoon, nor indeed this year—are the new circumstances which are developing in relation to the volume of work required of most of the working population. Here you have what is admitted to be a very special case, a special working community, special not only in terms of the recent decision, but special in terms of the nature of the work that they do and also in terms of the economic climate in which they work and the restricted areas of alternative opportunities in which they work. I am referring now to the possibility of earlier retirement. I know this is not provided for in this Statutory Instrument, but nevertheless an alternative approach would be that of earlier retirement: for example, retirement at 60. I know the immediate answer which any Government would give is, "This is not the only industry which has problems, and one does not want to set up special precedents." My answer to that is that the miner is a special case, and if we want to give consideration to this very real social problem of earlier retirement which is developing—and by earlier

1249
retirement I am thinking only of retirement at the same date as that at which the civil servant retires—
LORD DRUMALBYN: May retire.
LORD DIAMOND: Yes, may retire. If we want the opportunity of considering that and having a kind of pilot experiment in our social development where we can have a possibility of retiring at 60, surely this would be the ideal case, because although we have an Instrument here of which we, certainly on this side, join in approving and which does alleviate hardship, it does not solve the problem. Less than 5 per cent. finding work in a situation of redundancy does not solve the problem. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will be good enough to tuck away in his mind, and perhaps mention to some of his colleagues on a future occasion, the possibility of moving forward in our thinking in this way. I repeat my gratitude to him.
6.40 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that in reply I need only thank the noble Lord for what he has just said. He certainly does not embarrass me when his words are agreeable—and they are generally agreeable, even though they are not always in agreement with my view. He raised two very important points, and they are both points of which we are well aware. Of course we fully accept the importance of the prospect of work, but the noble Lord knows as well as I do the difficulties here, especially in places which really have their sole raison d'être in the fact that there is a coalmine there. These are matters which even in my old constituency have been very successfully overcome. It certainly requires a great deal of careful preparation and a good deal of patience as well.
May I say this with regard to the noble Lord's observations on earlier retirement? He is absolutely right; this Order is essentially a redundancy scheme. That being so, the character of the benefits are rather different from what they would have been if we had been providing for earlier retirement. Obviously, if at any time we were to consider this the two schemes would require careful marrying; we should have to bring them together in some way that was considered fair. That would have to be carried out if we were to adopt what the noble
1250
Lord described as a "pilot experiment" of retirement at sixty for miners. As he said, this has nothing to do with the scheme that we are laying before your Lordships at the present time. Like most of the suggestions the noble Lord makes, it is well worth considering. I imagine that it is already being considered, and I shall certainly make certain that this is so. With those few words I hope that the House will now he prepared to give us this Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ICELANDIC FISHERY LIMITS
6.42 p.m.
LORD WILLIS LORD WILLIS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in the negotiations with Iceland on fishery limits. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. Before I go any further I ought to explain, and frankly confess, that I am not an expert on fisheries. I am not an expert fisherman; the nearest I ever came to catching fish was with tiddlers from a pond, although I can lay some claim to the championship of South Tottenham as a fish and chip eater. The reason why I put down this Unstarred Question stems directly from a visit I made to Iceland, where a play of mine was being performed in Reykjavik. It had a little success. I do not claim any credit for the play; I think people went to it because it was called Hot Summer Night and in Iceland that had a certain attraction. The point that interested and began eventually to intrigue me was that everywhere I went when I talked to various people in all walks of life, actors, cleaners in the hotel. Members of Parliament, novelists, and sculptors, came up to me and said, "What are you going to do and what is your attitude about the fishery limits?" It was as if everybody in this country when you went to a party said, "What do you think about the decline in the mining industry?" It was rapidly forced upon me that fishery limits and fishing is the way of life in Iceland. It is as essential and as important to everybody in Iceland as many other things are to us. It is a nation that lives on the back of fish. As I went into the matter and began

1251
to talk to various Members of Parliament and other people I became convinced that Iceland had a strong case. I made a promise that I would put that case to the British Parliament, which is why I am on my feet at this moment.
