Sitting of 1 March 1973

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

    Mr. George Kyriacou
    Mr. Gorstasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the extenuating family circumstances, he will reconsider on compassionate grounds his decision to deport Mr. George Kyriacou, the Cypriot husband of a British passport holder.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend took full account of all the relevant circumstances before deciding to act on the recommendation for Mr. Kyriacou's deportation.
    Mr. Gorst: While appreciating the repeated reconsideration which my hon. Friend has given to the case of my constituent, although regretting the final decision, may I ask him, first, how soon can Mrs. Kyriacou expect her husband to be reconsidered for re-entry once he is deported, and can a new application be considered once he has been deported? Secondly, what consideration has been given by the Government to giving the same rights of citizenship to British women marrying non-British husbands, as happens in reverse when British males marry non-British women, thereby automatically conferring British citizenship on them? Is not the lack of any proposals to deal with these matters a somewhat unfair discrimination against women?
    Mr. Lane: On the first point, my right hon. Friend does not normally consider revoking deportation orders until at least three years have passed. It is open to
    1676
    Mr. Kyriacou himself to apply for revocation as soon as he wishes, but until and unless the order is revoked he cannot reapply for readmission. On my hon. Friend's other questions, I do not agree that this is discrimination against women. The reasons for the present rule, which began under the party opposite, are well understood. However, my hon. Friend's point may be considered in the review of our nationality law.

    Prisoners (Mail Bags)
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are still engaged on sewing mail bags by hand; and in which prisons this is still being done.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): About 1,500 in England and Wales. I will, with permission, circulate the particulars of the 26 establishments in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mrs. Short: I am obliged for that reply, but a little disappointed at its content. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman recall that as long ago as 1967 the House was told that with the appointment of the Director of Prison Industries and the reorganisation which would ensue this would disappear? It obviously has not. How does the Minister think that it helps the rehabilitation of an offender?
    Mr. Carlisle: It has not disappeared, that is true, but in the last 10 years the proportion of prisoners working on the hand-sewing of mail bags has dropped from 30 per cent. of the total work-force to 10 per cent. So we have made substantial progress towards eliminating it.
    Mr. John Hall: Despite the reduction of the labour force employed on this work, is my hon. and learned Friend not aware that there are much more efficient ways of making mail bags than by hand sewing? Would it not be better if all prisoners were engaged on much more useful and constructive work?
    Mr. Carlisle: As a matter of principle, I entirely agree. Much more machine sewing of mail bags is being done, but I think that my hon. Friend will accept that there is within that population of 1,500 a certain number whose ability to do jobs is very limited.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: When considering the prison programme in general and training in particular, will my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that in Lancaster Prison the training facilities—although every use has been made of every available cranny—are severely limited? Will he therefore consider rebuilding the prison on a new site, so that the castle may revert to its proper use as a castle and tourist attraction?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am conscious that there is a shortage of resources for work in many prisons and I note what my hon. Friend says about Lancaster, but I cannot give her any promises about its rebuilding.
    Following is the information:
    The prisons in which prisoners are employed in hand-sewing mail-bags are as follows:

    Birmingham.

    Manchester.

    Bristol.

    Norwich.

    Canterbury.

    Nottingham.

    Chelmsford.

    Oxford.

    Dorchester.

    Parkhurst.

    Durham.

    Pentonville.

    Exeter.

    Preston.

    Gloucester.

    Shrewsbury.

    Lancaster.

    Stafford.

    Leeds.

    Swansea.

    Leicester.

    Wakefield.

    Lincoln.

    Winchester.

    Liverpool.

    Wandsworth.

    Firearms
    Mr. Fowlerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences involving the use of firearms were recorded in 1972; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Edward Lyonsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will be in a position to announce his conclusions upon the results now before him of the review of the law relating both to genuine and imitation firearms conducted by the former Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary.
    Sir D. Kaberryasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to announce what action he proposes to take upon the report he has received relating to the retail sale in the United Kingdom of imported realistic model firearms.
    Mr. Loveridgeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in
    1678
    the light of recent experience, he will now take steps to ban the sale of replica firearms that cost about £15 each and are unsuitable for use as toys.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Carr): The provisional number of offences in England and Wales in which firearms were fired, used as a blunt instrument to cause injury or damage, or used as a threat, is 2,069. I intend to publish in the near future my provisional conclusions on the review of firearms law, and to invite comment on them before I decide what proposals to place before Parliament. The need for a ban on realistic imitation firearms, which would cover many children's toys, is one of the issues on which I shall welcome views before reaching final conclusions.
    Mr. Fowler: That statement will be generally welcomed. Is it not a fact that crimes involving the use of firearms in this country are now rising at an alarming rate? Will my right hon. Friend also note that armed crime is also increasing in other European countries? Is there not therefore an urgent need that we should take action upon a European basis to control the supply of these illegal firearms?
    Mr. Carr: It is unfortunately true that crimes involving the use of firearms are rising and the provisional figure I have just given for 1972, unfortunately, shows an increase over the previous year and confirms that trend. It is also true that this is not peculiar to this country. The need is urgent. I am hoping to put forward my proposals in a matter of weeks rather than months and I assure the House that I will treat them urgently. I also take note of the point about the need for European co-operation. I certainly welcome what we are doing about drugs in this connection. I should like to extend it to firearms, but in seeking for wider co-operation I do not think that I should delay action which we can take in Britain.
    Mr. Lyons: I welcome the Home Secretary's remarks. Is he aware that the British Safety Council has been advocating measures with regard to replica and toy guns for the last 10 years? Does not he agree that it would be simpler to cut off the supply of replica guns,

    1679
    which are not always the same as toy guns, simply by banning their importation, as all of them apparently come from one source?
    Mr. Carr: It is not as simple as just banning the import of replica guns, because many of the toy guns—if that be the word—manufactured in this country, as well as those imported, are sufficiently realistic to be mistaken for the real thing, at least when seen quickly just looking down the barrel. These are manufactured at home as well as abroad. It is a serious problem.
    Sir D. Kaberry: May I urge my right hon. Friend to use the utmost expedition in publishing his recommendations? The difficulty about publicity concerning the sale and purchase of replica guns is that it tends to increase purchases of them by people who otherwise would not be buying them and using them in pursuit of wrongdoing. Therefore, may I urge my right hon. Friend to review what he has just said and to make it a matter of days instead of weeks?
    Mr. Carr: I shall certainly act as quickly as possible on this matter, but it is a very difficult matter, because it covers the whole field of toy guns as well as anything approaching a genuine replica. This is very difficult, because, quite apart from what one does about the future, vast numbers of these things are in the possession of families and people throughout the country. So I would be foolish to underestimate the difficulty.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: I welcome the Home Secretary's statement. Will he draw the attention of his noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to the fact that sentences for carrying firearms have not increased proportionately to changes in maximum sentences as agreed by Parliament? Might not something be done in that respect?
    Second, has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possibility of a further amnesty—in Britain alone; I am not referring to Northern Ireland—in respect of the holding of illegal arms?
    Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman consider making it more difficult for people to draw licences for the heavier-bore arms—that is, arms other than those for small game killing and the control of vermin? There has been a marked
    1680
    increase in the number of licences held on the mainland in this country.
    Mr. Carr: I shall certainly discuss the question with my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. It is, of course, a precious tradition in this country that we cannot tell the courts how they are to sentence. But the more public concern that is displayed about this matter the more likely it is that the courts will reflect that concern. I must be frank with the hon. Lady, in that I have not yet thought of the question of an amnesty, but I shall give it some thought, as she has mentioned it. The whole question of licences is very much part and parcel of the proposals that I shall be putting forward.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: How many of the guns involved in these offences were legally held?
    Mr. Carr: I could not answer that question off the cuff. I doubt whether I could do so even after research, because one does not always catch both the criminal and the gun. I am afraid that the figure is probably unobtainable.

    Trade Descriptions Act 1968 (Prosecutions)
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheimasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that magistrates are conversant with the effects of Section 1(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1972, in actions brought under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
    Mr. Carlisle: An explanatory booklet —"Criminal Justice Act 1972: A Guide for the Courts"—which has been distributed individually to magistrates and others describes the new compensation powers and includes a reference to the power to order compensation in respect of offences under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
    Mrs. Oppenheim: Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is highly desirable that consumers who are involved in successful prosecutions under the Trade Descriptions Act should get the full benefit of the provisions of Section 1 of the Criminal Justice Act for compensation and that magistrates should automatically make the necessary court orders in such cases? Is he satisfied that this is being done in the majority of appropriate cases?
    Mr. Carlisle: It is highly desirable that the wider strength of the powers of the courts under the Criminal Justice Act to award compensation should be as widely publicised as possible. My hon. Friend has mentioned particular cases, but it is right to point out that there may be some matters, particularly under the Trade Descriptions Act, which can raise difficult issues of liability which may not be appropriate for a magistrates' court. Regarding the use that has so far been made of the Act, it is still too early to say, but I have the impression that considerably wider use is being made of the power to award compensation.
    Mr. Pavitt: In the information which he is issuing will the hon. and learned Gentleman give special consideration to the problem that arises with written misrepresentations on the specific subject of hearing aids sold to elderly people? In this area it seems that magistrates are not aware of the very fine lines being drawn from time to time, which make liability difficulty to pin.
    Mr. Carlisle: That may be a slightly different question. But in so far as manufacturers of hearing aids commit offences under the Trade Descriptions Act they can be convicted, in which case the magistrates can also order compensation in respect of the loss of the value of the hearing aid that has been sold.

    Commonwealth Immigrants (Repatriation)
    Mr. Sydney Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the operation of Section 29 of the Immigration Act 1971 with regard to the repatriation of Commonwealth immigrants; and how many families have been repatriated since the section came into operation.
    Mr. Lane: Thirty families have so far been assisted to leave this country under the Section 29 scheme. The results of our review of the scheme will be announced as soon as possible.
    Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend will know that as long ago as 1st February my right hon. Friend said "shortly" in reference to the announcement of the conclusions of the review. Does he feel that International Social Service is the right agency to deal with the implementation
    1682
    of Section 29 of the Immigration Act 1971? Will he confirm that less than 5 per cent. of the cases of families who have requested the application have been settled?
    Mr. Lane: We shall announce the results as soon as possible, but we want to be sure that we are getting right any changes we propose to make. We have absolute confidence in International Social Service in administering this matter, and I have discussed it recently with the director of ISS. But the applications dealt with are nothing like as small in number as my hon. Friend has suggested. He may have worked out a figure of families out of total applications, but the main number of applications made have proved to be ineligible under the scheme, for good reasons.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: Are not the delays experienced by people seeking repatriation and help for repatriation absolutely inordinate, and is not the bureaucracy involved far too extensive?
    Mr. Lane: No, I do not accept that. The cases have to be examined carefully and thoroughly. If ISS finds that it needs more staff to do the job more thoroughly and quickly, we shall consider that.

    Street Offences Act 1959
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to introduce amendments to the Street Offences Act 1959.
    Mr. Carlisle: As I said in reply to a Question by the hon. Member on 22nd January, a review of the law on vagrancy and street offences is being carried out by the Departments concerned. My right hon. Friend has no proposals for legislation before that review has been completed.—[Vol. 849, c. 28.]
    Mr. Cox: Is not the Minister of State aware that that kind of reply is of no help to my constituents? Why should perfectly respectable women and teenage girls be continually molested and abused by car drivers who come into parts of my constituency trying to pick up prostitutes? The Act has been in force for 14 years. Surely the time has now come when the Minister could introduce an amendment which would allow the police to prosecute motorists who are seeking prostitutes. It

    1683
    happens in my area and in many other areas of the country, and we are fed up with the inactivity of the Minister in trying to solve this problem.
    Mr. Carlisle: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman says that my reply is of no help to his constituents. I should have thought that they would be glad to hear that the Government have set up a working party to review the Street Offences Act so as to look particularly at this point. The committee was set up in September 1971 and should shortly be completing its review, but no steps or legislation in advance of that review can be taken.
    It was because of the problems the hon. Gentleman mentioned that we set up this review.

    Isle of Man
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Isle of Man will now be subject to the rules and regulations relating to freedom of movement and employment within the European Economic Community; and what steps he intends to take to protect United Kingdom citizens who settle in the Isle of Man.
    Mr. Lane: The answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir". In answer to the second part, my right hon. Friend sees no need for any further protection than already exists. The Crown is already represented in the island—which is a parliamentary democracy—with the normal forms of redress available through the courts.
    Mr. Stonehouse: How is it that the Isle of Man continues to enjoy the protection of the United Kingdom but apparently will not be subject to the rules and regulations of the Common Market? How is it that Isle of Man persons can come to the United Kingdom and seek employment without restriction, but the reverse situation does not apply? In view of the fact that United Kingdom citizens who go to foreign countries can obtain assistance from Her Majesty's consuls, should not a similar facility be available to United Kingdom persons who go to the Isle of Man?
    Mr. Lane: I will look further into the point that the right hon. Gentleman has raised, which I think is more for my right
    1684
    hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will know that there are a number of people in the Isle of Man who because of their main connection with the United Kingdom have free movement within the Community.

    Armed Trespass (Convictions)
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of convictions under Section 20(2) of the Firearms Act 1968 relating to armed trespass; and what has been the average fine imposed.
    Mr. Carlisle: In the years 1969 to 1971, 3,358 persons were found guilty in England and Wales of offences under Section 20(2) of the Firearms Act 1968. Of these, 3,037 were fined: the average fine was £6·99.
    Mr. Farr: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for what he said, but does he not agree that it is ridiculous that a trivial fine of this nature should be paid for a serious offence? Will he ask the Home Secretary to call the Lord Chancellor's attention to this aspect of crime, bearing in mind that the maximum fine laid down by Parliament is £200 with a sentence of six months' imprisonment?
    Mr. Carlisle: I can repeat only what my hon. Friend well knows—that it is not for Home Office Ministers to comment on the use of the court's powers to sentence in individual cases. However, I confirm that under the Criminal Justice Act as from 1st January this year the maximum penalty was raised from £100 to £200 and the courts should take note of the maximum penalty as the framework within which they act. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary heard my hon. Friend's comments.
    Mr. John Fraser: Will the Minister of State say whether that fine is also typical of non-poaching offences, because if that is so it is ludicrous? Will he let us know what happened as the result of the discussions with the Lord Chancellor on sentencing policy?
    Mr. Carlisle: All I can say is that if the hon. Member puts down a Question I shall try to give him an answer on other types of firearms offences. I cannot do so without notice.
    Mr. Fidler: In view of the ease with which firearms can be purchased—and I refer not to toy guns but to deadly Lugers and the like—in the greater London area by people without a licence, is it not obvious that the deterrents are not sufficiently heavy? Has my hon. and learned Friend considered increasing the penalties and, more particularly, reintroducing capital punishment where death results from the use of firearms?
    Mr. Carlisle: For the type of offences that my hon. Friend has in mind we have substantially increased the maximum penalties, in most cases up to life, for the use of firearms in these circumstances. My hon. Friend will have heard my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary say earlier that we are considering the report on the control of firearms and that he hopes shortly to be in a position to put proposals before the House. As for the last part of the question, the Government have no further comment to make.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: In view of the grave consequences of offences of this type does not the Minister think that it would be more sensible to specify minimum terms of imprisonment and minimum fines?
    Mr. Carlisle: It depends on the type of offences that the hon. Member has in mind. Section 22 deals with trespassing on land while armed. The maximum penalty for that offence is a fine of £200. I do not agree with the idea of minimum penalties. Minimum penalties, either imprisonment or fines, create injustice because they do not allow the court to take adequately into account all the circumstances.
    Mr. Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to give notice that in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Police (Community Relations)
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve relations between the police and the coloured community in the Metropolitan Police district.
    Mr. Carlisle: My right hon. Friend is giving every encouragement to the wide variety of steps taken by the Commis-
    1686
    sioner of Police of the Metropolis to foster and maintain good relations with coloured people. These include the appointment of laison officers, special training arrangements and formal and informal meetings with representatives of the different communities.
    Mr. Fraser: May I pay tribute to the Metropolitan Police for the efforts they have taken in trying to foster good community relations? Will the Government provide public money to continue the scholarships which have been available for police officers to travel to countries from which coloured people come, and which have been extremely successful? Will the Minister of State make use of the suggestions of the Select Committee on Race Relations that attempts should be made to recruit more coloured policemen, and perhaps look for recruitment from traffic wardens, with training schemes provided to enable them to pass police entry examinations?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to the hon. Member for what he said about the Metropolitan Police. They do a great deal to help community relations. I will bear in mind his comments made about assistance for those sent abroad to study the problems of community relations. As for recruiting coloured policemen, although the figure is not large, we have 12 coloured policemen and one coloured policewoman in the Metropolitan force.
    Mr. Grieve: In taking steps to ensure good relations between the police and the coloured community will my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that good relations between the police and any part of the community are a two-way matter? Will he do his best to ensure that those who are concerned with the coloured community, leaders in youth clubs and elsewhere, do their best to educate the coloured community in the duties of the police and the obligations of a good citizen in this country?
    Mr. Carlisle: I entirely agree with what my hon. and learned Friend has said. A responsibility clearly rests on community leaders to do their best to ensure good relations with the police as well.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the Minister of State aware that, whatever conditions prevail outside the parliamentary constituency of Brixton, I have had no complaints for

    1687
    quite a long time from my constituents about worsening community relations or undesirable conduct on the part of the police? My constituents have many other things to complain about.
    Mr. Carlisle: I am glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman says. That again shows, as the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Faser) said, that the Metropolitan Police are making great efforts in this matter, and are being successful.

    Immigration Appeals Act 1969
    Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the working of the Immigration Appeals Act 1969; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lane: My right hon. Friend is in general satisfied with the working of the immigration appeal system as modified by the Immigration Act 1971.
    Mr. Madel: Is the Minister aware of two of my constituents who experienced some delay before their appeals were heard? Will he take action to speed up the work of the tribunals hearing appeals on this matter?
    Mr. Lane: Yes. I know that there have been delays in a number of individual cases, and I should like to shorten the time. We have taken steps to try to streamline the process but if we are to be sure that the system is fair and thorough, matters cannot always progress as fast as we should like.
    Mr. Deedes: Is my hon. Friend aware that in some parts of the world the system is working anything but satisfactorily, and a very large backlog of appeals remains to be worked off? That will continue as long as people are able to appeal without any kind of condition, and as often as they please. If our posts overseas are to be given any chance to deal with what they have on their hands, the system must be urgently overhauled.
    Mr. Lane: I am aware of the point that my right hon. Friend has made and I am looking at it at the moment. I will discuss it further with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, whose staff are also involved in this matter.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: We must preserve the right to appeal in all cases
    1688
    where a decision has been made. Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the question of publicity for decisions made by the adjudicators or the tribunal? It would help if there was a system of law reporting from the tribunal. On the whole, the Press do not cover these cases.
    Mr. Lane: I will have another look at that. My impression from seeing the appeal system at work and seeing the judgments on paper is that on the whole it is working fairly from the individual's point of view. However, if more publicity would be helpful I will consider that.

    Shoplifting
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of his Department's internal review on shoplifting.
    Mr. Carlisle: The working party is expected to report within the next few months.
    Mr. Adley: I do not wish in any way to exonerate the large number of dishonest people who are active in supermarkets. However, does my hon. and learned Friend not agree that those who introduce a system of shopping, or whatever, which results in an increase in crime must bear some responsibility as accessories towards paying for the cost of trying to reduce this crime?
    Mr. Carlisle: I do not accept that they bear responsibility as accessories. What I concede—and what I have always conceded—is that modern methods of shopping and the way in which goods are displayed undoubtedly offer greater temptation.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Is it not right that a substantial proportion of those who are charged with shoplifting and whose cases come before juries are acquitted? Is there not an intolerable risk that the innocent will be charged and that they will become ill with anxiety long before they are acquitted?
    Mr. Carlisle: I do not think that there is any evidence that the innocent are more likely to risk prosecution for shoplifting than for other offences. It is true that the proportion of those acquitted by a jury is quite high, but my

    1689
    recollection is that it is not very much higher than the average for other offences.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there are many prosecutions for shoplifting as a result of determination on the part of hops where shop detectives, either because of zeal or from pressure from the management, push into court cases which should never go there in the first place?
    Mr. Carlisle: One must keep a sense of proportion. I have always accepted that there is concern about the possibility of people being wrongly accused of shoplifting. Equally, one has to bear in mind that a substantial volume of goods are being stolen from shops. Dishonesty of all kinds must be dealt with. Therefore, the shops have a responsibility to take what steps they can—including preventive measures—to avoid shoplifting. They are entitled to use their own people to arrest those who are committing this offence.

    Law of Evidence (Report)
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department from which organisations he has received representations supporting and opposing, respectively, the Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee on Evidence (General); and if he will make a statement as to the Government's policies concerning the proposals contained in the report.
    Mr. Carlisle: Representations have been received from 25 organisations, although some are of only an interim nature and at least one organisation with a major interest has yet to submit its comments. In general, organisations have indicated that they support some proposals but oppose others, and it is not possible to divide them simply into "supporters" and "opponents".
    The Government are studying the representations received and the observations made during the recent debate in another place. No policy decision will be taken until all responsible opinion has been heard, including that of this House.
    Mr. Davis: Is it not right that the Bar, the solicitors' profession, distinguished judges, Justice, and a number of other organisations have expressed grave disquiet about the major proposals that have
    1690
    been made by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, in particular, the proposals regarding the introduction of previous convictions, the abolition of the caution and the abolition of the present rules against self-incrimination? Is there not an almost united expression of opinion against these recommendations?
    Mr. Carlisle: It is true that certain organisations which have put in representations have taken strong exception to some recommendations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee—including the Bar Council. The Law Society's comments have not yet been received by the Home Office.
    Mr. Arthur Davidson: In view of the widespread criticisms by the Criminal Bar Association, the Bar Council and other bodies of the recommendation suggesting the abolition of the right to silence in police stations, and the injustice that this proposal is likely to cause in future in the conduct of a trial, will the hon. and learned Gentleman at least say that he does not propose to implement that proposal?
    Mr. Carlisle: No. I can only repeat what I have already said, namely, that we are giving careful consideration to all the representations that have been made. There has been a debate in another place and we have undertaken that we will listen to opinion in this House before coming to any conclusion. I am not prepared, in advance, to reject or accept any particular recommendation.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Who, apart from the Lord Chief Justice, has supported the abolition of the right to silence in interrogation?
    Mr. Carlisle: If an individual answer is required to that question I will have to have notice of it. As far as I know, it was recommended by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, which consists of many eminent judges. Certainly we have had representations both ways on all the committee's recommendations.

    Ugandan Asians
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the latest figures available to him of the Ugandan Asian refugees still remaining in Resettlement Board establishments.
    Mr. Lane: On 28th February there were 4,121 refugees in the Uganda Resettlement Board's centres.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my hon. Friend not regard that as an excessive figure, bearing in mind the time that has elapsed? What discussions is he having with the board about an effective policy of permanent settlement over a very wide area?
    Mr. Lane: I do not accept that it is a large figure. On the contrary, considering the difficulties, I think that the progress made has been very good, and reflects a lot of credit on the board, the local authorities, and others who have been at the receiving end. I know the anxiety of my hon. Friend and others about where the remaining refugees may go. There is hope that a higher proportion of them will go to more remote areas, where there are not already concentrations, than has been the case with the first few thousand who were resettled.
    Mr. Molloy: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that up to now there has been a concentration in certain areas of immigrants from the Uganda Resettlement Board? I am sure that he is aware that this is causing enormous problems for local authorities such as the London Borough of Ealing.
    Mr. Greville Janner: And Leicester.
    Mr. Molloy: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to have consultations with his colleagues in other Departments to try to reverse the policy where local authorities claim that the Government have been mean and insufficient in their aid? The Government say that at least it is equal. That does not help local authorities. Will the hon. Gentleman press the Government to do something for them?
    Mr. Lane: I do not accept the implication in the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I have visited a number of these areas, including Ealing yesterday and Leicester a few weeks ago. I know the difficulties. I hope that the hon. Member will recognise the additional help which has been given by both the Uganda Resettlement Board and the normal working of the rate support grant machinery.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Has my hon. Friend seen reports in the Press today of a Mr. Dhanda, who had been deported overseas as an illegal immigrant
    1692
    here but who returned and found employment, apparently without difficulty? Would not it be easier to resettle and find employment for those immigrants who are here legally if the Home Office could be more efficient about preventing illegal immigrants coming in?
    Mr. Lane: I have seen the reports and I am having special inquiries made into that case. Cases such as the one reported in the Press this morning are very rare. We are always looking for ways of improving our defences against both illegal immigration and overstaying.
    Mr. Cyril Smithasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is yet in a position to report further on his discussions with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, on the admission to this country of Ugandan Asians whose relatives and dependants are already in this country.
    Mr. R. Carr: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) on 22nd February.—[Vol. 851. c. 146–7.]
    Mr. Smith: We welcome the line that the right hon. Gentleman has taken in the matter. The Question was put down before his statement. I assure him that we welcome the fact that relatives are to be admitted to this country.
    Mr. Carr: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I emphasised from the beginning that we could not take responsibility for those who were not our citizens, but once the United Nations had firmly accepted that responsibility and after it was seen that it was being so successful in meeting it, with the assistance of other countries, I thought it right for this country to take those few hundred extra people whose families were already here.