We ought to begin by thinking a little about the background of the situation. First we should remember that Iceland is an outpost of Western Europe. It is a nation with a total of 208,000 people. That is about the size of the population of Southampton, is twice the size of that of Gateshead or, let us put it this way: you could fill Tottenham Hotspur's ground four times with the total population of Iceland. I learned when I was there, and we shall all learn, that a nation is not measured by the size of its population. The special character of Iceland, which I came to admire when I was there. has been forged in two fires: history and tradition on the one hand, and economic need on the other. The history is familiar to many of your Lordships. These are the Viking forefathers who scoured the world in their longships and who were immortalised in their heroic sagas, sagas which are to Icelandic children what Mother Goose and Cinderella are to ours. To-day they still learn in these sagas of nobility and courage, the urge for adventure, chivalry, and so forth.
When you remember that that nation depends utterly on what they can harvest from the wild seas around their shores, you begin to understand why these sagas are important. These sagas give them a philosophy; they create standards of courage and behaviour; they promote these standards. When you remember that fishing in the circumstances in which they fish, and in which our deep sea fishermen fish, has the highest mortality rate, much higher than mining or anything else, then you will understand why they need, and feel the need for, the philosophy that lies behind their sagas. Linked with this there is a fierce independence. They separated after a long time from their Danish kings, and their Parliament is probably the oldest in Europe and one of the oldest in the world. They have a great tradition of democracy and independence. That is something of the past, and it is important to understand it in this present situation.
The other great factor is the economic one. Iceland is a lovely, beautiful but bleak and barren island. About 85 to 90 per cent. of the land is unproductive. Apart from fishing, the rearing of livestock is the only other key industry, but that is very small and is not capable of expansion to any marked degree. They have no minerals or fuel resources of their own. So we come back inevitably to fish. No other nation, no other country in the world, is as dependent upon fish as is the Icelandic nation. Fish and fish products represent between 80 and 90 per cent. of their exports, as against, in our case, something like one-third of 1 per cent. I believe that is so; I cannot be sure of our figures, but certainly the percentage is very small. With these exports the Icelanders are able to buy those things which they cannot grow for themselves or produce on their own barren land: food, minerals, fuels, machines, and so on. In other words, fish is their lifeblood. Without it Iceland will die and, as the Speaker of their Parliament said to me, "For us it is a matter of life and death". And I have become convinced, in talking to them, that this is truly the case.
No doubt the waters around Iceland are rich in fish: cod, haddock, herring, plaice, halibut and many other kinds of fish. It is as though Nature intended to compensate for the poorness of the land by enriching the ocean surrounding the shore. The reason for this is that Iceland rests on a platform, a form of Continental Shelf, and in these shallow under-water terraces there are ideal conditions for spawning. They are the best nursery grounds in Europe, if not in the world. The result is that fishermen from all over the Continent, if not from all over the world, are attracted to these waters. Between 15 and 20 per cent. of fish eaten in Europe comes from this area.
Because of the island's utter dependence on fish the Icelandic Government has always naturally been concerned about the degree and amount of fishing in its waters. Fishing limits of one sort or another have always been in force. Over the years, going back probably more than 100 years, the limits have been as much as 32 miles, coming down to three miles, in 1901. Iceland was not in favour of the three-mile limit then, but the Agreement was made by

1253
Denmark, which at that time ruled Iceland, at least so far as her foreign affairs were concerned. Nevertheless, that Agreement for the three-mile limit remained in force until 1951 when the now independent Iceland Government withdrew from it.
Why did they withdraw? Because there was already a tremendous danger of over-fishing. There was a vast increase in the number of ships, the size of ships and the methods of fishing which combined to create this danger. And this state of affairs, my Lords, has continued up to the present day and is responsible for creating the present difficulties. Instead of 300 to 500 ton trawlers, we find modern vessels of 1,000 to 1,200 tons, and 4,000-ton factory trawlers, going into these waters—factory trawlers that can stay there for months on end, with electronic gear and other instruments. These vessels have quadrupled—sometimes even more than quadrupled—productivity in fishing. They suck up whole catches from the ocean like vacuum cleaners, young and old fish alike. The result is that we have now very seriously the problem of over-fishing.