    Civil Emergencies
    Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmidasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the use being made of voluntary effort in home defence preparations for dealing with civil emergencies.
    Mr. Lane: In a matter of this kind there is always scope for improvement. But I am satisfied that the Government's

    1693
    policy is clear and well understood by all concerned. My right hon. Friend and I will continue to urge local authorities to make the maximum use of voluntary effort in support of their emergency plans.
    Major-General d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that there is now a firm requirement for the recognition, encouragement and instruction of an entirely voluntary body, whose rôle during hostilities would be civil defence? Were such a body now in existence it would be able to offer extremely valuable help in certain hospitals.
    Mr. Lane: I am not sure that there is a need to create a new body. I remind my hon. and gallant Friend of the existence of the National Voluntary Civil Aid Society. Leaders of the local operational units of that society are in contact with either civil defence officers or the new county emergency planning teams, when they are established, over the rôle of their units in various emergency situations.
    Mr. Kaufman: Will the hon. Gentleman accept from the Opposition that it would be totally unacceptable to use civil defence in any way for strike breaking?
    Mr. Lane: That is another matter. I am aware that many of our difficulties in maintaining a good civil defence organisation originate in the decision of the Labour Government in 1968 to run it down virtually to nothing.
    Sir D. Renton: Will my hon. Friend reconsider the Government's decision that there should be no grant aid to local authorities for either the training or the administration of volunteers?
    Mr. Lane: I am not prepared to reconsider that at this stage. I prefer to see how we get on with the arrangements we announced in the circular about a year ago. There is scope for Government aid for training generally, though not specifically for volunteers.

    Immigrant Visitors (Duration of Stay)
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to amend the Immigration Act 1971 so that the time in which the police can prosecute any immigrants who have come to the
    1694
    United Kingdom as visitors and have overstayed their landing conditions is no longer restricted.
    Mr. Lane: No, Sir. Prosecution for overstaying is already the subject of an extended time limit under Section 24(3) of the Immigration Act 1971.
    Mr. Montgomery: Is my hon. Friend aware that certain members of the police force who deal with this aspect seem to think that the 1971 Act implies that those immigrants who come here as visitors and overstay their term are secure provided they remain safe from arrest for three years, and that people coming on certain conditions for employment are clear provided they manage to stay away from the police for six months? Before 1971 the offence was a continuing one. Could not the position be made clear to the police?
    Mr. Lane: There should be no misunderstanding. The position is not as my hon. Friend has stated it. I should like to discuss further with him any misunderstandings that there may be. I hope that he saw reports of the court case the other day which confirmed that we now have powers to prosecute after years and not months, as has been the case.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter? The case to which he referred suggests that a man can be deported at any time, with no time limit, whereas Section 28 of the Act says that the time limit should be three years. That time limit was inserted specifically as a safeguard against blackmail. If the Act allows a man to be deported at any time, a real threat of blackmail persists.
    Mr. Lane: I shall re-examine the matter, but I am sure that we were right to take stronger powers, and we shall not hesitate to use them.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: Is it not a fact that the amount of evasion through the route mentioned in the Question is enormous, and that the number of visitors and students who are given permission to stay on is so great that immigration control, from those two factors, is virtually stultified?
    Mr. Lane: I do not accept that. There is a problem; many people are trying

    1695
    to get round the regulations. But day by day, and week by week, cases are found and brought to the courts, and those who have been guilty of evasion are being deported.

    VALUE ADDED TAX
    Sir Gilbert Longdenasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry in the matters of explaining the operation of value added tax, especially upon small businesses.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Carr): I have been asked to reply.
    Yes, Sir. A Customs and Excise liaison officer has been appointed to maintain close contact with the small firms division of the Department of Trade and Industry, as recommended by the Bolton Committee on Small Firms. The Departments are co-operating in a major effort to reach small firms with the facts about the operation of value added tax.
    Sir Gilbert Longden: Does not much alarmist criticism alleging the inflationary effects of the new tax invariably conceal the fact that price reductions must result from the simultaneous abolition of purchase tax and SET? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that much remains to be done to explain the operation of VAT, especially to people who cannot afford to take professional advice?
    Mr. Carr: I agree with my hon. Friend on all those points. Certainly, there is alarmist criticism. There must be some price reductions resulting from VAT replacing purchase tax and SET. There is machinery to try to make sure that those reductions take place. I agree that, as is perhaps inevitable, there is still some lack of knowledge and understanding. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be arranging for a major public information campaign after his Budget next week, and Customs and Excise officers will step up their activities during the remaining period.
    Mr. Grimond: Is the acting Prime Minister aware that the imposition of VAT, coupled with the returns required under the Government's prices and
    1696
    incomes policy, is placing an intolerable burden on the small shopkeeper and the small business, which makes the Labour Party look like the party of free enterprise and laissez-faire?
    Mr. Carr: I am glad, for the well-being of the country, that I am not acting Prime Minister.
    Of course, the introduction of a new tax of this kind causes difficulty. It would be foolish to deny that. But I believe, the Government believe, and I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman in particular would also believe that it is, on balance, a better form of indirect taxation than those it replaces, and that it will turn out to be so in practice.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the meetings arranged to explain the tax and its operation to small businessmen have not had the greatest regard to their needs, in terms of geography and timing? May that matter be looked into?
    Mr. Carr: Yes, indeed. I shall look into it. We all have our own local experiences. I have been impressed, from talking to small shopkeepers in my constituency, by the number of meetings that have been available for them to attend. Customs and Excise officers have already addressed about 7,500 meetings throughout the country, so the meetings have been pretty widespread.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Government take action over firms that are exploiting in advance the advent of VAT? For example, will they take action over the large advertisement for kitchen units that I am now holding, which states:
    "All the above units will go up by the full 10 per cent. on 1st April"?
    Nobody knows. Should not the Government do something about that kind of dishonest advertising?
    Mr. Carr: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs to specific cases. I am sure that he will deal with them very actively. There are specific powers in the Counter-Inflation Bill to enable price reductions to be ordered wherever it is

    1697
    proved that proper allowance has not been made for the abolition of the other two taxes and their replacement by the new one.
    Mr. Carterasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with co-ordination between the Government Departments involved in the introduction of value added tax.
    Mr. R. Carr: I have been asked to reply.
    No, Sir—I am sorry—Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Carter: If in the lifetime of the Government the European Economic Community seeks to harmonise rates of value added tax throughout the Community and to extend its coverage to food, will the Home Secretary, on behalf of the Government, assure the House and the country that the Government will use their veto to prevent such a move?
    Mr. Carr: In spite of my immediate demonstration of open-mindedness, I am afraid that I cannot be drawn on a hypothetical question of that nature.
    Mr. Healey: Will the Minister tell the House whether, in fixing the appropriate rate for prices after the introduction of VAT, the Department of Trade and Industry will insist on retailers maintaining a constant percentage margin rather than a constant cash margin? The Minister will be aware that this will make all the difference in the final relationship between VAT prices and pre-VAT prices?
    Mr. Carr: That is an important point, which I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it is not in my field. We have taken powers, in the Counter-Inflation Bill now before Parliament, to deal with this. We have also taken powers to extend the standstill until 29th April, to make easier the isolation of the examination and control of the effects of the introduction of VAT.
    Mr. Healey: With respect, the whole impact of VAT on the retail price index and the cost of living will depend on the Government's decision. Is the Prime Minister's deputy not in a position to give the House any decision on this matter a
    1698
    few weeks before the tax comes into effect?
    Mr. Carr: With my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about to introduce his Budget on Tuesday, in which he will have a great deal to say about VAT, I am well within the normal traditions in not being drawn in detail on this point.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Is my right hon. Friend not in agreement with the case that I have been putting, that there are serious anomalies in VAT? The Government are anxious to see as many houses built as possible, but is not my right hon. Friend aware that a person building a house for himself has to pay VAT on the materials whereas a person building a house for sale does not?
    Mr. Carr: There may well be some anomalies associated with VAT, as there are with any form of taxation that has ever been devised. I am sure that there are fewer anomalies associated with VAT than there are either with purchase tax or selective employment tax, which it replaces.

    DEAF CHILDREN
    Mr. Redmondasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Departments of Health and Social Security and Education and Science in respect of screening, referral, monitoring and education of deaf children.
    Mr. R. Carr: I have been asked to reply.
    Yes, Sir. A special inter-departmental examination is being made at the present time of the total pattern of services for the deaf.
    Mr. Redmond: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is he satisfied that the screening of young children is taking place at a sufficiently early stage to discover deafness and impairment of hearing in advance? Is he satisfied that all health visitors are carrying out the test properly? Is he also satisfied that deaf children are going to the best possible schools? Could not the inquiry cover all these points and look into the matter thoroughly?
    Mr. Carr: In general principle I am satisfied, because one of the regular functions of health visitors is to screen children from the age of six months. Health visitors are given specific instructions in this matter. The same is true in schools. I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is aware of any general shortage of places, bearing in mind that wherever possible these children should not be separated in special schools because such hearing as they have ought to be encouraged by contact with ordinary children. Nevertheless, I believe that over many years this country has failed to appreciate the tremendous handicap of deafness, as compared with some other disabilities. That is why this review of total facilities and needs is going on.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: Will the right hon. Gentleman pay particular attention to the needs of deaf children in rural areas? I have in mind particularly the problem, for example, in rural Wales. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people sometimes have to travel up to 100 miles to a screening centre? Will he look carefully into the position to ensure that facilities for screening, education and training are provided much nearer the locality which they are intended to serve?
    Mr. Carr: Rural areas with dispersed populations always provide difficulties, and not only in this connection. I shall certainly see that the hon. Gentleman's point about rural Wales is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Burden: Will my right hon. Friend extend the review of co-ordination to mentally handicapped children, many of whom are still not being properly schooled and who are just as much in need as deaf children? Is he aware that this is a very serious problem, since these children were brought into the educational service only in 1971? There ought to be co-ordination throughout.
    Mr. Carr: I shall certainly take account of my hon. Friend's point. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, and certainly all of those cognisant of these problems, must accept that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has an outstanding record in this respect.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on this subject we are about five years behind the times in co-ordination between the Health and Education Departments? Does he realise that as a result of technological breakthrough it is now possible for testing to be carried out at the age of three months, but that the proper machinery is not available here? Is he further aware that the whole question of the way in which the service should be given to deaf children has lagged behind for the last 10 years? Will he get a little bit of expedition into this matter?
    Mr. Carr: I have made clear before that I believe that this country has lagged behind in the attention paid to deafness. I first became personally aware of this when I became a junior Minister at the Ministry of Labour and realised how much more difficult it was to find jobs for deaf people as compared with blind persons.

    FACTORY CLOSURES
    Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment in regard to factory closures.
    Mr. R. Carr: I have been asked to reply.
    Yes, Sir. There is close co-operation between the two Departments, at both regional and headquarters levels.
    Mr. Molloy: Greater London would not agree with that reply. It is that sort of languid—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should not preface a question with a statement. May we have a question?
    Mr. Molloy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that languid and complacent reply in no way helps the situation in the metropolis generally and West Middlesex particularly? Is he further aware that many firms are moving out, creating many problems, and that despite repeated requests to Government Departments nothing much has been done to help? Will he be good enough to convey to the Prime Minister the concern of the people of greater London and West Middlesex particularly about this problem on their doorsteps?
    Mr. Carr: Local problems are always caused when a firm closes down and moves elsewhere. What I am aware of is that in the Ealing district and the greater London area generally the number of unfilled male vacancies has more than doubled in the past year, and unemployment is at present at the rate of 1·6 per cent.
    Mr. Molloy: There are much lower wages.
    Mr. Carr: I am also aware that it has been the policy of successive Governments to do their best to attract industry to the development regions where there are major unemployment problems. When we are successful in doing that I would hope that we would have the support of all sides of the House, and not criticism.
    Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the South-East and elsewhere there are many people who, if they wanted to work, could jolly well find it?
    Mr. Carr: In some parts of the country that is true, but in other parts, alas, it is not. That is the reason for a strong regional policy, and that is why we ought to welcome—while regretting the temporary difficulty caused in the hon. Member's constituency, and in neighbouring districts—the movement of the one firm that I expect he has particularly in mind to a development area.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that when he was Secretary of State for Employment he advised Londoners to retrain for clerical work if factories closed? Is he further aware that in the last 11 years London has lost 440,000 manual jobs? Should he not review his ideas and advise employers in London not to close down their factories if we are to maintain a balance between manual trades and clerical workers?
    Mr. Carr: All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that there is no sign of a shortage of jobs in the London area at the moment. There are increasing facilities for training and retraining, which is most important. We must take an overall national view of this and welcome the dispersal of manufacturing industry to those areas of the country where it has been the policy of successive Governments to try to attract it.
    Mr. David Steel: Since the Government have taken powers to help substantial "lame ducks" will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that the machinery will be used for the small "lame ducklings", one of which I drew to the attention of the Department of Trade and Industry this afternoon?
    Mr. Carr: As Home Secretary I am responsible for wild birds, but I am not sure about "lame ducks". One thing I do know is that the firm whose move I believe has given rise to this question is far from being a "lame duck".

    PAKISTAN
    Mr. Kaufmanasked the Prime Minister whether he will seek to pay an official visit to Pakistan.
    Mr. R. Carr: I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to visit Pakistan.
    Mr. Kaufman: When the Government communicate with the President of Pakistan will they assure him, in the name of humanity, of the strong feeling in this country that the 94,000 Pakistani prisoners of war being held by India should be unconditionally and immediately released? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that that point of view will also be put forcefully to the Indian Government?
    Mr. Carr: I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government, like everyone in the House, want to see these prisoners of war repatriated as soon as possible. I do not want to say anything today which might make that more difficult.
    Mr. Wilkinson: As the spirit of Simla has not yet extended to the repatriation of prisoners of war, may I ask my right hon. Friend to suggest a trilateral meeting in London, particularly since the consent of Bangladesh is regarded by the Indians as a sine qua non for the release of the prisoners?
    Mr. Carr: I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's suggestion to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. I would not

    1703
    wish to pre-judge his view. In situations like this, calling conferences outside the area concerned sometimes hardens attitudes rather than softens them.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to tell Mr. Bhutto that he should accept the realities of the situation and recognise Bangladesh, so that the Pakistani soldiers now being detained in India could be returned? Is he further aware that, in addition, hundreds of thousands of Bangalees who are kept in Pakistan would be allowed to return home? That would be the solution.
    Mr. Carr: This is clearly a complex and controversial problem. I want to avoid saying anything which might make the repatriation of prisoners more difficult.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Although this is a complicated problem, does not my right hon. Friend accept that if the prisoners are retained for much longer relations between India and Pakistan may be poisoned for a generation? Does he agree that the Government should take advantage of the good will we have with both countries to try to promote discussions between them?
    Mr. Carr: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall use any good relations we have with both these countries which might help them to a settlement. It is very much in the interests of the Indian subcontinent, as well as of the poor people directly involved, that this problem should be solved.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 5TH MARCH—Debate on a motion to take note of the Consultative Document on the Price and Pay Code (Command No. 5247).
Motion relating to the Restriction on Remuneration Order.
1704
TUESDAY, 6TH MARCH—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget Statement.
At seven o'clock the Chairman has named opposed private business for consideration.
WEDNESDAY, 7TH MARCH and THURSDAY, 8TH MARCH—Continuation of the Budget debate.
FRIDAY, 9TH MARCH—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY, 12TH MARCH—Conclusion of the debate on the Budget Statement.
Mr. Wilson: May we expect soon a debate in Government time on the First Report from the Select Committee on European Community Secondary Legislation? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the importance of this subject as so much of the control of this House has passed from the House and an attempt is being made to stem the further flow. When can we expect a debate in Government time on this important report?
Mr. Prior: I am sure that the House is grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) and to all the other hon. and right hon. Members who form the Committee for their quick report. I will consider the question of a debate, but it will be difficult in the immediate period ahead of us, for reasons which the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate. That need not hold up the implementation of certain of the recommendations that have been made. I should like to discuss whether we can consider that before we have a debate, although I accept that it will be necessary to have a debate.
Mr. Wilson: The House understands that we cannot interfere with the Budget debate and one or two other priority matters, but if the Government want to proceed with implementation of any part of the recommendations without hearing the House on them, we should at least expect a statement from the right hon. Gentleman about them. There should be consultation, in advance of the debate, not only through the usual channels but between the Government and back benchers of all parties about whether that procedure is acceptable.
Mr. Prior: I fully accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. I wish to do what is for the convenience of the House. I do not wish to delay for one moment the implementation of any of the recommendations that the House would wish to accept, although I think the House recognises that the time for debate in the next week or two is very limited. Perhaps we can discuss this through the usual channels and other parts of the House and see how we get on.
Sir D. Renton: In arranging future business, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is essential that we should have the long-awaited first report of the Population Panel before we proceed to a Second Reading of the Bill dealing with the reorganisation of the National Health Service?
Mr. Prior: I will bear in mind what my right hon. and learned Friend says. I am not certain that it will be possible, but I should like to consider it.
Dr. Summerskill: Will the right hon. Gentleman provide time for an urgent debate on the wage claim of the low-paid hospital workers, in view of Motion 175?
[That this House deplores the refusal of the Government (which admits the grave injustice done to hospital workers compared with other low-paid workers) to assist them in their claim for an extra £4 per week on basic wages; and regards the contemptible offer of £1·84 per week as totally inadequate to cope with the high cost of living and the poverty trap.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hospitals are faced with unprecedented industrial action, a situation which has been aggravated and exacerbated by a contentious letter from the Secretary of State for Social Services which has been placed in the pay packets of hospital employees?
Mr. Prior: I cannot see an early opportunity for debate. I hope that the whole House will join in the pleas for normal working to be resumed, as the wages increase offered to the hospital workers comprises at least £2 a week for male workers and £1·88 for female workers—an 11 per cent. wage increase. That considerable increase is available to them within a fortnight.
Mr. Kimball: Will my right hon. Friend say whether in the course of next week's business his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be giving the House the annual determination of agricultural prices? May we have an assurance that it will not leak from Brussels before it is announced to the House of Commons?
Mr. Prior: I think it is very unlikely that my right hon. Friend will be in a position to make a statement next week. We may still be about two weeks away from it.
Mr. Kaufman: Will there be a statement next week on Government rate aid to the great cities?
Hon. Members: Or tomorrow?
Mr. Prior: There will be no statement tomorrow. Discussions and consultations have been going on, and my right hon. Friend will announce his decision to the House at the earliest possible moment.
Mrs. Knight: Will my right hon. Friend taking note of the growing tide of opinion on both sides of the House about the plight of the 93,000 Pakistani prisoners still held in India, consider the possibility of a debate on this subject before too long?
Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend will have heard the views of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary at Question Time. I do not want to go any further than he did in promising a statement or a debate.
Mr. John Silkin: Further to the reply of the Leader of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) about Motion 175, is the right hon Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for Social Services in the letter quoted by my hon. Friend told the hospital ancillary workers that they had a right to be disappointed that they were not receiving as much as local government workers in the same group? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the letter is placed in the Library, and will he reconsider his ideas on an early debate?
Mr. Prior: I see no reason why the letter should not be placed in the Library, and I shall see to it that that happens. The contents of the letter could be looked at in stage 2 for implementation in stage

1707
3, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends will join in seeking to bring about a quick and speedy return to full working in the hospitals so that nobody in hospital suffers.
Mr. McMaster: Is the Leader of the House aware that in the past eight days in Northern Ireland four soldiers and one policeman have been murdered, and that it is now a year since Her Majesty's Government assumed sole responsibility for law and order in Northern Ireland? Will he arrange an early debate on the security situation in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Prior: We all very much regret what is still happening to our forces in Northern Ireland in carrying out their tasks in very difficult circumstances, but I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early debate. Before the end of this month the House will have to approve a draft order to extend the legislation, and that will provide a full opportunity for a debate.
Mr. Charles R. Morris: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the splendid editorial which appeared in the Evening Standard on 28th February and which argued a lucid case for an inquiry into the future of television and broadcasting? Does he recall that we have now had the Cockburn Report and the Report from the Select Committee on the subject of the IBA? Despite the undertakings he has given in recent weeks, can he now indicate when we are likely to have a statement or debate on this subject?
Mr. Prior: The Government's reply will be available within the next week or so, and we had better wait until that comes out.
Dame Irene Ward: Could my right hon. Friend find out from the Minister for Local Government and Development when he will lay the promised order, which he announced to me and to several of my hon. Friends that he intends to lay, with regard to the freedoms already granted by local authorities and enjoyed by Territorial units to continue after the Local Government Bill comes into operation? We are anxiously awaiting that order. I am very keen about the privileges—and their future—granted to the
1708
Territorials in my area, and I am not at all pleased that we have not yet had sight of the promised order. When I telephoned the relevant office yesterday, I was asked whether I would write again and I said that I would not. I want an answer.
Mr. Prior: I will take up at once my hon. Friend's request, and I am certain that her views are strongly felt in all parts of the House.
Mr. Harold Walker: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the important Robens Report on Safety and Health at Work was published in July last year, and does he appreciate that the House is still awaiting an opportunity to let the Minister know its views? Will he assure the House that we shall have an opportunity to debate that report before the Government publish their proposals arising from it, and that we shall be able to discuss this matter at an early date?
Mr. Prior: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should have a debate on the Robens Report. I should like to consider the question whether it would suit the convenience of the House that my right hon. Friend should make a statement before the debate. A debate will have to take place before there is any question of legislation.
Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Has my right hon. Friend seen the early day motion which is in the name of the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), myself and others concerning the removal of Anglia Television from the East Anglia area? Will he consider a half-day debate on this subject so that this issue can be decided by a free vote of the House'?
[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to institute an immediate inquiry into the arbitrary decision of the Independent Broadcasting Authority to transfer the Belmont transmitter from Anglia Television to Trident Television and thus deprive consumers in an area stretching from Humberside to Essex of a service which they wish to retain, a wish in which they are strongly supported by the local authorities in the area, by amenity and other public bodies and by all the Members of Parliament representing constituencies in the area.]
Mr. Prior: I see no opportunity for a debate in Government time on this important matter. Because I have a constituency interest, I feel that I should not comment any further.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Some time ago the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House promised my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) a debate on the Report by the Committee of Privileges on the subject of the designation and title of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Lord Lambton). In view of that promise, may we have an assurance that before that debate is held all the relevant papers and letters will be made available to hon. Members?
Mr. Prior: I cannot give the assurance for which the hon. Gentleman asked in the last part of his question because I do not think that it lies within my authority to do so. As for the earlier part of his remarks on whether we should have a debate, I have been hoping that we might reach a satisfactory conclusion to this matter without having to take up the time of the House. I still believe that that would be the best way of trying to settle this difficult issue.
Mr. Marten: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Report of the Select Committee on Secondary Legislation in the EEC is important but that it is only a very interim report and does not go to the heart of the matter? Although so many draft regulations are now being churned out by Brussels, there has not yet been any opportunity to debate these matters on the Floor of the House—which is the place where they must be debated. May we have my right hon. Friend's view on whether he can afford at some time before Easter at least an opportunity for the House to debate many of these important issues?
Mr. Prior: I know that there are strong views on this matter and I shall carefully consider what my hon. Friend said. If there are opportunities available between now and Easter, I shall see whether we can make them available. Perhaps my hon. Friend and other hon. Members would like to come and have a further talk with me to see whether we can arrange something.
Mr. Clinton Davis: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Home Secretary will be making an early statement, as he has promised, on the recent and tragic India House incident and about the use of firearms by the police?
Mr. Prior: I know that my right hon. Friend has in mind his undertaking to give the House further information when this is possible.
Mr. Jessel: Will my right hon. Friend try to find time between now and the Summer Recess to debate the Layfield Report on the Greater London Development Plan in view of the effect which those proposals could have on the environment of one-seventh of the country's population?
Mr. Prior: That is a very important report. I cannot find time within the next few weeks but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend said.
Mr. Pavitt: In view of today's hospital stoppages, may I press the right hon. Gentleman further on Early Day Motion 1975 which was mentioned by my hon. and qualified Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill)? Is he aware that the amount being offered to the loyal people who work in our hospitals is a basic sum of £17·84 per week? If he cannot find time for the House to debate this subject next week, will he ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to come to the House to make a statement about the current position in the hospitals?
Mr. Prior: I do not think any section of society has as much to gain from the Government's prices and incomes policy as do the lower paid, among whom are some personnel in the National Health Service. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will join in supporting the Government's policy and in urging those staff back to work.
Mr. McLaren: Will there be any time next week or next year in which to announce the membership of the conference on electoral reform?
Mr. Prior: I presume that my hon. Friend is referring to the conference which it is intended to set up under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker. I am afraid that at this stage I having nothing to