The Icelandic Government, which as I have indicated depends entirely on fishing as the country's basic industry, decided in 1948 that it ought to extend the fishery limits to 12 miles, in order to try to safeguard some of the island's national life-blood. In 1958, after 10 years of talk at the United Nations, the Icelandic Government imposed a 12-mile limit because it felt it could not go on talking any longer. This has done a great deal to preserve stocks. But in the last years there has still been a worsening of the situation, again due to over-fishing, because Japanese factory ships, other factory ships and other 1,000-ton trawlers are going in there and over-fishing these terraces and this Continental Shelf.
This can be seen from the figures. The herring catch has dropped dramatically. In 1965 it was something like 800,000 tons plus; five years later it had dropped down to 50,000 tons—one-sixteenth of what it was. The herring are just not there. They are not being allowed or given the time to spawn. The haddock catch fell by one-half between 1965 and 1969, and there are already danger signals with cod, which is the most important
1254
fish of all from the point of view of Iceland and of this country. The total mortality of cod, mainly due to over-fishing, is over 70 per cent. per annum. They are dying—being caught—faster than they can breed or spawn; and that is the grave danger point, not only for Iceland but also for this country. There now exists a real danger of permanent damage to these very important fisheries. This would affect not just Iceland but all fishing nations, because it is no use having the right to fish within a three-mile limit or a 12-mile limit if there are no fish left to catch. That is basically the problem. This is the background of the Icelandic decision to extend the limits to 50 miles. It is a policy of conservation; it is a policy which I have come to believe is in the interests of all the nations that use these fishing grounds. This is the only way the Icelanders can protect the spawning grounds for themselves and for everyone else, and prevent these rich waters from being turned into the oceanic equivalent of the great American dust bowls. That is what is happening.
It has been argued, and is still being argued, that the Icelandic Government is wrong; that this proposal is against international law and that it should be put to the International Court at The Hague. My Lords, there is no basic law on this issue, at we all know. The United Nations is still trying to get one; in fact a Conference on the Law of the Sea is to be held next year. But the Icelandic Government, with the experience of 1948 to 1958 behind it, is not disposed to go on talking; and I must say that in these circumstances I do not altogether blame it.
The second point that has to be said about this is that many nations have wider limits. Argentine, Brazil, Chile, Peru and other nations in South America have 200-mile fishing limits; Canada has a 100-mile pollution limit and sometimes an 80-mile fishing limit on her shores. Ghana and India have fishing limits of over 100 miles. So there is nothing extraordinary in Iceland's suggesting the limit should be 50 miles. What is more, the 50 miles almost exactly coincides with the Continental Shelf on which Iceland rests, and the shape of the continental belt follows almost exactly the shape of the Icelandic coastline. So there is a

1255
very strong case for saying that this is really part of the Icelandic territorial waters.
It has been said that it is wrong to make this unilateral decision, but I believe that if they had stayed to talk any more, while at the end of that talk we might have reached agreement, there would have been no cod, haddock, plaice or herring to catch because they would all have died while we had been talking. Iceland has indicated that within this 50-mile limit she recognises that there is a special case for West German fishermen, and for British fishermen above all, and that she is prepared to talk in genuine terms to British fishermen and to West German fishermen about the special rights within that 50-mile limit in our traditional fishing grounds. I believe that we can accept this assurance and go ahead with those talks. I found no anti-British feeling in Iceland; on the contrary, if anything I found it the other way: a great respect and a liking for this country.
My Lords, I promised—and I have done it—that I would put the Icelandic case before the British Parliament. I have tried to do so very quickly; I have done so inadequately but as best I can. My own view is that it is a very strong case and one I would go along with. I only hope that as these discussions go on we can avoid the absurdities of the so-called "cod war" of 1958. As I indicated, we are dealing with a country of 200,000 people. It has no army; it has no navy; it has no air force. I believe it has 200 policemen and five protection vessels. Those protection vessels are armed with guns, none of which has ever been fired in anger. I am reliably informed that it is very doubtful whether anybody on board knows actually how to fire those guns.
So I hope we shall not again come to the situation that we had in 1958 when the British Navy was escorting our vessels through the Icelandic territorial limits. Because, when we come down to it, in the last analysis deep sea fishing, which, as I have indicated, is a most dangerous pursuit, relies very much on the support of friendly nations. Any one of our vessels that gets into trouble, whether it is 51 miles from the Icelandic coast or 20 miles from the Icelandic coast, needs to put into an Icelandic harbour. It needs
1256
the support of Icelandic hospitals for its sick. It needs the support of Iceland, sometimes, for its food or repairs. No country can hope to fish indefinitely and illegally outside another country without the help of that particular country in some way or another. So Iceland is not relying on armed might in this dispute but essentially on two things: on a moral right, which I think exists very strongly, and on common sense to see this issue through.
My Lords, I realise that our fishermen have a very strong case because they have been fishing for generations in those traditional fishing grounds. I do not think there is any question of their being barred from those grounds, certainly not immediately. There is a strong basis for talking to conserve those grounds, but I think the talk must come on the basis of the Icelandic Government's behaving and acting as it wants to, as the custodian of this very rich fishing ground. And after we have agreed that it is the custodian, then let us talk about other rights. My Lords, on that basis I beg to ask the Question.
6.58 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Baroness replies, may I say one word in warm support of what the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has just said. I think the Icelanders have a very strong case. There is only one answer to the fishing problem at the moment, which applies to the whole of the North Sea and far beyond, and that is conservation. I hope that before the next 10 years are out we shall have devised extensive conservation measures in Europe: larger meshes, less ruthless and destructive methods of fishing, and so forth.
I wish the Government had been a little tougher in the negotiations over the Common Market. But they have a good enough standing agreement at the moment on the limits that we have. I am satisfied with them, provided that—and the noble Baroness has given us an assurance on this—at the end of ten years the arrangements which have been negotiated cannot be altered without our consent. In my view there is no doubt about that, but at the same time I think that our limits may have to be extended before 10 years are out, and that

1257
measures will have to be brought in to prevent, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, the wholesale murder of fish by modern destructive methods of fishing—and they are very destructive indeed, with these great trawlers with their small meshes and their beam trawls which scrape the bottom and murder the fish population. If these methods are not changed I fear that within a decade the fish problem will become almost insoluble. I feel that the Icelanders are absolutely within their rights in demanding this limit of protection, with some advantages for our trawlers, in the general concern for conservation of fish which is essential if we are to maintain the fish supplies in the future that we have enjoyed in the past.
7.1 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for raising what is an immensely important subject, both to Iceland and to this country. I must say that I was very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, should support him quite so wholeheartedly, for reasons which I hope to show and which I think will prove that he has gone back on a great deal of his honourable past when representing a part of Scotland so dependent upon fishing.
Perhaps we should first be clear what it is we are discussing. The noble Lord, Lord Willis—and I can understand it well—was immensely attracted by that very beautiful, almost romantic country, and he sought to tell us that Iceland was wholly dependent upon fish. I think perhaps he forgets (if I may put it this way) her hydro-electric schemes and her geo-thermal resources; and it may be that he has forgotten the fact that Iceland is only 75 dollars below the United Kingdom in her gross national product. That does not come only from fishing but from these great natural resources of which I have spoken. If we turn to the question of fisheries alone, of which I can claim that I know a certain amount, having represented the major fishing port in Scotland for 20 years in another place, I think it is right that we should be quite clear what are the arrangements, both internationally between Iceland and ourselves and on the whole question of conservation. which I agree is absolutely vital to all our interests.
1258
My Lords, on February 15 of this year the Icelandic Parliament unanimously approved a resolution which formally resolved that the Government should extend the limits from 12 miles to 50 miles not later than September 1 of this year. The same resolution called on the Government to explain once more to ourselves and the Germans that the 1961 Agreements—and I stress "Agreements"—on fishery limits could apply no longer, and that they wished to continue their attempts to reach agreement with us on the difficulties caused by their proposed extension. On February 24 of this year our Ambassador in Reykjavik was handed an aide-mémoire stating the Icelandic Government's decision to issue regulations providing for the 50-mile fishing limit to become effective on September 1. The same aide-mémoire also stated that the Icelandic Government considered—and I hope the House will note this—that the provisions of the 1961 Agreement were no longer applicable and were consequently terminated.