1711
add to the information that is available to hon. Members.
Mr. David Stoddart: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to Early Day Motion 202, which has been signed by a substantial number of hon. Members and calls for an inquiry into the plight of physically and mentally-handicapped children in long-stay hospitals? Will he arrange an early debate on this important subject and will he consult the Secretary of State for Social Services and ask him to come to the House to make a statement on the future of these unfortunate children?
[That this House expresses concern at the plight of the many thousands of physically- and mentally-handicapped children at present living in long-stay hospitals; notes that large numbers of these children are in hospital on custodial rather than medical grounds; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to institute an inquiry into the conditions and quality of life of these unfortunate children and the suitability of their present environment.]
Mr. Prior: Again I cannot promise any time for a debate in the near future, but the Government are very much aware of the need to improve the quality of life in these hospitals. In the last two and a half years my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has done a tremendous amount for these hospitals and for these children. I will ask him whether there is any further statement he can make at this stage.
Mr. Kilfedder: Can my right hon. Friend say when we shall have an opportunity to debate the Report of the Diplock Commission recommending certain changes in the penal and legal system in Northern Ireland? When the debate is actually upon us, will it be wide enough to take in a discussion on the urgent need to provide a permanent new prison in Northern Ireland to replace the temporary prison at the Maze—preferably not in my constituency but elsewhere? Finally, can my right hon. Friend persuade the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement about the deplorable killings of members of the security forces—we had one yesterday—who act as "lollypop" men taking children to and from school?
Mr. Prior: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced acceptance in principle of the Diplock Commission's recommendations, and legislation to give effect to them is unlikely to be long delayed.
Mr. Faulds: Would the Leader of the House be good enough to inform the House for its convenience whether the Private Member's motion on the new parliamentary building remains the first business for Friday week?
Mr. Prior: I understand that this will remain the first business. My hon. Friend has put down a motion today, and it will be taken as first business next Friday. But I ought to tell the House that it is not my wish that the House should reach on a Friday such an important decision affecting the future, as many hon. Members would like to be here to take part perhaps on another day.
Mr. Sydney Chapman: On the subject of the debate a week tomorrow on the new parliamentary building, will my right hon. Friend arrange for the model of the new building to be on display on the Floor of the House if that is within his competence and if it is not, will my right hon. Friend take up this request with the appropriate authorities since it might be helpful to have it on display during the debate?
Mr. Prior: It has been on display upstairs for a long while. I do not think that the House will want to see it displayed on the Floor of the House for that day, and I do not think that I could entertain that suggestion. Indeed, it would get me into an awful lot of trouble if I did.
Mr. Wallace: Leaving aside any question of the industrial dispute in the hospitals, is the Leader of the House aware that hospital groups are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit adequate ancillary staff, especially for domestic duties, in order to carry on hospital services and that, as a result, services are being decreased while the work of nurses is being increased due to the abysmally low wages paid to such staff?
Mr. Prior: These are all matters which are very relevant to what I have been saying.
Mr. Stallard: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to Early Day Motion 214, signed by a substantial number of Members, dealing with the London teachers' allowance? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the difficulties that many schools in London face in recruiting adequate staff because of housing problems and the cost of living generally? May we have an early debate on this very serious subject?
[That this House fully supports the National Union of Teachers in Their demand for an increase in the London teachers' allowance; is gravely concerned at the serious effect on the education of London's schoolchildren, caused by the abnormally high turn-over of teaching staff, due, inter-alia, to the scandalously rocketing price of the ever-decreasing stock of rented accommodation; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to allow free negotiations on this allowance to recommence immediately.]
Mr. Prior: We all regret the disruption caused to London schools because of strikes. The Government believe that it is right that the London allowance, as part of pay, should be subject to phase 2. But, subject to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, discussion of this matter will be in order in Monday's debate.
Mr. Atkinson: As we move towards phase 2 of the prices and pay policy, does the Leader of the House agree that the Government will have to issue an increasing number of orders preventing employers meeting their wage debts to their workers? Does the right hon. Gentleman foresee a situation where he makes time available during normal hours to debate the orders, or will he prefer those debates to go on throughout each night?
Mr. Prior: No. Sir. I do not foresee that situation. I believe that the vast majority of people will co-operate fully and voluntarily with the Government's proposals.
Mr. English: Is the Leader of the House aware that I am grateful to him for ensuring as from last Wednesday, after
1714
two months, that I now receive regularly the Official Journal of the Communities and even the back numbers, barring a statement which says:
"Nummer ein-und-dreissig ist noch nicht geliefert."
Mrs. Renée Short: Das ist sehr schwer!
Mr. English: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that they are read in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as well?
Mr. Prior: I am always obliged for any thanks that I receive from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us hope that he does not underestimate the importance of an early decision on the new parliamentary building? Many hon. Members and their secretaries have atrocious conditions and amenities in which to carry on their difficult tasks. I hope that an early decision will be made by this House.
Mr. Prior: I hope that my hon. Friend will be here on Friday week to take part in the debate.
Mr. Winterton: I shall be.

BILL PRESENTED
  EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
  Mr. M. Macmillan, supported by Mr. Carr, Mrs. Thatcher, Mr. G. Campbell, Mr. Peter Walker, Mr. Peter Thomas, Mr. Godber and Mr. Higgins presented a Bill to establish public authorities concerned with arrangements for persons to obtain employment and with arrangements for training for employment and to make provision as to the functions of the authorities; to authorise the Secretary of State to provide temporary employment for unemployed persons; to amend the Industrial Training Act 1964 and the law relating to the provision by education authorities of services relating to employment; and for purposes connected with those matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and be printed. [Bill 82.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.55 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The bulk of the Bill relates to improving the administration of summary justice throughout the country and it eliminates unnecessary and cumbersome machinery. There are also a number of provisions in Part II which clarify and correct parts of the machinery of justice. This is a practice followed by successive Lord Chancellors, and it has its advantages and disadvantages, some of which have been the subject of criticism in the past. However, the opportunity is taken to include these provisions in the Bill.
  I do not pretend that a debate on a Bill of this kind can be considered as being anything other than technical and perhaps dull. However, I believe that it will greatly improve the administration of justice.
  Part I deals with justices and the administration of summary justice. I shall have to go through the Bill without being able to demonstrate any theme, save that of the magistracy which appears in Part I.
  Clause 1 simplifies the procedure for the appointment of justices of the peace. Justices are at present appointed by having their names inserted in a commission of the peace at the direction of the Lord Chancellor or of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the County Palatine.
  There are at present 211 commissions of the peace in England and Wales: one for each administrative county, one for each of the larger or older boroughs, and six for London.
  These commissions are in the custody of officials in the respective local areas to which they apply, and whenever a new justice is appointed, or an existing justice is removed from the commission the document has to be sent to the Lord Chancellor's Office for the name to be inscribed or deleted.
  1716
  The Bill seeks to avoid this time-consuming and uneconomic operation by providing that in future commissions of the peace shall be addressed generally to all persons holding office as justices for the commission area and that it shall no longer contain the name of each individual justice.
  New justices will be appointed on behalf and in the name of Her Majesty by instrument under the hand of the Lord Chancellor or the Chancellor of the Duchy who is also empowered to remove them from office in like manner. The original instrument will be kept in the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, and copies will be distributed to the local officials concerned.
  This change in procedure will not involve any alteration in the present system whereby justices serve on a local basis and are appointed by the Lord Chancellor on the recommendation of local advisory committees.
  This is a convenient time to revise the system of commissions of the peace because the areas of commissions will be drastically altered when the Local Government Act 1972 comes into operation next year. All the borough commissions will be abolished and will be merged in commissions for the new county areas. It will become necessary therefore to issue new commissions of the peace in any event for virtually every area throughout the country.
  Clause 1 also provides for the supplemental list to which justices are transferred on retirement, to be consolidated into a single list instead of being kept separately for each county. It provides that a justice may continue to sit and adjudicate in the Crown Court despite the fact that his name is on the supplemental list, provided that he has not attained the age of 72. At present the compulsory retiring age is 70 and this will still apply to justices sitting in the courts of summary jurisdiction, but the provision in the Bill is intended to enable experienced justices, who have plenty of time at their disposal, to serve for a further two years in the Crown Court.
  There is difficulty at the present time in finding experienced, justices able to give the required time to the Crown Court and it is hoped that this will improve that position. The Lord Chancellor's

  1717
  specific authority, however, will be required before a justice who is on the supplemental list may serve beyond the age of 70.
  Finally, Clause 1 abolishes the anomaly whereby the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police are justices ex officio. Although these officers may not sit in court, or adjudicate in any court, their authority is derived from their position on the Commission of the Peace. The Bill removes this anachronistic arrangement so that in future neither the Commissioner nor the Assistant Commissioner will need to be justices.
  Clause 2, as the House will appreciate, deals with the appointment of stipendiary magistrates in the provinces. The present position is that a stipendiary can be appointed outside London only if a local authority petitions for such an appointment. Moreover, the stipendiary's salary is now paid by the local authority concerned, although the rate is fixed by the Lord Chancellor, and that clearly would appear to be wrong in principle. The administration of justice is a central government function and stipendiaries should serve wherever it is in the interests of the administration of justice that they should do so. The Bill provides, therefore, that the Crown, on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, may appoint stipendiary magistrates in any Commission area or areas outside inner London and the City where their services may be required, and their salaries will be borne by the Consolidated Fund.
  Sir Elwyn Jones: Are there any indications of refusals by local authorities to appoint stipendiaries when in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor's Office, such stipendiaries should be appointed, and is this the secret of this interesting provision in the Bill?
  The Attorney-General: Things which are secret ought to remain secret if they are to serve any purpose. The principle is one we are mainly seeking to correct because a local authority may feel hesitant about making a recommendation if it realises it has to bear the cost, and since the cost ought to be borne by central government, once this power is taken there can be no hesitation on the
  1718
  part of any local authority in making its representations.
  As the right hon. and learned Gentleman sees and appreciates, the Bill imposes a limit of 60 on the number of stipendiaries who may be appointed in inner London—the present limit is 40 and there are now 39 in office—and it also limits to 40 the number of stipendiaries who may be appointed in the provinces where there are at present 11. That was a subject of discussion in another place and I should like to make clear to this House, as my noble and learned Friend did in the other place, my devotion and admiration for the lay magistracy on which so much of the administration of justice falls, as we well know. Secondly, there is no intention of appointing more than one or two additional stipendiaries in the foreseeable future and, equally certainly, no intention of replacing the lay justices by a system of professional magistrates.
  The clause also enables the Lord Chancellor to appoint temporary stipendiary magistrates. This is intended inter alia—but still intended—to meet a point which the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) has raised with me on various occasions and it is one which has been stressed by him and also by others. It was felt there was a need for temporary stipendiaries to be appointed from time to time especially to deal with long committals where the lay justices would not be available to sit for a number of days consecutively.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman departs from that point, I am grateful to him for the introduction of this provision but would be give the House some indication of the procedure that would be followed in suggesting to the Lord Chancellor that a temporary stipendiary should be appointed? Would it be done by way of application to the court and then left to the court to make a recommendation, or what would be the procedure?
  The Attorney-General: Speaking straight away, off the cuff, I should have thought that where a court sees, for instance, that there is coming into its list a matter which is going to take a long time, a very long committal—and in

  1719
  order to appreciate that it needs the assistance of those who practise in those courts, to advise them on it—that court would apply to the Lord Chancellor's Office for this extra help. I am sure the clerk of any court would welcome the assistance of practitioners to give them forewarning. Certainly, that would be done on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
  Clause 3 enables the Lord Chancellor to provide courses of instruction for justices of the peace. The training of justices is of paramount importance in view of the ever-increasing volume and complexity of their work, as the House well knows. At present training is administered by the local magistrates' courts committees, subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor. This Bill does not relieve the Committees of that responsibility but it enables the Lord Chancellor to step in and supplement local schemes of training if he thinks this desirable.
  Clause 4 amends the law as to the right of solicitors who are justices of the peace to practise before the courts. The Solicitors Act 1957 precludes a solicitor who is a justice, and any of his partners, from acting in connection with any proceedings before any justices who are on the same commission of the peace as himself. This means that where a solicitor is a justice for a county neither he nor any of his partners may practise before any of the magistrates' courts within that county. It has been found in practice that this restriction has inhibited a number of solicitors who might make excellent justices from accepting appointment because of the effect it would have upon the practice of their firm throughout the whole of a county area. As a consequence of local government reorganisation and of the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill, the areas will become even larger than they are at present.
  The Bill accordingly limits the disqualification to the area of the petty sessional division for which the solicitor/justice ordinarily acts. A provision to like effect but not in similar terms was contained in the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill which failed to pass in the last Session of Parliament. Clause 5 contains consequential amendments on that and that part of the Bill which deals with the magistracy, both lay and professional.
  1720
  I turn now to Part II which is properly under the title "Miscellaneous". The object of Clause 6 is to adjust the jurisdiction of the county court to take a proper account of the revaluation of property for rating. As has already been announced, the new valuation lists were deposited with local authorities towards the end of last year. They show that rateable values—not rents, I emphasise—will go up on average by about 250 per cent. These increases will take effect on 1st April.
  As the jurisdiction of the county court in relation to land largely depends on the rateable value of the property in question, the provisions governing the jurisdiction of the court must obviously be altered if many cases now within the jurisdiction are not to be excluded and have to be otherwise transferred to the High Court. Clause 6 of the Bill makes the necessary amendment.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: In fact, if one looks at the schedule one sees that the figures involved are, I believe, 1,000 per cent. Can the Attorney-General explain whether there is some other factor apart from that he has mentioned?
  The Attorney-General: I am coming to that. When I first looked I shared the hon. and learned Gentleman's reaction. I am going to explain if I may, what is the answer to that question, but if I might complete this part first, the county court has jurisdiction at present in actions for the recovery of land whose net annual value for rating does not exceed £400. Under the Bill this figure will be raised to £1,000. That matter is set out in Part I of Schedule 2.
  The figures shown in the column headed "Amendments" are those originally prescribed in the statutes specified. Looking to the left we see that the statutes are the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and the County Court Act 1959. These figures were increased fourfold in 1963 and the amendments are now being made with reference to the original figures, not to the amended figures in 1963. If we do not take into account the amendments made in 1963, it would be as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested, but there have been these amendments. Therefore, it is two and a half times rather than what appears to be 1,000 per cent.

  1721
  Power is being taken to make further increases in the provisions about county court jurisdiction relating to land by Order in Council which will have to be approved by each House of Parliament in draft. There is already power under Section 192 of the County Courts Act 1959 to increase county court jurisdiction in most other matters by Order in Council.
  Clause 7, which corrects a matter which obviously needs correction, is designed to ensure that the mortgagor who has defaulted in making repayment shall not lose his home if he can pay off the arrears within a reasonable time. Until 1961 it had been the usual practice of the court, in a proper case, to grant a mortgagor, against whom a claim for possession was made by his mortgagee, an adjournment or series of adjournments to enable him to discharge the arrears and so avoid losing his property. But in 1961 the practice was reviewed by the court and was held to have no foundation in law, so an order for possession could only be deferred with the agreement of the mortgagee.
  The Payne Committee on the Enforcement of Judgment Debts considered this matter and recommended that the pre-1961 practice should be restored. Section 36 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 was intended to implement this recommendation. But two Homers, in the persons of the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South on this side and myself in Opposition, must have nodded because that Act did not have the effect that we envisaged. In April last year the Vice-Chancellor decided that, in a case where on default the whole capital sum became immediately repayable, the power of the court under Section 36 to delay ordering possession could be exercised only if it appeared that the mortgagor could repay the whole capital sum within a reasonable period. As it would be highly unlikely that the mortgagor could do so, as it was such a short period, the position has almost reverted to what it was before the 1970 Act. Therefore, Clause 7 provides that when the court is asked to exercise its powers under the 1970 Act it will be allowed to treat as due under the mortgage only the amount which the mortgagor would ordinarily
  1722
  have had to pay if the mortgage had run in the normal way.
  Subsection (3) deals with a technical matter. Section 36 of the 1970 Act does not apply to a foreclosure action in which a claim for possession of the mortgaged dwelling house is also made. In 1970 it was considered that the length of time which foreclosure proceedings normally take to complete provided sufficient protection to the mortgagor and it was not necessary to give him the additional safeguards which would be available where possession was sought.
  There have been indications that some types of mortgagee are now seeking foreclosure in preference to possession. We therefore think that it would be desirable now to adopt the view of the Payne Committee and to apply, with certain modifications, the powers available under Section 36.
  Clause 8 deals with judicial salaries. At present the salaries of the higher judiciary can be increased by Order in Council, subject to a draft of the Order being approved by each House of Parliament. There has been a need, which has been met by successive Governments, for more frequent revision of judicial salaries. For 120 years, between 1832 and 1965, there were only two increases, both of which were effected by Act of Parliament. The Order in Council procedure was introduced in 1965 and was used in 1970 and in 1972. Under the Courts Act an Order in Council is not required to increase the salaries of circuit judges. These can be determined by the Lord Chancellor with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service.
  Mr. David Weitzman: Does that mean that these salaries may be determined without reference to the House? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that this is a grave restraint upon the powers of criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis).
  The Attorney-General: That may be an incidental blessing for the Law Officer concerned. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates, first, that the salaries of circuit judges can be determined by the Lord Chancellor in that

  1723
  way, and, secondly, that procedure prevented increases being given retrospective effect which could be done for other public servants. That means that an order had to be brought in at a particular time which may prove inconvenient and difficult. It is therefore considered right that the salaries of the higher judiciary should be dealt with in a similar way to the salaries of other higher public servants. The power conferred by the clause is only to increase salaries. There is no question of eroding judicial independence by a Ministerial decision to reduce the salaries of judges.
  The clause is concerned only with the machinery for altering judicial salaries. It does not effect any change in the salaries. Subsection (2) expressly provides that until otherwise determined judges and stipendiary magistrates shall receive the same salaries until variations are made under the clause.
  Clause 9 dispenses with the cumbersome and inconvenient method of granting pensions to the higher judiciary by Letters Patent. This makes it necessary to restate the relevant statutory provisions in terms of a direct entitlement to a pension instead of a discretionary grant. This restatement is set out in Schedule 3. No change is made in the substance of the law, judicial pensions remain at the same level, and are payable on the same conditions.
  Clause 10, which is large in extent, deals with a problem which fortunately rarely arises, but has arisen, and for which there is no effective solution at present.
  If a judge of the Supreme Court or a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary is disabled by illness—for example, a stroke or perhaps a car accident—from performing his duties, his incapacity may be so severe that he is also physically unable to resign or express any intention of resigning although it is only too obvious that he cannot carry on. In those circumstances there is at present no way in which the judge's office can be vacated so allowing a successor to be appointed and a pension paid to the incapacitated judge.
  In these days of extreme pressure on judicial time it is not desirable that a
  1724
  judge should remain in office when he is unable to perform his duties indefinitely. Therefore, it is proposed that if the Lord Chancellor is satisfied by medical evidence that a judge is disabled by permanent infirmity from the performance of his duties he may declare the judge's office vacant. However, there is the safeguard, if that is the right way to express it, that there must be the concurrence of another senior judge.
  For example, if a disabled judge is a puisne judge of the Queen's Bench Division, the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice will be necessary. If he is a member of the Court of Appeal, the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls will be required. If the judge concerned is the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division or the Vice-Chancellor, the concurrence of two of those members of the judiciary will be required.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: I am puzzled why it was thought necessary or desirable to put in subsection (1) the words,
  "is for the time being incapacitated from resigning."
  If the judge is disabled by permanent infirmity from the performance of the duties of his office, surely that must be enough and embraces the phrase that follows. Is not the difficulty where the judge is disabled by permanent infirmity from performing his duties, but may refuse to resign or think that he will get better and simply not do so? That does not seem to be covered.
  The Attorney-General: I shall certainly look at that. The provision is meant to deal with a person who is so disabled, for instance, as not to be able even to indicate his desire to resign and also with someone who is suffering from a permanent infirmity. I shall certainly look at the wording of Clause 10(1) to make sure that what I think the whole House believes to be a sensible provision is accurately set out.
  Clause 11 provides pensions for presidents of pensions appeals tribunals. Important work is done by such presidents' and legislation relating to these tribunals does not provide for a pension to be paid to a president, his widow and children. This clause will enable a pension to be paid to future presidents and also for

  1725
  future loss of office by a future president. It is desirable to have this power at this time.
  Clause 12 is simply to allow the Lord Chancellor to appoint as a deputy circuit judge a solicitor of 10 years' standing. It would be desirable for the Lord Chancellor to be able to do this to test the judicial qualities of a solicitor who has applied for a recordership or to make use of a suitably qualified solicitor where illness or congestion of business makes it expedient for the Lord Chancellor, as a temporary measure, to appoint a deputy circuit judge to dispose of judicial business. Under Section 21 of the Courts Act, a barrister or a solicitor of at least 10 years' standing is qualified for appointment as a recorder. It is anomalous that a solicitor should not—like a barrister—be qualified for appointment as a deputy circuit judge, and Clause 12 does no more than correct a deficiency in Section 24 of the Courts Act.
  Clause 13 gives power to the Lord Chancellor to appoint deputy district registrars of the High Court and deputy county court registrars when pressure of business makes it necessary to do so as a temporary measure.
  I have taken the House through the Bill, I am afraid at considerable length, although I hope with not too much tedium. The Bill comprises a collection of matters which I hope it will be agreed will be of great help in the administration of justice. I hope that the House will approve the Bill so that these improvements may be made.
  4.22 p.m.
  Sir Elwyn Jones: I recollect that when I occupied the seat now occupied by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and it fell to me to introduce measures of this kind there was invariably criticism of "piecemeal reform" and "rag-bag legislation". The seats are now temporarily exchanged and it is now for me to make such observations, but actually I have never thought of Bills of this kind as rag-bags. Rather they are lucky dips and sometimes one finds useful things in them and sometimes they contribute little to the reform of the law. Certainly this is an extremely modest measure, save for the historic importance of Clause 8. I think it a pity that opportunity was not taken to put far more into the Bill than it contains.
  1726
  We are grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his lucid explanation of the Bill. He has pointed out that the first Part deals with justices of the peace. We on this side of the House think it high time that we had a "Beeching look" at the adminstration of magistrates' courts. We think there is a powerful case for proposing that they should be centrally administered by the Lord Chancellor's Department and that their areas of jurisdiction should be more closely allied to the new Crown Court structure than to local government administration. Last year the Government decided against such a change, but I think they do not regard this as settled for all time, or even for a short time of their duration in office.
  The great lesson of Beeching was that the administration of justice should be recognised as a central government responsibility. That would be no more than an extension of the trend since the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873, which created the pattern for the higher civil courts. The county courts have always had this degree of central control and administration. The Beeching recommendations brought the criminal court system into line with that in the civil courts. In my view there is much to be said for an extension of those arrangements now to the magistrates' courts. After all, the Lord Chancellor appoints magistrates and in this connection I hope that the trend so determinedly maintained by my noble Friend Lord Gardiner of appointing more working people and appointing more women, qualified in both cases by character and intelligence and integrity to be justices of the peace, is being maintained.
  As the Attorney-General said, there were interesting discussions in another place on the need to impose limits on the Lord Chancellor's powers to appoint stipendiary magistrates. We are glad that at the end of the day the Lord Chancellor agreed to an amendment, which is now embodied in Clause 2(6). It takes from him a power which existed in the original draft of the Bill under which Lord Chancellors could substantially, had they been so willed, have replaced the lay magistracy by the wholesale appointment of stipendiaries without having to come to Parliament for authority to do so. I believe that the

  1727
  rôle of Parliament in respect to the administration of the courts is an important one. It was right that Parliament should retain some power of control over the future of the lay magistracy.
  I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has paid tribute to the remarkable contribution of the lay magistracy to the administration of justice in this country and that he has repeated the assurance of the Lord Chancellor that there is certainly no intention of a large-scale appointment of stipendiaries. We on this side of the House approve the power to appoint temporary stipendiary magistrates which was asked for by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) on more than one occasion in debates on the administration of justice. We also agree with the proposals in Clause 1 to simplify the appointment of justices of the peace. I knew that it was complicated, but until I read Clause 1 I had no idea that it was as complicated as it is. It is right that that should be simplified.
  We also agree that there should be provision, as is made in Clause 3 (1), for moneys to be provided by Parliament to pay for courses of instruction of justices of the peace. We are a little puzzled by subsection (3). I do not want to expose any skeletons in any cupboards but is the position that certain areas have been neglecting to set up courses of instruction for justices of the peace? Will the Lord Chancellor move in, like a cross headmaster, and send down his representatives to impose these courses of instruction? Incidentally, who has been paying for these courses of instruction in the past? It is a small point, but perhaps we can pursue it in Committee. Perhaps we can be told a little more about why Clause 3 (2) proves to be necessary. There will be a number of different points to raise, on which we shall touch in due course.
  I should like to turn next to Clause 7, which provides for extension of the powers of the court in an action by a mortgagee of a dwelling house. I agree that the proposal seems helpful and useful, and if the omission with which it deals was, as the Attorney-General seemed to say, due to any omission on my part, I am not at all surprised. I
  1728
  confess that the law of mortgagors and mortgagees I have never regarded as the high point in my legal learning, such as it is. But I am grateful that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been willing to share at least part of the burden of responsibility for this with me.
  But there is one aspect of the position of mortgagors which we shall certainly consider in Committee—namely, the position of second mortgagors. There has been a great deal of concern in the House and the country of late about the disclosure of what, in some cases at any rate, appear to have been extortionately high rates of interest charges in such circumstances. This clause seems a useful opportunity to deal with this situation. In some of the cases before the courts, it appears that the borrowers were apparently unaware of the true interest rates which they were being charged.
  We shall invite the Government to consider introducing a provision to remedy that situation. Would it not be helpful, for instance, to include a provision that no mortgage on land which consists of and includes a dwelling house and which is made after the Act comes into force, shall be enforceable by the mortgagee unless it contains a statement of the amount of the principle of the loan and either the interest charged on the loan expressed in terms of a rate per cent. per annum, or the rate per cent. per annum represented by the interest charge, as calculated on the lines of the provisions of the First Schedule to the Moneylenders Act of 1927?
  That Act contains strict provisions regarding the disclosure of charges and interest rates. Most companies dealing in second mortgages are not caught by the provisions of that Act. Banks are not deemed to be moneylenders—and I make no comment upon that position. Thus, the strict provisions in that Act do not apply to these transactions. Unless there is some other vehicle, like the Fair Trading Bill, which might be deemed more appropriate for embodying this kind of change, I invite the Government to consider using the happy opportunity of Clause 7 to deal with this matter.
  I turn next to the most interesting part of the Bill, namely Clause 8. Clause 8 marks a watershed in the relations

  1729
  between Parliament and the judiciary, for it brings to an end all direct control by Parliament over the salaries and pensions of the higher judiciary. I am sure that if my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) knew the significance of this historic occasion, we would not lack his presence here. I detected almost a note of disappointment in the Attorney-General's speech when noting his absence.
  This is an important change in the relations between Parliament and the judiciary. It is not just the higher judiciary who are concerned. Clause 8(1) relates to the salaries of Lords of Appeal, judges of the Supreme Court in England and Wales, judges of the Court of Session, judges of the Supreme Court in Northern Ireland, metropolitan stipendiaries and stipendiaries appointed under the Bill. The clause provides that all their salaries are to be determined with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service, by the Lord Chancellor or, in the case of judges of the Court of Session, by the Secretary of State.
  It is perhaps worth noting the history of this matter, in which I have had a certain share of responsibility. Since the Act of Settlement, salaries of judges have been determinable only by Parliament and not by the executive. The principle behind that procedure and that doctrine was to preserve the independence of the judiciary, which is an important part of our constitution and of our liberties.
  But the requirement that Parliament alone could deal with changes in judicial salaries produced difficulties in practice. It resulted in delays and created the risk of unhappy conflict between Parliament and the judiciary. Accordingly, under the Judges' Remuneration Act of 1965, the Labour Government decided that the salaries of the higher judiciary could be increased by affirmative orders instead of by legislation, thereby at any rate reducing the potential for conflict.
  On 30th April 1970, it fell to me to move the Judges' Remuneration Order to increase judicial salaries. I said then that, in future, many top salaries in the public sector, as well as those of Members of Parliament and Ministers, would be kept under review by an independent body, a special panel of the new Commission for Industry and Manpower that the Labour Government contemplated setting up. I
  1730
  told the House that the judges had agreed to those arrangements.
  The present Government rejected the proposal for the Commission for Industry and Manpower, but, in May 1970, they set up the Top Salaries Review Body under Lord Boyle. In July 1972, the right hon. and learned Gentleman moved a further Judicial Offices (Salaries) Order to provide for further increases in judicial salaries recommended by that body, which had also dealt with the salaries of Ministers and Members of Parliament.
  At the heart of our thinking about this matter was the idea that an independent review body should consider and advise on these judicial salaries. I do not know whether or not that is still the present Government's intention. There is no clue or hint of the need for that in Clause 8 of the Bill. That clause gives full power to the Lord Chancellor, but it is true that the Minister for the Civil Service must consent. In case hon. Members may have forgotten, the Minister for the Civil Service is, of course, the Prime Minister.
  Therefore, in accordance with the terms of the clause as it stands, there is this power, which is apparently limited only in the sense that they cannot reduce judicial salaries, given to those two Ministers to deal with the salaries of the judiciary.
  The position exists, therefore, of there being no requirement of a reference in the first instance to an independent review body, but a total and complete control of judicial salaries vested fairly and squarely, or at least squarely, in the two Ministers of the executive—complete executive control.
  The House, I think, is now entitled to know from the Government what has happened to the independent review procedure. Are the judges, for instance, and will they be, equally involved in the pay freeze, as I am sure they would want to be? If, for instance, a situation should develop where the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister decided there ought to be an increase in judicial salaries, would that be capable of veto by the Pay Board? In other words, has the element of independent review which we think is the important element in inspiring confidence in recommendations for salary increases in this sphere been lost sight of? With this debate coming as it does the

  1731
  day after our debates on the Counter-Inflation Bill, it is vital that clear undertakings should be given about these matters.
  Mr. Weitzman: Subsection (5) says:
  "Salaries payable… shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund…".
  I suppose the House would have the right to criticise this in a debate on the Consolidated Fund? I imagine that is the only thing left to the House.
  Sir E. Jones: I think that is so. I suppose there will also be other parliamentary occasions if an announcement were made of salary increases, of the Attorney-General as representative of the Lord Chancellor or, indeed, of the Prime Minister himself, being called to account in the House. But procedures of that kind in the House, given the pressure of time in the House and the difficulty of finding time for debates—one hears this every Thursday afternoon and we have heard it today—are not satisfactory and very important matters of public interest, because of the absence of that most rare of all commodities, namely, parliamentary time, in practice become incapable of being discussed on the Floor of the House.
  The fact must be faced that the effect of Clause 8 as it stands—and I am bound to say, as I have indicated in giving the history of the matter, that we saw a good deal of force in reducing the opportunities for direct and prolonged discussion of judicial salaries—is to give apparently total discretion to the executive unrelated to the requirement of an independent review to deal with these salaries as it wishes.
  I cannot help reflecting that that does not seem to be a very reassuring position. I therefore hope that when the learned Solicitor-General winds up the debate, we shall be given some specific assurances as to the intentions of the Government in this regard.
  We are grateful to the Attorney-General for his clarification of the clauses of the Bill. A number of points will arise and we hope in Committee to add some flesh to the somewhat skeletal framework of the Bill and therefore take advantage of the rare opportunities that come to us in Parliament to deal with the administration of justice.
  4.45 p.m.
  Miss Mary bolt: I wish to comment on a number of provisions in the Bill and a number of omissions from it.
  The right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) has mentioned the hoary perennial of women justices of the peace. I support him in all he says on that. Although the Bill provides a more simplified procedure for the appointment of justices, it does nothing to increase the number of women justices of the peace. Less than half the total number of justices of the peace are women, although the office of justice of the peace is one which married women and women with time on their hands who are suitable in character and judgment are admirably fitted to fill.
  No one supposes that the Lord Chancellor personally appoints all the justices of the peace. If he did, one might hope to see more women justices more rapidly appointed. The explanation can only be that the male domination in the senior Civil Service of the Lord Chancellor's Department is responsible for this. In view of the number of occasions on which this point has been raised in the House, it is regrettable in the extreme that more women justices have not been appointed more rapidly.
  I turn now to Clause 2 which deals with the whole-time appointment of stipendiary magistrates. While everybody agrees that whole-time stipendiaries perform an excellent service when they are appointed, it is at the same time regrettable that there is a drive to increase the number of paid officials when a large number of ordinary people are only too willing to perform voluntarily the work of justice of the peace. There is always an immense number of people who are not merely willing but anxious to become magistrates.
  Lay justices do wonderful work, as everyone here agrees. It is a remarkable and also admirable feature of the British legal system that so many ordinary people are involved in the administration of justice. The appointment of stipendiaries ought, therefore, to be kept to the very minimum, first out of regard to the taxpayer who has to foot the bill for these highly-paid officials, and secondly because these people tend on

  1733
  the whole to be rather more remote from the ordinary people than lay justices.
  I therefore welcome the assurance of my right hon. and learned Friend that the number of appointments will be kept very small. But I assure him that I, for one, will keep a very careful eye upon the number of appointments. I shall be very critical if I find that the numbers of whole-time stipendiaries are increasing on a very large scale.
  Clause 2 of the Bill, with the greatest respect to my right hon. and learned Friend, appears to me to contain a most surprising and alarming provision. It says that a stipendiary magistrate shall not be removed from office except on the Lord Chancellor's recommendation. Later in the Bill we find that if judges are to be removed from office when they are permanently infirm, the concurrence of some independent person is required before the Lord Chancellor can arbitrarily remove them. That applies even in a case where they are permanently incapacitated.
  Mr. Percy Grieve: I think the hon. Member for Preston, North (Miss Holt) is under a misapprehension here, if I have read the Bill correctly. The provision regarding the retirement of those holding high judicial office, as I understand it, is concerned only with the case where such people are unable, because of mental or physical incapacity, to indicate their desire to retire.
  Miss Holt: I do not dispute that, and I agree with everything my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) said. My comment is upon the provision in Clause 2 that the appointment of a stipendiary magistrate can be terminated on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor.
  One of the reasons for the independence of the British judiciary has been the fact that they could not be removed from office except on a petition of both Houses of Parliament. If a judge in the case of permanent incapacity is to be removed, there has to be the concurrence of some independent person. If a stipendiary magistrate is to be removed from office, it seems equally desirable that the concurrence of some independent person should be required.
  1734
  This is an important matter because the opportunities offered for political corruption by such a provision are immense. No one in the House would say that there is any possibility at present of political corruption. We have been tremendously fortunate in the integrity of the Lord Chancellors of this country over many hundreds of years, and of the judiciary. But the matter is one in which the utmost care should be taken. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to bear in mind the importance of an adequate safeguard in this matter and of seeing that it is not just left to the recommendation of any one person to remove a stipendiary magistrate from office.
  Regarding the age limit of stipendiary magistrates, I welcome the provision that there shall be a possibility of their continuing in office until the age of 72 and that supplemental lists shall be kept under which ordinary lay magistrates may be employed after the age of 70.
  Today men and women are living for much longer than they ever did and in much better health. In my constituency only recently three excellent lay magistrates were compelled to retire at the age of 70 when in the full possession of their health, strength and faculties. They are now hanging about the town with nothing to do when they could be usefully employed as the chairmen of benches, for which they have excellent experience. The average age of women now is 78 years. It seems perfectly suitable that people should continue in office at least until the age of 72. Moreover, that would have the advantage of uniformity because county court judges can hold office until they are 72.
  Sir Elwyn Jones: Is the hon. Lady saying that the average age of women is 78?
  Miss Holt: That is so, according to the actuaries' reports. I apologise—I meant the average longevity.
  I turn now to the provisions of Clause 8 about the salaries of judges. The salaries of judges are in future to be determined by the Lord Chancellor with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service, who is the Prime Minister. This effectively removes from Parliament the control of those salaries. I agree with every word which the right hon. and

  1735
  learned Member for West Ham, South said about this. If the power of control over these salaries is to be taken away from Parliament, there must be some control by an independent review body. In the taxpayers' interest it is utterly wrong that these salaries should be capable of being raised simply on the whim of the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister acting together. No doubt in many cases they will act most reasonably on these matters, but nevertheless there ought to be some control over them.
  There is one aspect of the salaries of judges on which the House ought to be more closely informed. When a judge makes use of a judges' lodgings, is any deduction made from his salary of an adequate sum to cover the cost of board and lodgings? Near my constituency a large house called Bilsborrow Hall was purchased recently by the Department of the Environment, at the request of the Lord Chancellor's Department, for use as judges' lodgings, at a cost of £100,000—although it was valued by the district valuer at only £40,000. The cost of fitting it out for three judges is to be an extra £110,000, plus nearly £4,000 for furnishings, which has been paid to the vendor of the property. Because the three judges who are to use this house are to continue in the same area for several months, I understand that the wives of the judges are also to use the judges' lodgings. There is in the vicinity an existing judges' lodgings at Lancaster, which could perfectly well have been used by the judges.
  Is the taxpayer expected to provide for the wives of these judges when there is no deduction from their salaries during the period for which the judges are stationed at Bilsborrow Hall, and are these judges' wives to enjoy food, service and attention all at cost to the taxpayer? After all, Chancery Judges in London have to provide their own accommodation. The whole arrangement appears to be one which is becoming a scandal. It ought to be ended by the Lord Chancellor.
  It is matters such as these, with the greatest respect to my right hon. and learned Friend, which necessitate a very close parliamentary control or control by some independent review body over judges' salaries.
  1736
  The provisions in the Bill extending the jurisdiction of the county courts are to be welcomed. I also welcome the provisions dealing with the position of mortgagees. I endorse what the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South said about the necessity for providing for regulation of the exorbitant rate of interest charged by some second mortgagees, although they are limited when the matter comes before a court by the existing rule that not more than 48 per cent. interest is ever allowed. In other respects I welcome the Bill.
  4.56 p.m.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: I was sorry to hear about the plight of retired justices of the peace in Preston. The hon. Member for Preston, North (Miss Holt) seemed to be arguing that they ought to be allowed to stay on beyond retirement age in order to keep them off the streets. I agree with many of the points she mentioned. I should like to make certain observations on the Bill as it stands and then to comment upon specific areas which I should like to see explored during the Committee stage.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) referred to a Bill of this kind as one which offers all sorts of opportunities. Opportunity often knocks when one has a Bill of this kind but, unfortunately, the door is not always answered. I hope to be able to show that the Bill is a suitable vehicle for introducing certain changes, which ought to be dealt with in Committee.
  I want first to deal with Clause 2, and immediately to join with other right hon. and hon. Members in paying tribute to the work of lay justices throughout the country. It is work which in the main is undertaken with great dedication and with no little skill. Nevertheless, I welcome very much the provision which enables the Lord Chancellor to appoint stipendiaries outside the inner London area where they are required, without waiting for local authorities to petition. I wonder how many local authorities have petitioned in the past. I rather believe that there has been no small amount of jealousy about the appointment of stipendiaries and how they stand in relation to lay justices. This provision, therefore, overcomes that prejudice by ensuring that

  1737
  stipendiaries will not have to be paid out of the local rates.
  Subsection (7) enables the Lord Chancellor to appoint temporary, peripatetic, stipendiaries to deal with long summary trials or long committal proceedings. That is something for which I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for including in the Bill, because it was a suggestion I made, as he has said, a considerable time ago. It will overcome many of the difficulties which are so frustrating not simply for advocates—for they are the least important in this—but for those who have the misfortune to come before courts of summary jurisdiction when a case simply cannot be dealt with in any reasonable period of time because the lay bench, if it consists of three magistrates, cannot be reconstituted very easily. They are volunteers and it is unreasonable to ask them to give up their occupations for long periods in order to deal with such cases.
  I well remember a situation in which I had a very important criminal case in respect of which the committal proceedings had to be spaced out over several weeks because, although there was only one committing justice, nevertheless he could sit only on two or at most three occasions during the week. This is the very sort of situation which will be dealt with by this provision.
  In this connection—and this is a point I put to the Attorney-General when he was speaking—I am a little concerned about the procedure that is to be followed in dealing with this aspect of the matter. If this is to be be dealt with by the local clerk of the court, and he knows that the local justices would not welcome the introduction of a stipendiary to the particular area, there could be a certain reluctance about acceding to any application that is made by either prosecution or defence for the appointment of a temporary stipendiary magistrate. I should therefore like to see it made mandatory for any such application to be referred to the Lord Chancellor where it is quite clear that there is going to be a long trial or long committal proceedings.
  I come now to the point raised in the Bill about courses of instruction. This is a matter of fundamental importance. There is no doubt at all that the initial course of instruction which, I believe,
  1738
  newly-appointed magistrates have to undertake is to be welcomed. What I worry a great deal about is that there are still a large number of magistrates who, once they have gone through that initial course—or perhaps they have never been obliged to undertake it—simply do not keep up with the changes that are taking place within our legal procedures or the law, and they are simply left behind.
  In inner London a substantial number of lay magistrates unquestionably attend the sentencing exercises and other courses which are provided. The sentencing exercises are of the most searching character. It is important that not only lay justices should undergo these sentencing exercises but also stipendiary magistrates and indeed the higher judiciary, and I believe that many of them do. But I would like to see it made mandatory for lay justices to attend a certain number of such exercises and instructional courses, perhaps refresher courses, during the year. It is quite unfair that it is perhaps a majority or even a minority who attend these courses at the present time, while their colleagues shrug their shoulders and say they have not got the time or are not interested.
  While it is true that we have a volunteer force as far as our lay justices are concerned, they have imposed upon them very considerable obligations and if they are going to fulfil those obligations properly, or at all, I think it is absolutely vital that they should keep in touch. Therefore I recommend that during the Committee stage a provision should be incorporated in the Bill which makes it mandatory for lay justices to undertake a certain number of courses each year.
  I also believe that it is important that, within this framework, instruction should go beyond questions of sentencing. The whole of the judiciary, not simply the lay justices, should have every opportunity to discuss the sort of problems that come before them in a family context. There ought to be discussions of a most detailed kind with probation officers and welfare officers. In particular, as far as the civil jurisdiction of the magistrates' courts is concerned, there ought to be much closer regard to the problems which come before local authority children's officers and welfare officers so that they can see cases of this sort in their correct context, not isolated from the family problems with

  1739
  which such officers are required to deal on a day-to-day basis.
  While I think that a great deal of progress has been made in the last few years, largely under the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner when he was Lord Chancellor, and with the great help of my right hon. and learned Friend when he was Attorney-General, but also under the aegis of the present Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers, as far as the criminal jurisdiction is concerned, to a large extent the civil aspect has been lost sight of. After all, the lay justices have very important duties to carry out in dealing with matrimonial disputes, the welfare of children, and so on, and in many ways this is no less important than their criminal jurisdiction and their understanding of criminal cases in the fundamental sense to which I have referred.
  I turn to Clause 4, which deals with the amendment as to the right to practise of justices of the peace who are solicitors. I know that this clause has the approval of the Law Society, but frankly, I can see no objection to its being considerably wider than it is at the present moment. I can see that it is quite wrong for a firm of solicitors to represent a client while a partner or an employee in that firm is adjudicating. That would be an intolerable situation.
  But it seems to me patently absurd to debar a firm of solicitors from undertaking proceedings, whether criminal or civil, in a magistrates' court in a petty sessional division where the partner or employee is a justice, if he is not adjudicating. Clearly the argument here is that there may be a possibility that the other justices of the peace may be more favourably disposed to that particular firm of solicitors. Actually, I would think that the contrary is more likely to be the case. But, one way or the other, I think we have to recognise that most solicitor-advocates who practise locally, just as members of the Bar, are well known to the bench before whom they constantly appear. Friendships are formed, happily, between advocates and members of the judiciary, but it does not disentitle a judge from hearing a case simply because he knows the barrister who is appearing before him and who may be a very close
  1740
  friend. It does not disentitle the justice of the peace from sitting if, similarly, he has a close friendship with the solicitor who appears before him.
  Therefore I think that this is a rather silly provision and I would like to see the situation widened to enable firms of solicitors to practise in these courts, subject to the proviso which I have made, because we need many more firms of solicitors undertaking legal aid work, in particular, in both the civil and the criminal sphere, and this provision, even though it is to some extent helpful compared with the position previously, still represents a deterrent.
  I turn now to the various proposals that I would like to see incorporated in the Bill. The first relates to the matter of interpreters' fees which I raised initially in the House on 30th November 1972. I then asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he would
  "issue a circular to magistrates' courts recommending that a person convicted of an offence should not be penalised as to the costs incurred in employing an interpreter in cases where that person is not capable of communicating sufficiently in English."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November 1972; Vol. 847, c. 188.]
  I got the short, but not very sweet, answer, "No".
  I raised with him within a matter of a few days in a debate the case of a young student who had appeared at a local magistrates' court, and who had been told a day or so before he was due to appear on a not very serious charge that an interpreter would be available, but that if he were convicted he might well have to pay the costs. He did not get much of a chance to oppose the appointment of the interpreter who was in fact present. The young man was convicted and fined £10 and ordered to pay £5·25 by way of costs for the interpreter. That was grossly unfair, but it has been a practice widely used in the criminal courts to impose these charges on unsuccessful defendants.
  I raised the matter again on 6th December and this time I got a qualified "No" from the Minister of State. More recently, on 1st February, I asked for
  "a further statement concerning the Government's proposals relating to the imposition by criminal courts of interpreters' fees against accused persons who have been convicted."