British and Icelandic officials have met both in London and in Reykjavik during the past few months to discuss ways of reconciling our interests. We have stated very clearly and on several occasions that we cannot accept any extension of Iceland's fishing limits beyond 12 miles as being compatible with international law. We have also insisted on our right under the 1961 Agreement to refer any dispute to the International Court; and we have made it clear that the Agreement is still in force and cannot be ended unilaterally. It is perfectly true that the Icelandic Government suggested that British vessels might continue to fish, subject to certain unspecified conditions, in certain limited areas for a limited period of time after Iceland had extended her limits to 50 miles. But to negotiate an arrangement on this basis would have been to concede Iceland's right to control the waters out to 50 miles and to jeopardise our future fishing, not only in those waters but elsewhere.
At this time, my Lords, the positions of the two sides appear to be irreconcilable. But we have tried to explain to the Icelandic Government that this is not necessarily the case. We understand, of course, Iceland's considerable economic dependence on fisheries resources, and it is just because of this that we are

1259
ready to recognise that Iceland should have a preferential claim to the resources of the fisheries round her coast. But preference is one thing and monopoly is quite another. We in this country cannot accept that the reasonable needs of Iceland can justify the extinction of our right to continue to fish in areas of the high seas where we have fished for 100 years or more. We have said in particular that the proposed 50-mile limit would include virtually all the fishing grounds in the Icelandic area. The exclusion of our vessels from them would deprive us of between one-fifth and one-quarter of all British landings of such species as cod, haddock and plaice. Between 40 per cent. and 60 per cent. of the catch of the distant water section of our fleet comes from grounds that would be lost. It is our contention that both the Icelandic and the British interests in these waters, as well as the interests of those other States which have traditionally fished in the region, can be accommodated by means of internationally agreed conservation measures.
As noble Lords will probably know, I am one of the keenest Members of your Lordships' House in favour of the conservation of our fishery stocks, but noble Lords will also recall that the international organisation that is responsible for fishery conservation in the Icelandic area is the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. All the States which have traditionally fished in this area, including the United Kingdom and Iceland, take part in regular annual meetings of the Commission. It was decided at the last meeting of the Commission, in May, 1971, that the condition of the Icelandic cod and haddock stocks was not such as to warrant any special conservation measures. This conclusion was reached on the basis of the latest available scientific advice, which had been agreed internationally by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.
Of course if there are any important changes in the present pattern of fishing, or if there is any new scientific evidence of a decline in the stocks, it will be open to the Icelandic Government, or to any other Government, to raise the question again with the Commission. But we are quite clear that the need to conserve fish stocks cannot be held to justify
1260
the extension of national fishing limits. Where conservation measures are needed they should be taken by international agreement, and in this case through the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. However, my Lords, the existence of an international Commission dealing with fisheries conservation does not inhibit any Government from entering into more restricted discussions involving two or three Governments. For example, there are some types of conservation measures, such as catch limitation, which the North Atlantic Fisheries Commission is not yet empowered to recommend to member Governments, though it is expected that it will shortly be given those powers.
A catch limitation scheme agreed between those few States which traditionally fish in the Icelandic area, and subsequently endorsed by the other members of the Commission, might well be very helpful to the Icelandic situation. We have told the Icelandic Government that we would in principle be ready to negotiate such a scheme, and we could undertake for our own part to limit our catch to the average of the years 1960–69 on the basis that Iceland did not seek to extend her limits beyond 12 miles. We could probably work out the details of such a scheme in such a way as to allow some room for expansion of the Icelandic fishing industry, in recognition, of course, of the special dependence of the Icelandic fleet upon these waters. At the same time the scheme would protect our own essential interests. With this in mind we have sought at all stages the advice of the British Trawlers' Federation, and the Federation was represented during our discussions with the Icelandic Government. Moreover, the possibility of review in the event of a decline in fish stocks backed by positive scientific evidence would always be open. A catch limitation scheme of this kind could attract, surely, the support of all those States who fish in the waters around Iceland, and surely could therefore give Iceland firm guarantees of a kind which unilateral extension of limits in the face of international law could hardly be expected to provide.