  1741
  The hon. and learned Gentleman, the Minister of State, Home Office replied:
  "My right hon. Friend is considering the possibility of legislation. Meanwhile he proposes to draw the attention of courts to the relevant provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and to remind them of the availability of central Government funds to pay interpreters in indictable cases."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February 1973; Vol. 849, c. 423.]
  So he was there accepting the principle I had enunciated and it is nice to observe that the Minister of State was amenable to some reason about this matter.
  This is a principle, as I pointed out on 6th December, which is enshrined in Article 6(3) of the European Convention on Human Rights and also in the Welsh Language Act 1967. It is wrong that anyone who is not familiar with the language in which the business of the court is usually conducted should be penalised, and I hope that the Bill will provide a vehicle for a change of that character.
  The Law Society has received a considerable amount of correspondence from both prosecuting and defending solicitors about the supply to the defence of statements by the prosecution in cases which could be dealt with summarily. The Lord Chancellor complains that too much time is taken up by the Crown Courts with cases which could be dealt with summarily. I hope this proposition will not constitute an erosion of an essential right, and, while I think that there is merit in removing from the Crown Courts cases which can be dealt with only technically so to speak, such as breathalyser cases, I hope that there will not be a substantial abandonment of the present right of election. Improvements could be effected which would achieve a quicker disposal of cases which could be dealt with summarily and where there is an election, by the prosecution being required to serve statements on the defence, where the defence asks for such statements to be supplied.
  This would provide a number of advantages. Essentially defence lawyers, in dealing with cases where there is an election, might be prepared to advise their client to have the case dealt with summarily, in circumstances where at present they feel obliged to advise that the client should be tried by a higher court. They
  1742
  want to know the case that their client has to answer and they should be entitled to know this. A substantial number of prosecutors offer their papers for perusal to defence lawyers, which is sensible. But not enough are prepared to do it, and, indeed, some, get very shirty if they were asked.
  This is a case where an obligation should be imposed. It would remove a substantial reason for electing trial in numerous cases, and thus reduce the number of elections and also give legal effect to what a large number of sensible prosecutors do already. It would not cause time to be wasted, which is sometimes the argument against the proposal, because a large majority of defended cases are put back anyway because the courts has insufficient time to attend to them on that particular day.
  My next point concerns the administration procedure for legal aid in criminal courts. Some courts require forms to be filled in following committal proceedings in order that legal aid should be extended. Other courts do not require this to be done. Unless those concerned are familiar with the practice of the court a great deal of confusion may arise and mistakes may occur. My firm has unhappily been penalised to some extent because in one or two cases we had assumed that legal aid had been granted, but in fact the defendant had not filled in the appropriate form, or a barrister had attended the committal proceedings and had not drawn anybody's attention to the situation, possibly because he did not know what the procedure was himself. One then goes merrily on still defending the man in the belief that legal aid has been granted. The legal aid form may not have been received, and in a busy office that may easily have been overlooked. Ultimately one finds that one cannot claim one's costs and everything has been done for nothing, and indeed, there has been a loss because one has to pay the barrister who is attending the trial. One of the ways of curing that deficiency in the system is to enable the court to grant legal aid retrospectively where a mistake has arisen. The court would have to be satisfied that a genuine mistake had occurred and it would be within the discretion of the court to accept or reject the application. What I have suggested would be a useful reform to be incorporated in the Bill.

  1743
  My next point relates to the uniformity which should exist in the payment of witness fees. As I understand it the source of the payment depends on whether the offence is indictable or not. To my mind that is ridiculous. There should be one source from which witness fees are payable and that would enable a great deal of unnecessary confusion to be obviated.
  These are additional provisions that might be included in this umbrella-type Bill. I welcome the Bill, and I particularly welcome the provisions for strengthening the system of lay justices, a system which has so well stood the test of time.
  5.18 p.m.
  Mr. Percy Grieve: I am sure that the whole House is much indebted to the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) who from a depth of very great experience of the functioning of magistrates' courts has drawn attention to various points which might with advantage be dealt with in this legislation.
  I found myself particularly attracted by two of the points he made. The first was that it should in some way be a condition of the continuance in office of those fulfilling the onerous, important and highly honourable office of justices of the peace that they should from time to time submit themselves to education and reeducation at courses not only on sentencing but on all the aspects of their work. The hon. Member made out a case for that very fully and I do not believe that anyone here would disagree with him.
  I found myself attracted by his suggestion that some provision could be made—I do not know whether it could be properly made in this legislation, in view of the Long Title, but if not in this legislation then at some later stage in our proceedings—for the provision of statements of evidence to defendents in magistrates' courts.
  I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Hackney, Central that our higher courts are appallingly over-loaded with work which could properly, expeditiously and with justice be disposed of before the magistrates. All too frequently those who are defending in the magistrates' courts say that they must know the case against their clients, and the only way in which they can do that is to seek trial
  1744
  by jury and go to the higher court. Frequently, when they learn of the case against them, a plea of guilty results, but with what an appalling waste of time. If this simple reform could be made compulsory it would do a great deal to facilitate the administration of justice.
  I shall not repeat all the points made by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central, but the hon. Gentleman's point about the supplying of statements was one which I had in mind. I was also struck by his plea for the payment by the court of interpreters. As an hon. Member and as chairman of the Special Committee on Human Rights, it almost savours to me of a denial of justice that persons should have to pay, when they do not understand the language of the court, to have it translated into the language which they understand. I do not always agree with the hon. Gentleman and I am happy on this occasion to find myself in complete agreement with him.
  I share the general welcome which has been given by both sides of the House and by all hon. Members who have spoken to this composite collection of reforms and rationalisations. I do not propose to deal with all the points in the Bill. I am sure that I would not be thanked if I did so. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) that constitutionally perhaps the most important clause in the Bill is that dealing with the power of the Lord Chancellor, in consultation with the Minister for the Civil Service, alias the Prime Minister, hereinafter to determine the salaries of the higher judiciary.
  When we look at a clause of that kind we seem to be retreating from the doctrines of Dicey at the speed of light. However, we are a long way from the Act of Settlement and from the atmosphere of the realm at the time of the Act of Settlement. The fact that Clause 8 can be introduced with relatively little controversy and accepted by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South, subject to certain assurances which he asked of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, shows how far we have come. It is a worthwhile and desirable rationalisation. We no longer fear that pressures will be put upon the judiciary by those who will hereinafter become responsible for determining how their salaries shall rise as the salaries of other members of the

  1745
  judiciary rise. Therefore, I welcome that clause.
  I wish to concentrate on the provisions dealing with the appointment of more stipendiary magistrates in Clause 2(6). I give an unreserved welcome to the power which the Bill gives to the Lord Chancellor, subject to safeguards, to increase the number of metropolitan stipendiary magistrates to 60 or such larger number as Her Majesty may by Order in Council specify, and similarly to increase the number of stipendiary magistrates outside London to 40.
  I am second to none in my admiration for our lay judiciary. I do not know whether the system is unique in the whole world, but it is unique in Europe. There is no other country where lay people are prepared by instincts of public service, and, one hopes, with vocation, to give a large part of their time to the service of the community by participating in the administration of justice. The result is that we have the smallest professional judiciary in Europe. We are able to make do with very few occupants of high judicial office, circuit judges and part-time judges such as recorders because we have laymen who, with the advice of their clerk, are prepared to give their energy and time to the service of the community, and thereby—and no one blinks at this—to acquire great honour and respect in the community which they serve.
  The burden which is placed upon the lay justices today is enormous because of the great increase in crime which is common not only to this country but the rest of the world. That burden was greatly alleviated by the Criminal Justice Act 1967 which, for the first time, permitted committals to be made without going through the whole of the evidence before the justices. Nevertheless, there remains a great burden.
  At the same time there is an enormous and increasing burden upon the Crown Courts and it is becoming essential to reduce that burden. The only way in which that can be done will be to give more of the work to the justices. I share the reservations of the hon. Member for Hackney, Central about depriving the subject of the right to trial by jury in cases which now entitle him to that right. However, I draw a great distinction between what the hon. Gentleman
  1746
  called technical cases, such as breathalyser cases, and a great number of other motoring cases, and those cases where honour is involved.—[Interruption.] Such cases must include the whole gamut of crimes of dishonesty for which a person can now elect to go for trial by jury. I shall very much regret the day when we cut down that right in any degree, but I foresee the day when we shall have to cut down the right to trial by jury in a number of motoring cases, and not only breathalyser cases.
  If we have to make that restriction we shall put a corresponding burden upon the juctices of the peace and the magistrates' courts because their work will greatly increase. Therefore, we shall need more justices of the peace. At present in London there are only 39 stipendiary magistrates, and in the provinces I understand that there are only 11. It was said by the Lord Chancellor in another place that because stipendiary magistrates work regular hours regularly every day of the week one stipendiary does the work of 50 lay justices. That is no reflection upon the lay justices who, by their nature, are part-time judges.
  The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the manifest inconveniences which occur when long cases have to be adjourned from day to day and week to week. It seems that although the Lord Chancellor said in another place that it is not proposed greatly to increase the number of stipendiaries, the time may well come when, if we increase the work load on the justices, it will be necessary to increase the number of stipendiaries. It is for that reason that I particularly welcome the provision.
  I return to the point I made earlier about the distinction between crimes that involve a man's honour and offences that do not. I noticed an indication of dissent from one Labour hon. Member, and I should like to enlarge on the point. It seems to me—and I hope that my views are shared by many hon. Members—to be a distinction that is vital in social, private and public life. I hope that we shall never see the day when the right to trial by jury for offences of dishonesty is any way diminished.
  I realise how appalling it is that the time of the Crown Court should often be taken up by long inquiries into cases of shoplifting, where the substance of

  1747
  what is taken is of the utmost triviality, but all too often the honour and character of an individual are involved, and in such cases it is vital, so long as we have a jury system to protect the liberty of the subject, that that right should be in no way diminished.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: I sympathise with the way in which the hon. and learned Gentleman has put the matter and with the general principle he has just stated, but may not it lead us away from cutting down the number of trials by jury? For example, alleged ticket frauds can involve the honour of the person concerned and gravely damage his reputation, and minor indecency cases can have the same effect.
  Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for making the point, and entirely agree with what he said. At times when I have had to advise and defend I have greatly regretted that cases involving the honour of a man have not been justiciable by jury. At one time there were many offences of importuning, which provide a good example of what I mean. In my view, there should have been a right to trial by jury in such cases. That is why I see such a clear distinction.
  I cannot invite the House now to say that the right should be increased in certain cases. I should be out of order if I did. But I oppose its being in any way diminished where honesty is concerned. However, where the question is whether a man drove a motor car well or dangerously, we must face the realities of the present day, increasing the powers of the justices and to some extent cutting down the right to trial by jury.
  Mr. Greville Janner: Although a motoring offence may not involve dishonesty, it often involves a person's entire livelihood and the future of his family. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that in such a case he should continue to have a right to be tried by jury. Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that a substantial percentage of those guilty of serious motoring offences are also guilty of other offences? A curious result of a recent survey was to show that while motoring offenders are often regarded as being in a separate category they tend in serious
  1748
  cases to be unstable people in other respects. Therefore, does not the hon. and learned Gentleman believe that it would be wrong to take away from those who may be deprived of their livelihood the right to trial by jury?
  Mr. Grieve: I take the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. I do not want further to develop what I am saying. We must face the realities of life. If we are to draw a distinction at all, it must be drawn where honour, reputation and character lie on one side of the line and not on the other.
  Because I believe that it will be necessary to increase the burden on the justices, I particularly welcome the giving of the power to appoint stipendiaries to take some of that burden off lay justices, without cutting down the great reliance the country rightly places on the services they render to the community.
  5.36 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: The Bill does not call for an impassioned or long speech, and I do not propose to follow any other speaker into a discussion of the philosophy of the criminal process. I intend simply to deal with a collection of diverse points.
  First, whatever we may say about the jury system, if we are to preserve it there will have to be an end, particularly in fraud cases, of the growing practice of the Bar to use its challenges to try to knock off the jury anyone who looks remotely intelligent. It is no help to the defence of the jury system when, where there are several accused, enabling 20 or 30 challenges to be made, those challenges are used ruthlessly until in the end anyone who can judge character finds on looking at the jury that he is looking at a group of people as near to being a collection of morons as can be imagined.
  That is an abuse of the process of the jury system. The Bar Council or the House should ensure that it is stopped. A man is entitled to a fair trial by his contemporaries, but not to one rigged in that way. I yield to no one in my admiration of the jury system and my determination that it be maintained.
  I shall not take up the comments of the hon. Member for Preston, North (Miss Holt) about lady justices, but I cannot imagine that they would like her references to them as hoary perennials.

  1749
  Ages of retirement are nowhere the same in the Bill. A stipendiary magistrate is to retire at 70, although that limit can be increased to 72. A recorder retires at 72, with no possibility of an increase. A circuit judge goes to 72, but can be kept on until 75. The High Court judge apparently retains all his wits until the age of 75.
  How were those differences arrived at? By what assessment does someone conclude that it is obvious that the stipendiary magistrate's mind begins to atrophy two years earlier than that of a recorder, who in turn becomes senescent shortly before the circuit judge, who in turn remains alive and lively a little longer? On that basis, I cannot understand why the Court of Appeal judges are not allowed to retire at 78 and those of the House of Lords at 80. That is the logic of the situation. It might be a useful exercise in Committee to see whether we can introduce a rationalisation of retirement ages in the judiciary.
  I welcome the clause dealing with the salaries of the higher judiciary, because I have never been present at a discussion of salaries of the judiciary that has been a dispassionate assessment of the position, in which opportunities have been taken for a sensible debate about the judiciary and the problems it faces. It is always used as an opportunity for a display of crass, ill-informed and ignorant resentment of lawyers in the House, because lay Members resent their great reliance on lawyers here, which they express on such occasions. I am grateful that the opportunity will be denied to them in future, although I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) that an independent review board is necessary.
  I have noticed during the course of the debate that the number of civil servants in the Ministerial box appeared to be greater than the number of hon. Members in the Chamber. This is always an indication of the interest the debate provokes. I know that they are obliged to remain and I am almost sorry to rise to my feet when they probably have tube trains to catch—this is the modern age. However, I must say something about the stipendiary magistrates. The Bill is bringing about a sea change for stipendiaries. A stipendiary was always allotted
  1750
  a particular town, such as the Leeds stipendiary magistrate or the Hull stipendiary magistrate.
  Under this Bill he becomes a homeless peripatetic, like the recorders. It is interesting that the office of stipendiary does not attract the ennobling treatment given to recorders in the Courts Act whereby they may be honorary recorders for a borough. There is nothing in the Bill to suggest that there should be an honorary stipendiary for Leeds or Hull or whatever. I wonder why there is such a distinction.
  I believe that it was a silly thing to create honorary recorders and am grateful that we are not doing the same for stipendiaries. It is sad however that they are to have no name, that they are apparently assigned within a county, going from court to court, from place to place.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: What is the distinction between this and the appointment of a commissioner to deal with a long trial?
  Mr. Lyons: I am not suggesting that there is any distinction nor am I saying that the change should not have taken place. I am permitting myself a little nostalgia because it is true that people like to have a "handle". I can think of stipendiary magistrates who will feel that they are losing something by not having the name of a town or city behind them. It is arguable that when we take away that identification a certain amount of pride in the job is lost. It is strange that we no longer have a county court judge for so and so, and can see a judge wandering about the city at three o'clock in the afternoon quite happy to have finished his work at noon. One feels that that attitude would not have grown up so readily had they retained an identification with a borough as did the old county court judges.
  It is true that the anomalies in the present stipendiary system mean that Hull with a population of 300,000 has a stipendiary whereas Bradford, with the same population, has not. This is presumably because when, 10 years ago, Bradford lost its stipendiary magistrate, someone decided that there should not be another. Maybe that was because they did not care for the previous one, maybe they did not like to spend the money. Maybe the clerk to the justices did not want to

  1751
  be hampered by the services of a professional lawyer.
  Whatever the reason, there are such anomalous situations. If there is no stipendiary and a highly technical case arises, then the lay justices are absolutely at the mercies of the lawyers unless the clerk to the justices is of a substantial quality. The trouble is that the clerks are of a patchy quality. Some are good, some are biased. I do not say that they do not do a good job. It is certainly an excellent idea that there should be someone with legal experience to deal with difficult cases and difficult points of law when confronted by solicitors and counsel, many of whom are extremely able. I welcome wholeheartedly the rationalisation of this system.
  I have the greatest doubts about the amendment moved in the other place by Lord Gardiner. I do not entirely agree with my own Front Bench about putting a number to stipendiary magistrates. The Lord Chancellor said that he intended to appoint one or two extra stipendiaries above the present figure of 11. It was argued in the other place that the Bill gave the Lord Chancellor or some future Lord Chancellor unlimited power to get rid of the lay justices and to replace them with stipendiaries because there was no limit on the number. That was a legitimate but rather fanciful consideration.
  The effect of setting a limit of 40 will be that within 10 years we shall have 40 stipendiaries. I know that the Lord Chancellor says that he will not do this, and we believe him. But Lord Chancellors come and go. When we abolish the town and city as the headquarters of the stipendiary and make him a stipendiary for a group of towns, an area or a county, then there is a strong case for more stipendiaries. A group of towns which did not have a stipendiary and would never have thought of having one might feel, or some future Lord Chancellor might feel, that they should have one assigned to them.
  I do not propose to try to undo the compromise reached between the present Lord Chancellor and the previous one. I rather wish that matters had been left as they originally were in the Bill and that we relied on the strength of the Treasury to prevent an undue increase in the number of stipendiaries. It is impossible
  1752
  to imagine the Treasury as we know it sanctioning the money necessary for the large-scale increases in the number of stipendiaries.
  I suppose that some of these points are Committee points. I welcome the Bill. If we look at the main Title it will be seen that it gives ample opportunity to those who wish to insert new matters into the Bill in Committee. It is a Bill which is capable of infinite enlargement. I am not suggesting that I shall undertake that task but there may be others who could. If there is anything missing they will have the opportunity to put it right.
  5.48 p.m.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: I begin by adding my welcome to that given to the Bill by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) at the outset of the debate. That is not to say that it may not become even more useful after it has been subjected to the scrutiny which it will receive in Committee.
  A number of points have been made—some by myself in interventions—which are no doubt Committee points. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) that in this sort of Bill it is not easy to disentangle the Committee points from those which are wholly appropriate to a Second Reading debate. It has been almost inevitable that all of the speakers have been lawyers. If, from time to time, one has looked around the Chamber to see who was listening, it has been almost impossible at any time to see anyone who was not a lawyer—except for the odd Whip or two, but perhaps we can leave them out of account.
  Lawyers in the House have not always the best of reputations among their lay colleagues. We are regarded as being a closed circle. When we debate what is clearly a lawyer's Bill it is a pity that there are no lay Members of the House present. It does not lie very well in the mouths of our colleagues who criticise us for being a closed circle if they do not take advantage of the opportunity when it comes of scrutinising these matters which, although they are lawyer's matters, are none the less of great importance to the community.
  I do not intend to deal at length with the Committee points, but there are two

  1753
  issues of importance in principle about which I should like to say a few words. Each is a matter upon which I should have liked to hear the views of lay Members as well as of lawyers.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South emphasised that under the provisions of Clause 8 we appear to be removing altogther from direct parliamentary control—although there will be indirect parliamentary control—the salaries of the higher judiciary and handing the whole question of those salaries in England and Wales to the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister, in his capacity as Minister for the Civil Service, and in Scotland to the Secretary of State alone. The Secretary of State for Scotland does not even have the filter of the Prime Minister or the Lord Advocate to go through.
  That brings me to an extremely important point. Last night the House gave the Third Reading to the Counter-Inflation Bill, which contains elaborate provisions for keeping within control the rises in income of a vast section of our community. Leaving aside formulae which would be difficult to apply to the judiciary of an extra £1 plus 4 per cent. to be shared between them—although it might be interesting to see how it would be shared if it were applied—there is an overall limit of an additional £250 a year. It is vital that the Government should say whether this limit will apply to the judiciary, notwithstanding that it is not referred to in the Bill, and tell us how the Counter-Inflation Bill and the Administration of Justice Bill will interact upon each other, if at all. Which of them will become law first I do not know, but the Administration of Justice Bill leaves the matter extremely vague.
  The intention of the Labour Government was that the salaries of the important people dealt with in Clause 8 should be considered by the Top Salary Review Board, which is part of the Office of Manpower Economics—a body which hon. Members and Ministers have much to be thankful for. Will the board recommend what salaries the higher judiciary and stipendiaries should receive, so that it will be for the Lord Chancellor and the other Ministers concerned to consider its recommendations and decide whether to accept them, or
  1754
  will this body have nothing to do with the salaries and conditions of service of the judges and others referred to in the clause?
  The lay Opposition Members of the House, who have not put in an appearance, and the lawyers, who have, would take it ill if this were to be a matter solely for the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister in one case and for the Secretary of State in the other, wholly unrelated to the wages and salary restraints applied in the rest of the community. If that were to be the position it would show a degree of insensitivity which, even during the lifetime of this Government, has not been shown up to now, and it would cause grave resentment among our colleagues and among those whose incomes will be held down far below those of judges and others. I hope that we shall receive a clear assurance on this. I warn the Government that unless we do we shall return strongly to the matter during the later stages of the Bill.
  The other matter on which I should like to spend a little time is Clause 2 which deals with stipendiary magistrates and various other matters in relation to stipendiaries and the lay magistracy. I yield to no one in my respect and admiration for lay magistrates, who voluntarily give up their time for no financial reward for the benefit of the community. Lay magistrates take the courses that have been referred to—there are to be more centralised courses now and that is highly desirable—and they regard it as a public duty to perform their functions.
  In my personal experience I believe that lay magistrates, even with the utmost training and long service on the bench, can benefit from the help that is available when a stipendiary or other trained lawyer sits with them or assists them as clerk. I have never understood why up to the present time in the petty sessional courts we have always shied off the possibility of having a stipendiary chairman sitting with lay magistrates. We follow that practice in the Crown Court and we used to operate it in the county quarter sessions, but it is not part of the magistrates' courts procedure. And it must be remembered, as was emphasised by the hon. and learned Member for Solihull

  1755
  (Mr. Grieve), that many important matters are decided by magistrates.
  I should like to see in operation a system in which the stipendiaries would be itinerant and would not remain in one court all the time. Those who remain in one court all the time tend to get a little set in their ideas about those who appear before them. If the system which I am suggesting were implemented, it would mean that the background of legal experience possessed by a stipendiary would be added to the practical and local knowledge of lay magistrates. I believe that this could prove to be an ideal system. I appreciate that for it to be applied generally throughout the country would involve far too many stipendiaries, but that is no reason for failing to make a start. I hope that this suggestion will provoke discussion either in this debate or when the Bill reaches Committee so that we may know what the Government think about the proposal.
  Some of the provisions in the Bill will give a greater measure of control to the Lord Chancellor in the appointment of stipendiaries and their payment, and over the courses provided for magistrates, and these measures inevitably point the way towards a fully centralised court system.
  We have argued about these matters in the past and we have not managed to persuade the Government either to initiate such a system or even to set up a review body to consider it. It is interesting, and indeed significant, that in a Bill of this kind which will make miscellaneous changes in the system of judicial procedure and appointment we find the central authority taking over more and more control.
  I have long been unable to see—although I am always prepared to be shown to be wrong—why the lower court system should not be fully integrated as is the higher court system as a result of Beeching and the Courts Act. I believe that that would be a better system from the point of view of training, distribution—and, perhaps even more important in many ways, a better system in terms of the career structure for clerks and court officials, which is a matter of great importance. Although the Bill appears to point the way, I feel that it could have gone very much further.
  1756
  I promised that I would not go into detailed Committee points, and I shall not attempt to do so. One of the advantages of a debate of this kind is that it is possible to go a little beyond the ambit of the wording of the Bill, and advantage has been taken of that today. Those of us who are now present on the Opposition benches, even though we are only lawyers, are unanimous in commending the Bill. We shall await with interest the opportunity to deal with various matters in Committee.
  6.7 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Michael Havers): I am grateful to the House for the welcome given to the Bill, and indeed for the opportunity we have had to range for a little over two hours over some favourite subjects raised by lawyers in the House. There have been some well-argued and interesting points and, although some of them may not relate to the Bill, it must be said that they needed airing and discussion and no doubt will give rise to much further thought.
  The right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) raised what was probably a Committee point but one which it may be convenient to deal with now. He mentioned the cost of courses of instructions for justices of the peace. Until the Bill becomes law those costs will be borne by magistrates' courts committees from money provided by local authorities. There has been no case of any magistrates' courts committee failing in its duty to provide these compulsory courses. In some counties and boroughs there has perhaps been rather more zealous application to this matter than there has been in others.
  From my experience as both a chairman of quarter sessions and as a recorder I know that local authorities were always very pleased when I was able to attend courses or when I arranged for another leader to attend. There was always an extremely good attendance by justices of the peace, who were interested and who learned a great deal from those events. They were told not to look over their shoulder and become too upset when their decisions were reversed, as sometimes happened, by quarter sessions.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman also mentioned the question of second

  1757
  mortgages. It can be seen from the Long Title to the Bill that it would be difficult to include that matter in the Committee consideration of the Bill. It is a matter of consumer credit which to some extent has already been considered by the Crowther Committee and it would probably be better dealt with by legislation other than that which is now before us. I appreciate that there has been anxiety on both sides of the House and on the part of the Government in face of some of the sums charged.
  Perhaps the most important issue which has worried many people—it was raised by both the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South and the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin)—is what will be the position about judicial salaries when the Bill becomes law. Judicial salaries, with those of the higher Civil Service and those of the chairmen and members of the nationalised industries, are determined, in the sense that they are considered and recommendations are made, by the Top Salaries Review Body, the chairman at the moment being Lord Boyle. That system will continue throughout phase 2 of the Government's counter-inflation policy and those salaries will not fall to be considered by the Pay Board.
  I understand that the review body is engaged in a substantive investigation at the moment and its report is not expected for some time. If, however, it made a recommendation, it would take into account the pay code and the Government would also bear in mind the pay code when making up their minds whether to accept that recommendation. In any event, during the operation of phase 2 the effect of the pay code would mean that, whatever determination had been arrived at by the review body and the Government, the salary increase would have to be restricted to a maximum of £250 a year which is the maximum present arrangement. Therefore, there is no question of any increases in the salaries of judges or of anyone else which are under consideration by the Top Salaries Review Body exceeding the £250 a year.
  One has to bear in mind also the point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South. It is not simply a matter of the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister making up their
  1758
  own minds. They will always have the guidance of the review body, and one would not expect it to be departed from in any measurable way.
  I do not want to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Miss Holt) down some of the byways into which she strayed, especially that concerning circuit lodgings and judges' lodgings, which seem far removed from the purposes of the Bill. However, it is no good comparing the responsibilities and obligations of a High Court judge on circuit with those of a Chancery judge in London by saying that the latter has to provide his own accommodation. A High Court judge has to do so as well because he is not always on circuit. He has to sit in London too. It does not seem unreasonable, when he is forced to be out of London for two or three months at a time, not only that he should be provided with accommodation but that from time to time his wife should be allowed to join him. If the effect of that means that the allowance is exceeded because he is also feeding his wife, the balance comes out of his own pocket. The comparison made by my hon. Friend does not assist at all.
  My hon. Friend also said that she wanted to have changed the power granted to the Lord Chancellor to remove stipendiaries. That power has existed and it continues to exist under the Courts Act in respect of circuit judges. However, the power granted to High Court judges has always been restricted to them. There has never been criticism before, and I imagine that no one would visualise that system being changed.
  The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis), with whom I have debated on a number of occasions, provided a thoughtful, constructive and helpful speech. The procedure for temporary stipendiaries is that it will be made known to all clerks of magistrates' courts and to chairmen that this procedure is available. It will be for them to make application, if it is known that a case requiring several consecutive days is to be tried, to the Lord Chancellor's Department for a temporary stipendiary to be provided. But it is not confined only to the clerks of magistrates' courts and chairmen. It will also be open to the prosecution or the defence, knowing that

  1759
  the case is coming on, to make representations to the Lord Chancellor's Department drawing his attention to what is happening, giving an estimate of the time and asking that steps should be taken to provide this service. It will not be a matter in which an awkward-minded clerk or chairman refuses to have a stipendiary anywhere near his court. His word will not be the final say.
  As regards courses of instruction, I should not like to see it mandatory upon justices to have to attend refresher courses. The degree of interest has always been high. I should prefer not to have any element of compulsion in what is basically a voluntary framework. However, it is a matter which could be kept under review. As I have said, in my experience attendance has always been very high.
  I was asked about partners practising in petty sessional divisions. This also is very much a Committee point. It is not only that there is no question of magistrates being influenced because last week the partner of the advocate appearing before them sat with them. It is much wider. It is that those who appear as litigants should not feel that "The man against me has a solicitor whose partner is a member of this bench and therefore there is some risk that I shall be unfairly treated". It goes back to the principle, about which the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) constantly reminds us when referring to the Order Paper, that justice must also be seen to be done. This may be a more appropriate occasion on which to apply that principle than many of the examples with which the hon. Gentleman provides the House.
  I am happy to say to the hon. Member for Hackney, Central that not only can I answer the various matters that he has raised but that I can give him something, which I am delighted to do. He asked about interpreters' fees. He has given the history of his negotiations with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I have the authority of my hon. and learned Friend to say that it is now proposed to introduce in Committee a clause dealing with interpreters which will make it clear that if any order
  1760
  for costs is made against a defendant, those costs are not to include any sum which may have arisen by reason of an interpreter having to attend the court. I hope that that will provide the answer to what the hon. Member for Hackney, Central has been seeking to establish over the past few months.
  The obligation to disclose the case for the prosecution before getting to court or before committal is a matter which was raised by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve). It is a matter in which the practice varies. It is possible that prosecuting counsel will be prepared even a day or two beforehand to give a summary of what it is to assist the defence counsel to advise his client whether to go for trial or to be dealt with by the magistrates. It is a practice which has increased in the right cases. But, like the other observations made by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central, this is a matter which needs a great deal of further thought. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all the matters he has raised will receive the careful attention they deserve.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull repeated both that and the plea for interpreters' fees, and I have given those assurances. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for speaking of the rationalisation which follows with regard to judges' salaries now being excluded. It is a rationalisation, especially after those whom we have been calling the "Beeching judges" were put into a special category in 1971.
  Bearing in mind the constructive help that has come from both sides of the House, it seems that this is a Bill which, although it may combine a number of different provisions, has a great deal of merit. It is tidying up a number of matters which require it. I too was a complete novice about mortgages. I had no idea what the consequences could be. I share with others surprise that the vice-chancellor was able to shoot down so effectively what was sought to be provided in 1970.
  It may be that in Committee other matters that have been discussed will come up. The Bill is a useful one. It will tidy up some of the things that

  1761
  needed tidying up. Even if it means that the hon. Member for West Ham, North has some of his future enjoyment in the House taken from him, I hope that the House will welcome the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to justices of the peace and to make further provision with respect to the administration of justice and matters connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise such charges on the Consolidated Fund as are mentioned in Part I of the Table below, and such payments out of moneys provided by Parliament as are mentioned in Part II of the Table, and such payments into the Consolidated Fund as are mentioned in Part III of the Table.
  The Table referred to above

  PART I
  Charges on Consolidated Fund
  1. The sums required for the salaries and pension benefits payable to or in respect of stipendiary magistrates appointed under the Act in areas of England or Wales outside the Inner London area and the City of London or continued in office as if so appointed.
  2. Any additional sums required for the salaries and pension benefits payable to or in respect of metropolitan stipendiary magistrates in consequence of any increase in the statutory limit on their number.
  3. Any additional sums required for judicial salaries in consequences of any provision of the Act for the fixing of those salaries by the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State, with the consent in either case of the Minister for the Civil Service.
  4. Any additional sums required for increasing widow's and children's pensions payable under or by virtue of the Administration of Justice (Pensions) Act 1950 and charged on the Consolidated Fund.

  PART II
  Sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament
  1. The sums required for the remuneration and allowances—

  (a) of deputy stipendiary magistrates appointed under the Act in areas of England
  1762
  or Wales outside the Inner London area and the City of London; or

  (b) of deputy district registrars of the High Court appointed under the Act and of deputy county court registrars so appointed.

  2. The sums required for any pension, allowance or gratuity payable under the Act to or in respect of the president of the pension appeal tribunals established under the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943, or for compensation payable to him on his ceasing to hold office.
  3. The sums required to defray expenses of the Lord Chancellor in providing courses of instruction for justices of the peace.
  4. Any additional sums required for increasing widow's and children's pensions payable under or by virtue of the Administration of Justice (Pensions) Act 1950 out of moneys provided by Parliament.
  5. The sums required to relieve defendants in criminal cases of the cost of the employment of an interpreter where an interpreter is required because of a defendant's lack of English.

  PART III
  Sums payable into Consolidated Fund
  1. Any contributions to be paid under the Act by a local authority towards the pension benefits payable under or in respect of a stipendiary magistrate continued in office as mentioned in paragraph 1 of Part I of this Table.
  2. Any sums recoverable by the Lord Chancellor from a magistrates' courts committee or committee of magistrates in respect of his expenses of providing a course of instruction for justices of the peace in a case where the committee is in default in providing such a course.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

  OVERSEAS PENSIONS BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  6.22 p.m.
  The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I move the Second Reading of the Bill with considerable respect for the complexity of its subject matter and also in the awareness that it is so comprehensive that this may well be the last occasion on which Parliament will have to consider a Bill concerning superannuation for public service overseas. I believe that it is a significant and good Bill and I hope that it will command support from 111 sides.
  The Bill has two main objectives as well as two rather more limited aims. Its first main purpose is to enable Britain

  1763
  to pay direct to certain overseas pensioners their public service pension benefits. As the House will know, these are at present the responsibility of the developing countries which were formerly British dependencies.
  This is the second stage of the policy of assuming responsibility for overseas public service pensions. It was first announced by the previous Government on 11th March 1970 and it has since been carried forward by the present Government. In effect, it reverses the existing position. At present overseas Governments pay the pensioners and we, where we have been able to conclude appropriate agreements, then pay back to those Governments the cost attributable to the service given before independence. Under the Bill and through agreement with overseas Governments we would pay the pensioners and would arrange with overseas Governments for them to repay us in respect of the cost of service which is given after independence.
  The second main purpose of the Bill is to enable pension schemes for overseas service which are contained in Acts of Parliament to be set out in non-statutory documents and thus be given the same measure of flexibility as is accorded to the Civil Service pension scheme by the Superannuation Act 1972. The first of the other two minor objectives is to provide pensions benefits for two categories of people: former members of the Central Office of Overseas Audit Department, which is now extinct, and members of the home police forces who are killed or injured during their service abroad.
  The Bill also includes an amendment of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to make sure that the pension supplements can continue to be paid to overseas pensioners whose pension position will be affected by the Bill. Without such remedial action these pensioners would lose their statutory entitlement to these supplements, which clearly we all want to avoid. In Clause 1, which gives authority for the takeover of overseas pensions, we are concerned with the pensions of expatriate officers who served in Britain's former dependencies and former colonial and Indian dependent territories.
  These expatriate officers of the Indian, Sudan and Colonial Services were
  1764
  employed not by the United Kingdom Government but by the Governments of the overseas countries in which they served. Their pensions are therefore governed by the public service pension laws of the overseas countries. They are the responsibility of overseas Governments and are a charge on the local revenues of those countries. This is and has always been the position, which has been in no way altered by the various steps which Britain has taken to give financial help to these developing countries. When dependent countries become independent the successor Governments automatically inherit the assets and liabilities, including the pensions obligations, of their predecessors.
  It has normally been the practice of the British Government to conclude with each newly-independent Government at the time of independence a public officers agreement. Among other things, such an agreement reaffirms the responsibility of the overseas Government for its expatriate pensions and safeguards the pensions position of expatriate officers and their dependants. The responsibility for pensions which have been earned by expatriates who went to serve in countries abroad has rightly rested with the Governments of those countries. Past and present members of the Indian, Burma, Sudan and Colonial Services have, as everyone would agree, every reason to be proud of their loyal and valuable services to the overseas countries and of the great contribution they made when there.
  Nevertheless, by 1970 it had become apparent that the pensions position needed to be changed in order to take account of representations both from overseas countries and from the overseas pensioners themselves. This was the reason why the previous Government announced its two-stage pensions takeover policy which I remember was generally welcomed when it was announced. The reimbursement to overseas Governments of the cost of the pensions earned by expatriates by service before independence is under way. This was the first stage of the takeover.
  The annual cost of reimbursement will be about £12 million this year and next. After that, there is likely to be a gradual decline in annual expenditure because of the decrease in the number of pensions

  1765
  likely to be paid. It is very difficult to estimate the final total cost of the takeover but it might be in the region of £200 million over some 50 years, at the end of which period perhaps not many of us will still be in the House. If arrangements are made with all the eligible countries we shall waive £50 million of repayments of principal and interest on the compensation and commutation loans. So far we have waived about £36 million.
  The object of this second stage which we are discussing this evening is to relieve the overseas Governments completely of the administrative task of making these payments and to increase the efficiency of payment by centralising all the work in this country. Clause 1 of the Bill will enable my right hon. Friend to make payments for which Her Majesty's Government become liable as a result of an agreement with an overseas territory and to establish schemes to provide the benefits. Our aim is to negotiate agreements with the eligible countries which at one time or another were dependencies of the United Kingdom. Under these agreements the British Government will be assuming the responsibility which at present rests with the overseas Government for the award, administration and payment of certain pension benefits.
  We propose to seek agreement of the overseas countries to extending this responsibility not merely to the element of pension deriving from pre-independence service, but to the whole pension including any element attributable to service after independence. But I must make clear that, in seeking to assume this comprehensive administrative responsibility, we shall not be increasing Britain's financial liability beyond the cost of the pre-independence element of any pension.
  Her Majesty's Government are fully satisfied that, in taking over the cost of the pre-independence share of an expatriate officer's pension, Britain will have made fair and reasonable contribution towards its cost. We believe that overseas countries should retain financial responsibility for the share attributable to service after independence had been gained.
  In the agreements with overseas countries we shall seek to assume responsibility not only for expatriate officers'
  1766
  pensions, but also for pensions of their widows and children. Financial arrangements for these pensions will be broadly in line with those for the officers' pensions. The basic criteria for including expatriate pensions are that an officer should be covered by the relevant public officers agreement, and that he should not on 1st April 1971, or when he subsequently retires, be a citizen of the country which awards the pension.
  The terms of Clause 1 of the Bill have, however, been drawn widely enough to allow other pensions for overseas service to be included in takeover arrangements if a future Government decided to extend the takeover policy to any particular category which now falls outside it.
  There is the question of those known as overseas "quasi-governmental" pensioners. I apologise for that phrase, for which I am not wholly responsible. These are former expatriate officers—and their dependants—who were employed overseas by municipal corporations, nationalised industries, non-governmental educational establishments and other public service institutions. These people were not in overseas service under the Crown and were not people for whom the Secretary of State had special obligations as he had for members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service.
  The present Government, like their predecessors, have been unable to accept that those pensioners should qualify for pensions increases; but steps were taken to include in the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 an additional enabling clause to provide, without fresh legislation, the powers necessary if the Government ever decided to treat them, or some of them, as people within the scope of pensions increases. To this extent Clause 1 accords with Section 12 of the 1971 Pensions (Increase) Act.
  The position of these overseas quasi-governmental pensioners is extremely complex. I therefore asked a joint working party of officials of my Department and of the Overseas Service Pensioners' Association to examine each category of quasi-governmental pensioner against the Crown service criteria for entitlement to pension increase. I expect to receive its report in the near future. Meanwhile I have told

  1767
  the Overseas Service Pensioners' Association that I am aware of its concern on the pensions increase position, and also of its apprehension that the proposed takeover arrangements might indirectly harm the position of these quasi-governmental pensioners. I have assured the Association that, in face of the demonstrable need for change in policy, Clause 1 would give necessary power swiftly to make that change.
  Mr. Ivor Richard: The right hon. Gentleman is reading, with slight emendations, the speech made in another place by his noble Friend the Minister of State, who said that the Government hoped that the working party would report shortly. The Minister has said that he hopes it will report in the near future. That is a slight amendment from 21st December 1972. Will be tell us when he hopes, either shortly or in the near future, to get the report?
  Mr. Wood: It is even more shortly than my noble Friend made clear.
  The 1971 Select Committee on Overseas Aid recommended that any legislation on expatriate officers' pensions should make sure that an officer's circumstances are not changed adversely by Britain's assumption of legal responsibility for paying these pensions. I am satisfied that the proposed arrangements will meet the Select Committee's recommendation.
  Perhaps the most difficult problem related to taxation. I was extremely glad to have help from my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury when I tried to deal with this complicated matter. Most of the pensioners concerned now live in the United Kingdom. The total amount of tax payable by most of them would not be affected by the transfer to Her Majesty's Government of responsibility for paying pensions, although relative amounts of United Kingdom and overseas tax on their pensions may vary. But transfer would have unpleasant taxation consequences under the law as it exists for some pensioners. A pension paid by an overseas Government is not liable to United Kingdom tax if the pensioner is not resident here. If he is resident here it is chargeable only to the extent that the
  1768
  pension is remitted to this country. But a pension payable out of public revenue of the United Kingdom is normally liable to United Kingdom tax in full wherever the pensioner is resident.
  The Government have considered this problem and, like the Select Committee on Overseas Aid, have concluded that no one at present receiving an overseas pension should be worse off by way of taxation as a result of our assuming responsibility for paying that pension. The Government therefore propose to include appropriate provisions in this year's Finance Bill. The main points were set out by my noble Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 13th December last when she replied to a Question in another place.
  In an attempt, perhaps rather over-optimistic, to make this quite clear I ought now to add three ponits. First, present and future pensioners will continue to be exempt from United Kingdom tax on their pensions while they are not resident in this country. Secondly, existing pensioners resident in this country will continue to be exempt from tax on any portion of their pensions which is paid abroad and not remitted here. We shall regard as existing pensioners those who have already retired by 6th April, 1973, the beginning of the new tax year. Pensioners who retire after that date will be taxed on the whole of their pensions in the ordinary way while resident here.
  Thirdly, existing pensioners resident in this country who receive pensions for service in Malawi, Zambia and Trinidad, which are at present exempt from United Kingdom tax under the provisions of double taxation agreements with those countries, will continue to be exempt on those pensions, despite the fact that the agreements will no longer provide exemption when payment is taken over by Britain. I must make it clear that this exemption will not be granted to future pensioners who retire after 5th April, 1973.
  Those last two exemptions will also be granted to widows of existing pensioners when they start to draw pensions on their husbands' deaths, but not to widows of future pensioners. None of these exemptions will apply to supplements payable under the Pensions

  1769
  (Increase) Act. In this way we can achieve the undertaking that no existing pensioner will be worse off as a result of taxation after Britain has assumed responsibility for direct payment of the pensions. Nor will any pensioner find himself in a worse position as a result of the effects of other aspects of the takeover arrangements.
  I have fully explained these proposals to the pensioners' representatives and they have warmly welcomed the arrangements, which they think will be satisfactory to all concerned.
  Earlier this year Parliament provided for a change in the administration of public sector pensions in this country. In approving the Superannuation Act 1972 consent was given to removal of the detail of public sector pension schemes from Acts of Parliament. Clause 1(2) and Clause 2 of the Bill will enable the Government to follow a similar course for the overseas pensions schemes set out in overseas laws which will be taken over from overseas Governments and for the schemes for public service overseas at present set out in United Kingdom legislation. In this way, instead of requiring legislative authority for every small variation of detail, schemes would be established in administrative documents and amended administratively, but a copy of a scheme would have to be laid for the information of Parliament before it could come into effect.
  In Committee in another place, Clause 2(2)(e) was added to the Bill to allow my right hon. Friend to make a pension scheme for members of the former South Arabian security forces named in the Clause. This addition was made against Government advice because it was felt that the Government should make good the default by the Government of the People's Democratic Republic of the Yemen which we consider to be responsible for the pensions. The Government are taking account of the strong feelings expressed in another place, and are considering again whether they should make payments to members of these forces.
  I give the House the undertaking that I shall report the conclusions of that reconsideration as soon as I can—during the Committee stage if possible—but I cannot say tonight what decision we shall reach. Whatever our conclusions may be, I must make clear that we shall ask
  1770
  the House to delete this provision. In itself it adds nothing to the powers of my right hon. Friend to make payments to these people and for several reasons it would create inequities. It is inequities which noble Lords in another place were and are anxious to remove.
  I owe you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. Members deep apologies for having spoken at considerable length on a subject of great complexity. I promise now to listen with attention to any observations which hon. Members may wish to make before—if the House gives me leave—speaking again, I hope a good deal more briefly, at the end of the debate. I shall then try to answer points raised as well as any questions on Clauses 3 and 4. I have not described those clauses because I think I have spoken for too long. But I give the assurance in relation to Clause 3, which provides powers for the management of pension schemes, that we intend to consult pensioners' representatives on all major issues. I have already consulted them about the Bill and told them that the facility for retrospection included in Clause 3 will be employed only in circumstances advantageous to the individuals concerned.
  All that I plead in extenuation for speaking for so long is that I believe the Bill to be a turning point in the intricate pattern of relationships between the British Government, independent Governments of former British dependencies and expatriate officers. For this reason I believe that this is an important Bill, which I hope the House will unanimously support.
  6.42 p.m.
  Mr. Ivor Richard: I first join the Minister by saying that we on this side of the House—the few of us who are present—welcome very much the introduction of the Bill. With some qualifications we shall give it a speedy passage through the House.
  I think that in many ways the Bill marks a very substantial change in the position of overseas pensioners. I do not want to go into it in great detail. I merely say that in general terms it would seem that justice is being done now to many people to whom justice was not done in the past and satisfaction is being given to a number who were denied satisfaction in the past. Therefore it is

  1771
  right and proper that Her Majesty's Government should assume the responsibilities set out in the Bill.
  I turn to two or three specific points. Since I happen to be on my feet speaking on the Bill, I take the opportunity to refer to a constituent about whom I have had considerable correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman. He is Mr. Parpia, who I am sure the Minister will remember. Mr. Parpia is an Indian living in this country who was a United Kingdom citizen but who had previously been employed in the old Indian Civil Service. As I understand the position, which is extraordinarily complex, he is now one of four people in that situation living in the United Kingdom. Because when he initially joined the Indian Civil Service in 1935 or 1936 he was legally regarded or deemed to be of Asian domicile, he is not covered by the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971.
  Mr. Parpia's initial complaint to me as his Member of Parliament and my initial complaint to the Government was a very simple one based on the proposition that he is living in this country, is in receipt of a pension for services he rendered to the British Crown when the British Crown was responsible for India, and pays taxes in this country the same as everyone else but is excluded from any pensions increase provision which any Government choose to introduce by virtue of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971. This seems to be a grossly unfair position.
  When I went into the matter a little more deeply, it seemed that the great distinction which the Government seek to draw concerning Mr. Parpia's position is whether or not, at the time when he originally joined the Indian Civil Service—as long ago as 1935 or 1936—he was deemed to be of Asian domicile or the Secretary of State deemed him to be of Asian domicile. I put it not specifically in the terms used by the Act, but that is the general position.
  Another complaint that Mr. Parpia makes, which I think is also utterly legitimate, is that while he was in India the rupee was devalued by ½per cent. but his pension was not increased by one penny or one rupee, as the case might be. Secondly, he finds himself in a situation in which for some months last year the
  1772
  Indian Government did not pay him the devalued rupee equivalent pension which he was entitled to receive.
  As I understand the provisions of the Bill, Mr. Parpia's pension will in future be paid by Her Majesty's Government if they enter into an agreement with the Government of India so that for ex-Indian civil servants living in this country and domiciled here the British Government will assume responsibility for paying those pensions.
  I do not expect to have a detailed answer this evening, but this is an opportunity to raise the point. I should like to have an assurance from the Minister that in relation to the Bill, in assuming liability to pay pensions of expatriate pensioners, the Government will be careful to include those who are outside the terms of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1971 who nevertheless are domiciled in the United Kingdom and are United Kingdom citizens. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear] I am glad to have support from hon. Members on the Government side.
  This is a gap in the provisions which in honour we should recognise and deal with. The numbers involved are infinitesimal and the amount involved in the Bill is £200 million over 50 years. Therefore, to put the position right for the few Mr. Parpias in this country would seem to be a matter of elementary justice and commonsense. I therefore hope that at some stage the Minister will look into this.
  I have recently had a telegram from an expatriate pensioner living in Cyprus complaining bitterly that by the provisions of the Bill the parliamentary scrutiny he hitherto enjoyed is being removed. I do not think there is anything in the point but I should welcome reassurance for this gentleman and others who are worried about it. I hope that we shall no longer need to have detailed legislation dealing with expatriate pensioners which in any way prejudices their position and that all we are doing in the Bill is putting them in the same position as domestic pensioners.
  With reference to Aden, I read the reports of the debates in another place with a great deal of interest. No one who has been through the HANSARD reports of those debates could fail but be impressed by the weight of the argument used by those proposing the amendment and the merits of the argument they put forward.