We cannot abandon our position that any agreement with Iceland on fisheries conservation must be on the basis that Iceland does not intend to extend limits beyond 12 miles. It is true that a few

1261
States have claimed fisheries jurisdiction beyond 12 miles in recent years, but we have consistently maintained that all such claims are contrary to international law. We recognise, of course, that the question of any special position a coastal State may have, or ought to have, as regards fisheries in adjacent areas of the high seas is one which requires further international consideration. But I submit to your Lordships that the natural forum for any international discussion of this subject, and, indeed, of all questions touching on jurisdiction over the high seas, will be the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference planned for 1973. Preparatory work for this conference is being undertaken by the United Nations Sea Bed Committee and it is at present holding its spring session in New York. That is why we very much regret that the Icelandic Government is considering its own action, which affects all maritime nations to a greater or lesser extent, at a time when the United Nations are looking at these issues in an international context.
I have mentioned our right under the 1961 Agreement between the United Kingdom and Iceland to refer to the International Court any dispute relating to the extension of Icelandic fishing limits beyond 12 miles. Recourse to judicial settlement, in international as in municipal law, is a perfectly amicable means of resolving a dispute when bilateral negotiation seems to offer no immediate prospect of agreement. It is indeed one of the methods which are described as "pacific settlement of disputes" which are enjoined on Iceland and ourselves by Article 33 of the United Nations Charter. I suggest to your Lordships that it is particularly suitable when there is a formal agreement between the two parties which expressly provides for reference to the Court in just such a situation. At this moment in time I am not in a position to tell your Lordships that any decision to refer the dispute to the International Court has been taken, although this option is urgently under study and I can say that a decision is imminent. There is no reason why reference to the Court need necessarily inhibit either party from continuing informal discussions outside the Court in the hope of achieving an agreed solution. Indeed, if we do decide to refer this matter to the Court, we shall hope to conclude interim arrangements to safeguard our fishing in
1262
these waters while the case is before the Court. We have friendly relations with Iceland over a wide variety of matters, and of course we hope that differences on fisheries will not affect those matters at all.
The existence of an agreement between the two Governments providing for reference to the International Court is one feature of the present situation which renders it different from what was called "the cod war" in 1958–61. I hope, therefore, that we can avoid becoming involved in another "cod war" over Iceland's plans to extend her limits from 12 to 50 miles. Can we not discuss, whether inside or outside the courts? Is it not a very much better way of trying to resolve our differences? But I must in this debate make quite clear that we have vital interests to defend in the waters around Iceland and there are very important issues of principle at stake. Therefore we cannot rule out any procedure which may be necessary to preserve those interests and to safeguard those principles.
My Lords, I hope that what I have said is enough to show that there are many difficulties in this complex issue, but also to show the British Government's determination to protect our own interests, while at the same time trying to achieve a solution which will help the very genuine preoccupations of the Icelandic Government. I regret very much that I have not been able to give a more encouraging account to your Lordships to-night or to make any firm announcement at this moment on future policy, because the discussions between ourselves and the Iceland Government are delicate and complex. I would only say that, as fellow-Europeans, both of us heirs to a Nordic tradition, it surely is possible for us together to achieve an agreed and lasting solution.
Lotus BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Baroness resumes her seat. may I ask her a short question? All these endless committees and commissions, the North East Atlantic, the NATO commissions and everything else, have so far produced absolutely no effective measures at all for the conservation of fish, which is, as the noble Baroness agrees, so vital. As they have not done so, is it not rather natural for the Icelandic Government to take unilateral

1263
action to protect its own fisheries, because no effective agreement has yet been reached by any international organisation that I have ever heard of, although there are about six of them?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I really must refute that suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and I am surprised that he has suddenly abandoned his fishermen to take the other view. It is a fact that of the 15 members of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission there are four, including Iceland, which have not yet ratified; but all of them have given notice that they intend to do so.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I would only say in reply to the noble Baroness, finally, that I have not abandoned my fishermen, because none of them fishes near Iceland.

SAINT ANDREW'S, HOVE, CHURCHYARD BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
WELLINGTON ESTATE BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

UNITED KINGDOM OIL PIPELINES BILL [H.L.]
Examiners' Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable have been complied with, received, and Bills committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past seven o'clock.