  1773
  I noted with great care and some delight what the Minister said, but I should like to question a little further on the South Arabian issue. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman is to look at this again taking account of the strong feelings that were expressed in another place, and that the Government will report the conclusions they reach as soon as they can, and hopefully before Committee stage. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that if the Government are not in a position to report their conclusions before the Committee stage I shall advise my hon. Friends to vote in such a way as to maintain the clause in its existing form.
  After all, the Bill as it comes to us from another place is, broadly speaking, acceptable in relation to the South Arabian situation. The arguments in favour of paying pensions to these people seem to be overwhelming. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about strong feelings in another place. I am sure no one would wish the Government to start their consideration of the matter thinking that there were no strong feelings on the matter in this place.
  I came to the argument totally fresh. I had nothing to do with the decisions taken by the then Government in 1970. I had not considered the position in any detail until I came to look at the report of the debate in the other place and to consider the arguments there presented. It struck me that there were three major considerations, and perhaps I may put them before the House.
  First, what on earth is the justification for the distinction between civilian and military pensioners in South Arabia? If one goes back to the position in 1970 when my noble Friend Lord Shackleton in another place made the announcement in relation to public servants in Southern Yemen one sees that it was not a comprehensive statement but dealt with military personnel.
  My noble Friend said:
  "Having regard to all the circumstances and having carefully considered the situation, the Government have decided that so far as concerns indigenous pensioners of the civil administration and civil police they are prepared to make ex gratia loan advances equivalent to the amount of pension due".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 18th March 1970; Vol. 308, c. 1134.]
  1774
  They can be called ex gratia loan advances, but in effect what we are doing is paying these people pensions which they should get from the Government of Southern Yemen. My noble Friend said that he was not prepared to prejudice the step that was being taken there in relation to civil pensioners by arguing overlong and over-forcefully about the position of military pensioners, but I do not see the reason in principle for the distinction.
  Secondly, I ask myself whether we would be setting a precedent. I do not think that we would be doing so in relation to South Arabia. After all, the great distinction between the South Arabian situation and almost all the ex-dependent territories which are now independent is that in relation to Southern Yemen no agreement covering pensioners was entered into prior to withdrawal. It it had been, I should have assumed that military personnel such as are sought to be covered by the amendment made in another place would have been included in the agreement; and if they had been included, prima facie they would be within the provisions of the Bill.
  It seems to me to be somewhat unfair that these people in South Arabia should be treated adversely merely because the withdrawal from that part of the world was conducted in such a way—I make no complaint about it; that is a different and long argument about which I know certain hon. Gentlemen opposite might have different views—that no agreement could be reached about them with successor Government. A fortiori, if one attacks the way in which the withdrawal was carried out by the previous administration, that adds force to the argument that military pensioners should be included in the provisions of the Bill rather than the reverse.
  Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchell: Surely the answer is that when Lord Shackleton took that decision one reason for not including the military was that there had been mutinies in Aden by the armed police and the South Arabian Army. Surely we must bring that fact out now.
  Mr. Richard: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for raising the matter. His experience in that part of the world is far greater than mine. I had

  1775
  that matter in mind when I read the debates, but I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not ignore what was said by Lord Shackleton and Lord Trevelyan. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was concerned on the ground, but the views of Lord Trevelyan in another place carry a great deal of weight. He is not noted for a lack of consideration of the issues involved in the opinions that he usually expresses, and he seemed to advance powerful and weighty reasons why the mutiny as such did not place these people in a different category.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: Surely the answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchell) is that those who were disloyal to Britain are probably perfectly happy in the new set-up in South Yemen, while those who were loyal to us have suffered by this unfair distinction.
  Mr. Richard: My hon. Friend has given one answer, but there are two others. First, many of the people concerned retired long before the mutiny, so in any event it is impossible to make them responsible, even collectively and vicariously, for what took place at the time it occurred. Secondly, a large number of the people with whom we are concerned were hundreds of miles from Aden at the time of the mutiny, and it seems extraordinarily unfair to castigate and hold them responsible for it.
  The mutiny is the one argument in favour of excluding these people which has never been advanced openly by anyone who has advocated their exclusion from the Bill. It has been hinted at and talked around. In any debate on the subject the mutiny has played a large part, but, as I read the debate in the other place, no one—certainly not the noble Lady, or the right hon. Gentleman today—said that the reason for the exclusion of these military personnel in Southern Arabia was that they had mutinied. Indeed, if that is the argument it had better be brought into the open so that we can consider the reasons for the mutiny, who mutinied, when they mutinied and what were the effects of the mutiny.
  Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchell: Why did not Lord Shackleton include them in the first place if it was not because of the mutiny?
  Mr. Richard: My noble Friend must speak for himself, but I think the answer is that he was not prepared to jeopardise the gain that he was making for civilian pensioners by raising the whole question of the military personnel. My noble Friend is a politician, as we all are, and there are times when one has to accept 50 per cent. rather than 75 per cent. of one's goal.
  I hope that the Government will realise how few people are involved. As I understand the figures, they are as follows: Federal Guard, 128; Hadhrami Beduin Legion, 44; Federal Regular Army, 189; and Aden Armed Police, 22. Many of those officers were of junior rank and had few of the years of pensionable service necessary to qualify for a pension, and the Hadhrami Beduin Legion had only 44 officers. In these circumstances I hope that the Government will be generous I would be unhappy to feel that it was necessary to have an open breach between the two sides of the House over this part of the Bill when the Bill itself is a worthwhile step forward.
  In general we welcome the Bill. I hope that, so far as Aden and South Arabian military pensions are concerned, the Government will, before or during the Committee stage, say that they accept the merits and the justice of the case and that they will do something about it.
  7.1 p.m.
  Sir George Sinclair: I should like to welcome the Bill, but I must first declare two interests. First, I was for many years a member of the Colonial Service and am today a pensioner. Second, I was a member of the Select Committee on overseas aid, which made the recommendation that the Government should take over the pension liabilities and, if they did, should ensure that the overseas pensioner was no worse off. I welcome my right hon. Friend's reassurance that, by this Bill, the overseas pensioner will be no worse off.
  But there are other reasons why I welcome the Bill. The continuance of the payment of pensions which arose from service in pre-independence days had become a growing political irritant to the independent countries, and a demand was growing within their own legislatures and in their own public opinion that these payments should be ended, although they

  1777
  had been agreed at the time of independence.
  By taking over these pensions, Her Majesty's Government are achieving two things at one stroke. First, they are removing a real and, I think, a growing irritant in their relations with countries for which we were once responsible. Second, they are giving a reassurance to pensioners that their retirement incomes shall not become a political issue for people who no longer have experience of their service.
  This Bill will also reassure those pensioners who are living in the United Kingdom that, by the annual review of pensions, their retirement incomes will keep pace with the cost of living.
  So much for my welcome. There remain two difficult points. The first concerns the quasi-governmental pensioners. I am glad that we may in the near future expect a report, and that this will go into the various categories separately and one by one. It is a complex problem, and the differences in status and in relationship with this country between the officers in various categories is often very narrow.
  Indeed, whether a serving officer was appointed by the Secretary of State or was appointed or sometimes transferred to some local body was often a matter of purely local political convenience. By comparison with those appointed by the Secretary of State, many of these officers were doing similar jobs; they were enjoying similar conditions of service and they were always regarded by us who served alongside them as fellow officers carrying similar responsibilities, especially in times of trouble; also they were transferred from one job to another fairly freely.
  Most of us who served alongside these quasi-governmental officers would therefor ask my right hon. Friend, when this report comes up, to treat them sympathetically. They did as good a job; and they were often indistinguishable from those holding Secretary of State's appointments. Justice has not been done to them in the past. Now there is a golden opportunity to do so, and I hope that the Secretary of State will take it.
  I will not say more than a word or two about those who were members of the Aden security forces, because there are
  1778
  others who have closer experience of their plight, but I would make one general point. We should show generosity towards those people who were loyal to our Government in overseas countries during the final stages of our withdrawal and the coming of independence. They served in difficult, often hazardous, conditions, with their families; in Aden, those conditions were dangerous as well. I hope that, however difficult this problem may be, my right hon. Friend will be able to give these people what our country would regard as a fair deal.
  7.7 p.m.
  Mr. James Johnson: I should like to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) about the generosity to those loyal to Her Majesty's Government, whatever the party in office here, in the final stages of the evacuation, if that is the word, of Aden, now the PDRY. I want to speak because, if the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchell) will allow me to say so, I think that I am the only hon. Member who has been into Aden since he left a certain Crater.
  I was there last year and had the benefit of conversations with the Prime Minister of the PDRY and some of his Ministers, when this matter of pensions came up. It is a sore point, connected with what happened to the noble Lord in Geneva and elsewhere. They feel that the people concerned are entitled to these pensions and keep saying to people like myself with whom they may talk in London and elsewhere, "We, our fathers, our grandfathers and our great-grandfathers served for 160 years in God knows what capacity. We have been loyal in the past and done a job in this part of the globe."
  For those people, I would say—yes, be generous. But I should like to say something, under Clause 2(2)(e)(iv) about the Aden police force. When I talked with the Prime Minister and his colleagues on this matter, I said. "This is fine, but what about those who mutinied? When people in London tell me that some of those in the police force took up arms and attacked our people in the closing stages of our withdrawal, it is a bit difficult to ask me then to go back on your behalf and lobby my

  1779
  Government for people who behaved in this way." There may be a small number, though I do not know how many. The Minister should look again at this matter of the Aden police force about which the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West may say more later.
  As one who was not involved there at the time, I can be quite objective about the matter. I have the utmost good will towards what is sometimes called the South Yemen, PDSYR. I believe that, as a developing nation, it needs all the help it can get particularly in the sense of sterling coming in as pensions for people who have worked in the past alongside our own Army and, of course, those in the former Colonial Service, and elsewhere.
  I ask the Minister to look carefully at those parts of the Aden Police Force which in my view did not behave in the best possible manner, to put it mildly, in the closing stages of our evacuation.
  7.11 p.m.
  Mr. John Tilney (Liverpool, Wavertree): I will not follow what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) said in connection with Aden because many on these benches know much more about Aden than I do.
  I was glad that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair), and the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) all welcomed the Bill as, indeed, do I. Many of us on both sides of the House have urged this policy on successive Governments for a long time.
  I ought here to declare an interest in that I am Vice-President of the Overseas Service Pensioners' Association which also very much welcomes what Her Majesty's Government are doing. But it is over two years since the original decision to accept responsibility was first taken and the delay has caused endless problems. I wish to refer to some of those problems.
  First, some territories have increased their income tax rates. Secondly, the pound has been devalued. Thirdly, the payment of widows' pensions is often delayed for months while confirmation of the correct rates of pension under the widows' and orphans' legislation is sought from overseas independent territories.
  1780
  Fourthly, in almost every case the pensioner or his widow suffers because of this delay.
  I therefore urge on my right hon. Friend to ensure that the Government do not wait for an approach to be made by the overseas independent territory but will make that approach themselves.
  I wish also to refer to the problem of those whose pensions are not taken over because they, or their husbands in the case of widows, were not directly employed—in fact, the quasi-civil servants—by an overseas Government and were not therefore covered by public officers' agreements. No doubt my right hon. Friend has read what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd, said in another place, but it is worth putting on record in this House that these people were recruited on the terms laid down by local ordinance which was approved at the time by the Secretary of State. Those ordinances stipulated that they should receive pensions payable by—and I am now quoting the case of the expatriate staff of the Nigerian College of Arts, Science and Technology—the Federal Government of Nigeria identical to those payable to Government officers, Hitherto, of course, the Nigerian Government has made no distinction between these pensions and those payable to government officers. They have all been provided out of one lump sum in the annual estimates.
  When the Government reach agreement with the Nigerian Government under this Bill, the position will change. The British Government will be paying the pensions to retired Government officers whereas the Nigerian Government will he left to pay the pensions of the handful of retired staff of the Nigerian College of Arts.
  It may be argued that the position will not be adversely affected and legally, of course, that is so. But pensions have been dependent on the good will of the Nigerian Government ever since independence deprived them of the protection of the Secretary of State. In practical terms I believe their position will be jeopardised. By declining to take over the pensions of these quasi-civil servants, the British Government appear to indicate that they do not regard these people as their concern.

  1781
  Hitherto, the bulk of pensions paid to expatriates by the Nigerian Government has been covered by a draft public officers' agreement. It must be remembered that the Federal Government failed to sign an agreement after independence, but the British Government have treated that agreement as binding although it was unsigned. Thus in practice this handful of quasi-civil servants was sheltered by the commitment of the British Government. But once the Nigerian Government is paying only expatriates' pensions which are not covered by the agreement, the British Government will have no standing to intervene on their behalf. This is a matter of which I think note ought to be taken.
  The same dangers arise in the case of the widows. Let us remember that their husbands were required by law to contribute to the Nigerian Widows' and Orphans' Pension Scheme which was unfunded, that is, it went into the ordinary revenue account. The pensions payable to those widows were payable under the same ordinance and in all respects were considered identical to those paid to widows whose husbands were directly employed by the Government.
  I will not mention the Nigerian Coal Corporation, the staff of Achimota College, the staff at Fourah Bay College in Sierra Leone or those in Lagos which have already been mentioned by my right hon. Friend together with other corporations. But if we can help the locally recruited civil servants in Aden, I believe we should help these people, too.
  It remains only to refer to the problem of citizenship of an overseas territory on acceptance by Her Majesty's Government of pension take-over. This is rather a technical matter on which I hope not to take up much time of the House.
  Under the 1962, 1965 and 1969 Pensions (Increase) Acts, birth in an overseas territory disqualified a pensioner from the receipt of a supplement. When this was removed under the 1971 Pensions (Increase) Act, an additional proviso was introduced. It was laid down that under the new category K, officers born in the country in which they served would qualify for supplement provided—and this is a date taken almost at random—that on 1st April 1971 they were not
  1782
  citizens of the overseas country from which the pension concerned was derived.
  In setting up the new category K of officers eligible for certification for supplements, the Government have stated that the take-over is confined to those who are covered by a public officers' agreement—or would, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, have been covered if there had been a public officers' agreement—and who are not citizens of the country concerned. I ask the Minister will the citizenship of the overseas territory whether taken out before or after 1st April 1971 affect the take-over of the payment of the pension under the new Bill? Like the example quoted by the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard), this will apply to only a few people, but it is essential that they should get fair treatment. A number of pensioners have been refused a supplement on the ground that they held dual citizenship because automatically on the declaration of independence of an overseas territory they became citizens of that territory if they had been born in it and even if they thought that they held United Kingdom and Commonwealth citizenship and held a British passport. In many cases the pensioners concerned did not even know and were never informed that they held dual citizenship.
  There is a case in point concerning a Dr. Dyson, who lives in Surbiton, who came to this country from Mauritius in 1947 and has been here since then—yet he will now be treated for pension purposes permanently, as regards his supplement anyhow, in a way quite different from a Mr. C. W. T. Johnson of Fiji who qualifies for his pension merely because the Fiji Citizenship Act came into effect after 1st April 1971—on 28th May instead.
  It is absurd that those two very similar cases should be treated differently. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will look very carefully into cases such as this long before the Committee Stage.
  7.21 p.m.
  Mr. George Cunningham: I should first apologise for not being in the Chamber for the first part of the Minister's remarks and for the fact that I shall be unable to stay

  1783
  to hear the winding-up speech. However, I should like the Minister to deal with one question, which is along the same lines as a question with which I have bothered him on other occasions. That is the question whether the expenditure with which we are dealing in the Bill is to count towards the overseas aid programme.
  One might have thought that a point as basic as that would be covered by the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, but it is not. What we are told in the Memorandum is how much money is likely to be spent under the authority of the Bill when it becomes an Act, but we are not told whether it is proposed that that expenditure should be booked to the public expenditure programme or the overseas aid programme.
  This matters an awful lot. If the money is not booked to the aid programme, we are talking about additional Government expenditure. If it is booked to the aid programme, we are providing for expenditure to take place which simply substitutes for other expenditure which would have taken place anyway. If the money is to be found out of the Minister's known kitty for the aid programme, he will have to lop it off the aid which he provides to recipient countries.
  I cannot understand how the House is presented with something that calls itself an Explanatory and Financial Memorandum when it does not deal with such a basic point. I am sorry that the Treasury Minister has just left the Chamber, because the blame for this, which applies equally to other occasions when expenditure proposals are presented to the House, lies not at the door of the Minister for Overseas Development but at the door of the Treasury, which is responsible for the manner in which estimates and so on are presented to us.
  Reading between the lines, the intention seems to be that this money is to be booked to the overseas aid programme. If the Minister would care to nod or shake his head to steer me in one direction or another on that matter, I should be grateful. But I guess that it will be booked to his programme. The Minister is neither nodding nor shaking his head at present, so I shall assume that that is so, in which case it is totally wrong.
  1784
  We are saying here at long last, belatedly, that the responsibility for looking after these people is a British responsibility and should have been so all along, and that the legal duty to provide these pensions should rest with the British Government and not with the Government of the independent country which used to be a British colony.
  If the responsibility lies with us, it is not aid. If the responsibility lies with the overseas Government and we are giving them money to assist them to discharge their responsibilities—money which they would otherwise have to take from their tax-paying base, such as it is—that is aid. It is upon that justification that the £12 million referred to in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum has been provided in the past, as I understand it. If we now say, however, that we were wrong in the past to place this obligation legally upon, for example, Malawi and that it should always have been our responsibility directly, I see no logical conceptual justification for saying that it is aid to an overseas country.
  Logic—if my logic is correct—does not sway the Treasury Bench. But I have something stronger than logic. I have a precedent. I ask the Minister to look at the case of the Central African Pensions Fund. That was the fund for the former officials of the Central African Federation, established when the Federation was broken up in 1963. Contributions had to be made to that fund by the three constituent territories in the Federation and by the British Government. At least one of the constituent territories, Malawi, had great difficulty in finding its share to contribute to that fund, so the British Government helped it out with aid. Because the responsibility for contributing the Malawi share was legally a Malawi responsibility, the provision of that money was properly booked to the overseas aid programme. The British contribution to that fund, however, legally rested, under the arrangements made when the Federation was broken up, upon the British Government. Consequently the British contributiton was not counted, at one time at least, as overseas aid.
  That was a perfectly proper distinction to draw. What we are doing now is saying that all of these pension payments will fall legally to the British Government in the same way as the British

  1785
  contribution to the Central African Pensions Fund fell to the British Government. Therefore, upon the precedent I have quoted, these payments ought not to be counted as part of the aid programme.
  This is not merely a book transaction. It is not just a question of whether one allocates this expenditure to one category or another in the public expenditure exercise. If £12 million or £13 million a year—declining, presumably—has to be booked to the overseas aid programme, it will have to be deducted from the aid provided to other countries. No one will ever be able to say which other countries have suffered as a result, because no one will know how much they would have got if this £12 million or so had been treated in a different fashion. As Bernard Shaw said, one can never tell how a man would have got on if one had not sawn his leg off.
  It seems to me that the Treasury is at it again. It is trying to shove things into the Minister's aid programme which do not belong there. This has been a constant battle between the Treasury and the aid administration, whatever it has been called, over the years.
  I appeal to the Minister of State for the Treasury, who must have more influence in this matter than the Minister himself, if my expectation of what he is up to is correct, to stop this and not fly in the face of a precedent established in the past, but rather to follow the precedent of the Central African Pensions Fund and say that this is a British responsibility, just as much as paying British civil servants here in this country. It should not be booked to the poor Minister's aid programme, which is already far too low, but should be carried out of other expenditure.
  Sir G. Sinclair: The hon. Gentleman has made some slighting reference to the Minister's aid programme. I would like him to remember that the aid programme is now very much greater than it was during the time when his party was in power.
  Mr. Cunningham: These points could be disputed, but on the subject of aid I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's party is in a position to cast stones. Certainly that goes for my party, too, but it also goes for the hon. Gentleman's
  1786
  party. Neither of us has done half as much as the French have done in this respect.
  But the fact that I do not agree with all that my party did on this matter when it was in office does not mean that I should not urge the Minister to do better. I shall applaud him if he does. It is important that we keep the aid programme for aid to other countries and, if we book this £12 million or £13 million as aid to other countries, we are, in essence, taking aid away from those who should receive it and diluting the purity of the items which are categorised as overseas aid.
  7.33 p.m.
  Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchell (Aberdeenshire-West): The point that I would like to make in this debate is a very short one and has probably almost all come out already. Obviously, I welcome this Bill and it seems absolutely right and in accordance with noblesse oblige to reward these fine men who served the British Crown in their day, and to put right all the errors that have occurred. I support any hon. Member on either side of the House who says that, and my right hon. Friend has said that, this is what we are trying to do.
  I have been watching the debate in another place in the Committee and Third Reading stages with growing anxiety, because it is apparent that in the course of dealing with this amendment, which has now been included in the Bill, the noble Lords covered a field in which they either had direct experience or were what I would call supported by rumour.
  The situation as regards the mutinies which took place was explained by the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, in the debate. He said that the circumstances were such that it was very difficult to identify whether things had been done with calculated intent. I would refute that statement in the sense that I was there, and I think it right that in this House, if we have direct experience of something, we should say so. Whether we say it well or badly is perhaps less important than that we say it. I was delighted that the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) paid a tribute to Lord Trevelyan. I did so myself at a dinner in the House of

  1787
  Commons a short time ago, when I introduced him as one whom I considered a peerless knight who had become a life peer. He is a man we can all respect and his guidance in another place has been tremendous, as indeed has that of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd.
  However, the question remains, are we now developing a situation in which we are going to produce a blanket amnesty for those police and military officers in the South Arabian forces who arranged the murder, over many months, of Arab and British Special Branch officers in the Aden Police and who also murdered 23 British soldiers in Aden in one day, 27th June 1967—more in number than all of us here and probably almost as many as in the public gallery. These were our own fellow countrymen.
  In the debate in another place noble Lords were heard to say that they thought these men belonged to this unit or that unit. I know to which units they belonged and I knew where those soldiers came from. I do not want to be emotional because it is not a good thing to be emotional in discussing a financial Bill, but the fact remains that 23 of our fellow countrymen were killed in one day and the organisation of that murder and the murder of the Special Branch officers was carried out by people to whom tonight we are possibly proposing, if we are not careful, to give pensions.
  It may be said that I am oversimplifying, that I am on the wrong track, but I must ask my right hon. Friend to examine this. I am an army pensioner and I am also in receipt of a wound pension because of the three occasions on which I have been shot—and I have to be personally accountable for my pension in that I have to parade every couple of years before a medical board so that they can look at the shot-holes and see that I am still entitled to the pension. They write to me and I write back. They know that I am a man who exists and to whom the Queen pays a pension.
  What frightens me about the debate in another place is that nobody seems even to know the numbers of officers of the South Arabian forces who are eligible for these pensions. One noble Lord said it was fewer than 300, while another said that it was 400. Somebody else said
  1788
  that it was too complicated to find out how many there were. We cannot deal with a situation in which we are proposing to pay out, on this blanket amnesty arrangement, pensions to people when we do not know how many of them exist.
  Obviously, at some stage, there has got to be either a working party or a special committee or some individuals who can sit down and write out the names of these people and who they are. I hope that if my right hon. Friend gets somebody to do that he will consult one or two of us who know these people personally. We have seen them. We have met some of them. Recently, in the Persian Gulf some of us met the last commander of the Federal Guard. In another place they talked about Nasir Buraik Alawi and his present plight. Many of these individuals are known by hon. Members opposite and on this side of the House. So let us see their names, then we can say, "Splendid. He is a great chap and deserves a pension", or, "I knew that chap, and at such and such a place on such and such a date he was involved in a mutiny; and he does not deserve a pension".
  I have made by point, and it was made even more strongly and in better English than mine in another place when the question was discussed of loan advances to many of those who have been in difficulties. It is obviously a question of showing some heart and mixing magnanimity with common sense. I should be most grateful to my right hon. Friend if we could have an assurance tonight that the South Arabian Security Forces if they are to get British pension payments are, individually, honourably entitled to those payments.
  7.39 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Luce: I am very pleased to be able to follow in the debate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell) who can claim enormous experience, particularly in the last few months before independence in Aden. Certainly I cannot claim that kind of experience. Mine is that I had the privilege, as the son of an ex-Governor of Aden, of visiting that part of the world from time to time and witnessing the distinguished service of the security forces in that part of the world. I cannot declare an interest,

  1789
  although I am, like one or two other hon. Members here, a former member of the Overseas Civil Service. Unfortunately, however, I did not serve long enough to qualify for a pension, otherwise I should claim an interest in this Bill.
  Noble Lords put up a forceful case for paying pensions to the security forces in South Arabia. Of course, we are dealing here with a wide range of forces—includin the Hadhrami Beduin Legion, the Federal Regular Army and the Aden Armed Police. There is no point in going over the background to this except to remind ourselves that that part of the world achieved independence in unusual conditions. It was a very speedy hand-over and there was no chance to make proper arrangements for public service pensions. It was right for the then Government in 1970 to announce that they would provide pensions for the indigenous Civil Service but it was wrong to exclude the indigenous officers of the security forces. The situation now exists where there are about 300 officers, the vast majority of whom surely served the British Empire and the British Government in Aden with the greatest of loyalty, who are being paid no pension, and I find that unacceptable.
  Of course, a number of important arguments against paying pensions have been put forward, not only at Government level but from other sources. It is right for the House to pay close attention to the views about disloyalty in the Crater episode by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West. But does he believe it right that because a small minority of the security forces at that time rebelled against the authority, the vast majority should be penalised for being loyal to the British Government?
  I agreed with most of the views expressed by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) that if it is possible to distinguish between those who were loyal and those who were disloyal, so much the better. The problem is, however, that it is not possible so to distinguish, and, that being the case, we should press ahead and not penalise the vast majority who were loyal.
  Another argument is that some of the armed forces are already paid pensions by the South Yemen Government. How-
  1790
  ever, they form the minority, those who were not particularly loyal, as I understand it, to the British Government at the time. They are in any case being paid at fairly reduced rates and the vast majority of them, who are living outside South Yemen, are not being paid anything at all. The third argument put forward by the Government, who seem to have shifted their ground considerably from time to time in arguing against paying pensions, is that the armed services are and should be distinguished from the Civil Service in Aden because the armed forces are paid gratuities. Of course, that applied only to the other ranks and not to the officers, and it is the minority of the officers that we are talking about.
  However, by far the most important argument being advanced—and I understand that the Government are advancing it now—is that such a move would create a precedent, as the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) said. Conversely, the Aden situation was unique, with the possible exception of Palestine. We withdrew hastily without reaching an agreement on public service pensions and if Palestine is used as the only other example it must be remembered that the British Government decided, although there was no agreement on public service pensions, that they would pay the indigenous security forces until such time as the new authority took control of it. That is one argument against concern about creating a precedent.
  A second argument is that, as I understand it, all other dependent territories have had proper arrangements included in their independent constitution giving express guarantees of pension rights to civil servants, but also, where relevant, to members of the local armed forces. As an example I can cite Section 195 of the Kenya Independence Constitution—I served in Kenya as a district officer—which does just that. The third argument is that there is an additional factor in Aden in that the vast majority of the security forces there, with the exception of the Aden Armed Police, were directly raised and paid by the British Government. For example, payment to the Hadhrami Beduin Legion and the Regular Federal Army came entirely from Her Majesty's Army estimates.

  1791
  I submit therefore that it would be dishonourable to forget those who served this country and their own country when we administered Aden. That view was strongly put by a whole range of distinguished British officers and civil servants who served in Aden before independence and who wrote to the Foreign Secretary in October 1971 expressing the unanimous view that these pensions should be paid. I do not believe that we should be petty or unjust. It would be untypical of the British not to show a generosity of spirit by finding special funds to pay these pensions. I must say to my right hon. Friend that unless he can give an assurance before the Committee stage that he will take action, I shall find it very difficult to give further support to the Bill.
  7.47 p.m.
  Mr. Dennis Walters: Like every ether hon. Member who has spoken, I should like to welcome the Bill. I should also like to confine my remarks, which will be brief, to the specific issue of the South Arabian officers who were not granted a pension.
  In this connection I must tell my right hon. Friend that quite a few of us on the Government side as well as on the Opposition side greatly welcomed the amendment passed in the House of Lords. I and some of my colleagues were pleased with the undertaking which was given by my right hon. Friend that, while he intended deleting the amendment, he will give the most sympathetic consideration to the contents of the amendment. In the friendliest possible way I can assure him that we shall be following that consideration very closely.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell), in an excellent speech and understandably feeling very strongly as he was so closely involved, made a number of points, some of which I did not agree with. For instance, regarding the number of officers involved, he implied that the situation was completely vague and that the numbers were not known. But as I understand it we are talking of a number somewhere between 250 and 300 officers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and
  1792
  Shoreham (Mr. Luce) explained, and of about £100,000. We can therefore define the people involved and the money involved rather more precisely.
  I was pleased that my right hon. Friend did not stress the argument about precedent. I have never found it a satisfactory one. It always seems to me a last ditch argument. In the course of the debates in the House of Lords, which I followed closely, many convincing speeches were made and in particular I found the contributions by Lord Trevelyan most persuasive.
  It is in my view highly significant that the former commanders of the forces involved have all expressed their strong feelings that pensions should be paid and our obligations met. When, two or three years ago, the previous Government agreed to pay the pensions for civil servants who had served the Crown in South Arabia they created an anomaly by not agreeing to do the same for the officers who had served the Crown in the same area, and no satisfactory argument has been adduced in support of that decision. We have a moral obligation to those people who served us and to whom we made promises. A number of British officers who commanded troops there feel very strongly about the promises which they made to indigenous officers which have not been carried out.
  I appreciate the feelings of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West, and who would not? But I believe it is true to say that there was an investigation which found that it was almost impossible to discover who were the people directly involved in the mutiny. Therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and Shoreham said, should we, in order to punish the few who were responsible for a crime, penalise the many who have loyally served the British Crown over the years, and continued to do so in the extremely difficult circumstances before the withdrawal from Aden? If we did so we would be punishing the great majority including the very best among them who gave their service most loyally to the Crown, who have been banished from their country and who are now living in exile. The letter of one officer was quoted during the debate in another place—that of Sharif Haider—

  1793
  who actually played a part in suppressing the mutiny. He wrote a moving letter in which he said that he had lost his homeland, a career, much property and life-long friends.
  I submit to my right hon. Friend that it would be intolerable in the circumstances that Sharif Haider and people like him, who were particularly loyal, should not only be banished and in exile but should also live in penury. I hope that my right hon. Friend can give us even more encouragement than the already encouraging remarks which he made in his opening speech.
  7.53 p.m.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I must declare an interest because, like my hon. Friends the Members for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) and Arundel and Shoreham (Mr. Luce), I am a former member of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service. I enjoy the benefits of a pension which was granted by the Nigerian Government and which is still paid by them at the rate of £149 per annum.
  On occasions like this we are at the tail end of the British Imperial heritage. It is perhaps appropriate to say that the members of the British Colonial Service provided nearly a quarter of mankind with stability, peace and a relative prosperity which they had never enjoyed before. Hundreds and millions of people throughout the world have benefited from the service which British officers were proud to render to Her Majesty in various parts of the world. We are speaking about those people, and whenever we have considered their pensions in the past there has been concern about what might happen when our various territories became independent and the question of payment and supplements to pensions arose.
  The Bill is what we always wanted, and I welcome it warmly. It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking said, that if its introduction were delayed much longer—and it is a complicated matter—we would have run into political troubles and an embarrassment which it was necessary for us to try to avoid.
  There are one or two matters which I hope will be cleared up by the Government. The only one which I wish to refer to is that of the quasi-govern-
  1794
  ment institutions. I know from my service in Nigeria of the institutions which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) mentioned, and I add the West African Institute of Trypanosomiasis Research as an institution which attracted officers from England who were proud to spend their service in West Africa. Some completed their service there and some died there for a programme of research which was necessary for the progress of that territory. Those people were treated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree said, on a par in every other way with members of Her Majesty's Colonial Service, and I hope that they will not be forgotten in the matter of supplements.
  I do not agree with what the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Ivor Richard) said about locally recruited personnel. The line must be drawn somewhere and it is most appropriate that it should be drawn at that point. Those who were domiciled overseas and recruited locally, and who chose to come to this country subsequently, even if they have thereby placed themselves at a disadvantage have no entitlement. It would be wrong for them to be regarded as officers of the Colonial Service in the same way as those officers who were expatriates when appointed overseas. It is right to make that distinction between expatriate British officers and those who were locally recruited. It is right for the Government to exclude them.
  7.57 p.m.
  Mr. Ivor Richard: With the leave of the House, I should like to make a few comments on the debate. I am bound to say that we have had a singularly impressive debate. It is often the case when the House is two-thirds empty—and hon. Members with more experience than I will know better than I—that the quality of the debate is remarkable. We have had this evening an extraordinary debate. Of all the arguments that I have heard about the South Arabian problem, those of the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchell) are the only ones for which I have any vestige of respect. I think that I would carry the hon. and gallant Gentleman with me to this extent, that he would agree that those people

  1795
  who were loyal and remained loyal to the British Crown are entitled to be treated properly and honourably by us.
  Lt.-Col Colin Mitchell Lt.-Col Colin Mitchell indicated assent.
  Mr. Richard: That means that those people who remained loyal will be entitled to the pension arrangements which are included in the amendment that was passed in another place. I fully understand the position of the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West. I read his book recently, and having done so it would be difficult for men not to apreciate the position in which he finds himself. His difficulty is to distinguish between those who remained loyal and those who were disloyal. If it were possible to make that distinction, and if on investigation the Government decided that that distinction could be made and it was made, I assume that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have no difficulty in supporting the amendment.
  If I were sitting on the Government benches I should have taken the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech as an injunction to the Government to try to discover precisely who it is among those people who might be entitled to a pension under the amendment and those who in any shape or form can be classed as having planned or participated to a major extent in the mutiny that took place at Crater.
  If the hon. and gallant Gentleman's plea were for investigation into that by the Government, so that we know exactly where we are, I have sympathy with it. But if it is not possible to make that distinction, I hope that he will agree that, as the overwhelming majority of those covered by the amendment are clearly loyal, it would be unfair and rather harsh to treat them badly just because we could not weed out the few who behaved in that dreadful way at the time of the mutiny. I hope that those of us who support the amendment will carry the hon. and gallant Gentleman with us, because on this matter perhaps more than on any other that comes before the House regarding South Arabia he is a supreme authority and a person to whom I listen with great respect.
  During the Third Reading debate in another place the noble Lady, the Minister of State said,
  1796
  "The noble Lord"
  —referring to my noble Friend Lord Shackleton—
  "said that he felt that we had a debt of honour because a definite promise was made. One of the reasons why the Government are considering this matter before it goes to another place is that we have been having a considerable search to find out what assurances were in fact given to the Hadhrami Beduin Legion. I am informed that authority was sent by the Foreign Office to the High Commissioner for him to assure the Hadhrami Beduin Legion that their pensions would be paid; but that the methods would have to be worked out… we cannot find any record of the manner in which this communication was, in fact, conveyed to the Hadhrami Beduin Legion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords. 20th February 1973; Vol. 339, c. 16–17.]
  Therefore, it seems as though the Government were investigating what was the precise assurance given by the then Government through the mouth of the British military commanders at the time to the people we are talking about. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the result of those investigations? A reading of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate in another place makes it clear that Lord Shackleton and Lord Trevelyan in particular, who perhaps had the most responsibility of all, had no doubt that specific assurances were given with the authority of the British Government. If that is so, those assurances should be honoured.
  8.3 p.m.
  Mr. Wood: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to some of the points made in the debate.
  I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) about the high quality of our short debate. I promise to be brief in my reply, particularly in view of the long speech I made earlier. I am naturally pleased by the general welcome that hon. Members have given to the proposals in the Bill.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman has, as he is only too entitled to do, taken the occasion to raise two individual cases. I give the assurance that I shall look again at the case of Mr. Parpia, particularly in the light of what has been said tonight and what we now have in the Bill. I shall write to the hon. and learned Gentleman about that.
  The other case that he raised was brought to his attention by an expatriate

  1797
  pensioner in Cyprus. The hon. and learned Gentleman perhaps did not attach great weight to the anxiety expressed. I should like him to assure the person concerned that any conversion to an administrative document scheme that may occur under the Bill will certainly not adversely affect any individual. It is done merely for the purposes I described earlier.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair), Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) and Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) have all spoken with force about the position of the quasi-governmental pensioners. I cannot add much to what I said on the subject earlier. I have considered that matter extremely carefully. In particular, I have considered whether it is possible to move away in any respect from what I described as the Crown service criterion.
  Any movement of dividing lines always causes great difficulty. That point was made in another respect by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington. Therefore, I came to the conclusion—although the Bill does not prevent a different decision in the future—that it was impossible at present to move the dividing line. But I was naturally anxious to be absolutely certain that all those who should be on the right side of the line are recognised to be there. That is the purpose of the working party's consideration. It has been examining the matter, and I have already made plain that I shall inform the House of the outcome of the consideration I give to its report when I receive it very shortly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree expressed anxiety that we should make as rapid progress as we can in the takeover. I entirely agree with him. We shall certainly take the initiative and move forward as rapidly as possible, but we are engaged on stage 1, which is by no means complete. We have found that some governments move even quicker than others, and in stage 2 we are dealing with 30 independent governments. Much as we want to make progress, it is not always easy to do so as quickly as we should like. We want to do the best we can.
  I was interested that my hon. Friend raised the question of citizenship, because I have been concerned about the prob-
  1798
  lems of dual-citizenship. I have naturally studied the cases he mentioned on Dr. Dyson and Mr. Johnson. I am now looking into the whole question of dual-citizenship. I hope that it will be possible to reach a decision that will be seen to be perfectly fair and to remove the kind of discrimination of which my hon. Friend rightly complains.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) spoke about the cost of the takeover falling on the aid programme. I am delighted that in spite of what he said about his probable absence he is still here. I was grateful to him for raising the matter. He watches the whole situation with an eagle eye, and it is very difficult for anything to escape his notice.
  I should like to point out to the hon. Gentleman several considerations which I am sure he has taken into account but which to me are ample justification for the cost of the takeover being borne on the aid programme. The first is the developmental nature of the services provided to which the pensions relate. The second is the value to the developing countries of the relief from the obligation to pay the pre-independence pensions. Thirdly, the policy is a continuation of the policy of the previous Government, which was to take into account the aid provided by way of pensions payments.
  Although he probably recognises this already, I can tell him that this policy of taking these pension payments into account in the provision of aid has not resulted in any single instance in the overall level of aid to any country being diminished. There are substantial justifications, and so it seemed to our predecessors, why they should be borne on the aid programme.
  I believe that I have dealt with all the questions raised except obviously that which has occupied much the greatest time. It has been given great attention by almost all hon. Members who have spoken, as I expected it would. This is the position of the members of the security forces in what is now the People's Democratic Republic of the Yemen. I cannot add—and I do not believe hon. Members would expect me, after an interval of less than two hours, to add—very much to what I said at the beginning of the debate.

  1799
  This was a decision, as the hon. and learned Member made clear in his speech, which was reached by the Labour Government in 1970 and which now appears to some to have been mistaken. I do not know the precise reasons why that decision was taken. These secrets are, probably fortunately, hidden from successor Governments. I have listened with immense interest to the debate. I was as moved as the hon. and learned Gentleman by the testimony of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell) who is much more qualified to speak on this than any of us. I was also impressed by the testimony of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) who has been there recently, and others who have various connections with this problem.
  All I can say at the moment is that we now have to consider whether these members of the security forces should be given the same treatment as the civil pensioners in Aden to whom the Labour Government, to relieve hardship, decided to grant in 1970 ex gratia loan advances in place of pensions which the Government of the People's Democratic Republic had failed to pay.
  If Her Majesty's Government decide that they are unable to make similar loan advances to members of the security forces they must take the view that Clause 2(2)(e) is unsuitable. If on the other hand, we decide that it would be right to make these advances, the amendment added in another place would be equally unsuitable because it gives us power to pay pensions but not to make loan advances.
  This would not only put certain categories in a more favourable position than others; it would also result in our assuming responsibility for paying pensions which we are still convinced, as was the previous Government, remains the responsibility of the Yemen Government which took over after independence. We shall be asking the House to delete the subsection. I undertake to report to my right hon. Friends the feelings expressed by hon. Members tonight and also to tell the House the result of the examination we are now making.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Compursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  OVERSEAS PENSIONS [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to pensions and other similar benefits payable to or in respect of persons in certain overseas and other employment, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  (a) of any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of any provision of the said Act or of schemes made thereunder,

  (b) of any administrative expenses incurred by a Government department in consequence of the said Act, and

  (c) of any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of moneys so provided,

  (2) the payment of any sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Wood.]

  COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY
  8.15 p.m.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Joseph Godber): I beg to move,
  That the Common Agricultural Policy (Protection of Community Arrangements) Regulations 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.
  It will be convenient, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to discuss at the same time the second motion:
  That the Common Agricultural Policy (Agricultural Produce) (Protection of Community Arrangements) (No. 2) Order 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.
  These two instruments are required to give the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce the powers it will require to protect the large sums it will be handling in implementing the common agricultural policy in the United Kingdom. I apologise at once that the order is a No. 2 order. The reason is that two errors were made in the preparation of the schedule to the order which were not discovered until after it had been laid. These errors were very small and would have made little difference to the powers

  1801
  of the board, but they were errors and we thought it essential to correct them.
  As the House will be aware, the Community system of support which goes under the general name of "intervention" falls under five main heads. The first is import levies which will be dealt with entirely by the Customs and Excise. The second is support buying, which is what is generally understood by the word "intervention". The third is export restitution by which exporters are given a grant equivalent to the difference between Community and world prices. The fourth head is production subsidies for certain commodities, and the fifth is export levies which apply to only a very few commodities. This system demands the payment of considerable sums of money which are directly derived from FEOGA— the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund—but which are financed initially by the British taxpayer. It is essential that these funds should be at least as adequately protected as the guarantee payments under our own system of support.
  We have devised these instruments very much on the same basis as our Protection of Guarantee Orders. They require people engaged in trade in the various commodities listed in the two schedules—those subject to regulations under the common agricultural policy of the EEC and enjoying various forms of support on the EEC system—to keep and retain records and to produce them on the request of an authorised officer of the Intervention Board or of the Agricultural Departments. They also provide that authorised officers may enter on land used in the production or processing of these commodities and may inspect the commodities and take samples and may require the production of books, accounts and records. Similar provisions are laid down in respect of export levies which are part of the EEC system, though at the moment export levies are required only in respect of olive oil, starch, glucose and milk powder.
  In view of the sums of money likely to be involved, I am sure the House will agree that it is only common prudence to take the necessary steps to arm the Intervention Board with adequate powers to police the operation of its many and various functions, to prevent fraud, as
  1802
  far as is possible and to discover at once if any fraud has been perpetrated. We do not intend to seek any new or Draconian powers but merely to apply to the new EEC situation powers of the kind that have been used over the last 25 years to protect our own guarantee system.
  We have listed in the schedules to the two instruments in some detail the commodities which are subject to these powers and which benefit from some type of EEC support. This gives a clear indication of the coverage of the system and makes it much clearer than any omnibus phrase would do precisely what the extent of the two instruments is.
  The items covered are listed in the terms used in the relevant Community regulations which almost invariably employ the Brussels tariff headings. It seemed to us sensible to use this method so that there could be no doubt that the coverage of these instruments and that of the EEC regulations was identical, since the regulations are now part of our law and it is the payments under them that the powers that we are giving the Intervention Board under these instruments are designed to protect. Some of the regulations certainly include in their coverage products which would not normally be regarded as falling within the ambit of the product with which the regulations normally deal—for instance, potato starch in the cereals regulation and fresh grapes in the wine regulation. We have had to take account of this.
  It might seem surprising that two statutory instruments of almost identical wording are needed to protect the Community arrangements. This is partly due to the very wide coverage of the common agricultural policy which extends to silkworms on the one hand and biscuits on the other, and other things that we do not easily think of as agricultural products. In Section 6 of the European Communities Act the Government did not wish to take any new powers or adopt any new system of control for what had been dealt with as agricultural products in the Agriculture Acts of 1947 and 1957 and therefore directly applied the powers already existing in the 1957 Act to such products. For the rest, it is necessary to use the more generalised powers existing in the European Communities Act. This certainly

  1803
  makes for some repetition but also, I think, for some degree of clarity.
  The simplest way to distinguish between the two statutory instruments is to say that the No. 2 order deals with the 1957 Act and the direct agricultural products as considered in Community legislation. The regulations deal with agricultural products derived from original agricultural products.
  Those are the salient points on this safeguarding series of Statutory Instruments, designed to secure a proper check on public moneys expended in this way, and I commend them to the House.
  8.21 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I listened with a good deal of attention to the Minister's introduction of the two instruments. I am pleased that he decided to present them, because they are important. He was unable to be present on the last occasion when we discussed agricultural instruments, because he was unwell. In the old days when I was a Minister, when people asked how I was my wife used to say "There is nothing wrong with him that a little change of policy would not cure" The same may be true of the right hon. Gentleman. I know his sincere dedication to agriculture, and he cannot be happy with the spate of measures on which he is embarking in this adventure into Europe.
  I accept the Minister's explanation of the instruments. To a large extent they repeat the powers of the 1957 Act, with certain changes in the schedule. I doubt that it is sufficient to say that they reflect the powers we had before in relation to our own traditional valuable agricultural policy.
  The Minister said that a lot of money is involved—he is right there—and that the taxpayer had to be protected. The wide powers of entry are necessary to prevent fraud. The Minister said that no new or Draconian powers were being introduced but that the measures merely applied to the EEC situation the powers that we had before. That is what we question. We have to ask whether the effect as opposed to the form of the measures is the same. In other words, what is the reality with which they are designed to deal?
  1804
  The need for powers of entry under the 1956 Act was to protect the taxpayer in a situation in which the powers of entry, the investigations, reports and statistics were used to provide a support mechanism for British agriculture, with financial payments and guaranteed prices to secure the right food prices for the people. That reality, however, has altered. The situation is now totally reversed. The powers of entry and recording are now being used to provide the necessary flesh and bones of an agricultural structure that is designed not to improve agriculture, not to produce a low pricing policy for the British people, but to secure a high pricing policy for the EEC, to which we shall have to pay an inflated proportion of the budget costs.
  The considerable powers to which the Minister referred have to be seen against a use of the powers which is not fundamentally in the interests either of British agriculture or of the British people. It is true that the powers existed. Section 6(3) of the European Communities Act provides that
  "Sections 5 and 7 of the Agriculture Act 1957 (which make provision for the support of arrangements under Section 1 of that Act for providing guaranteed prices or assured markets) shall apply in relation to any Community arrangement for or related to the regulation of the market."
  In other words, that is a recognition that that which had been used for a support system is now used to support the high pricing system of the Common Market. It is not correct to say that the powers are the same. They have expanded into the wide processing sphere.
  The Minister said that the common agricultural policy ranged from silkworms to biscuits. I understand that the poor old British biscuit is now subject to five different mechanisms before it can be exported. That is the kind of bureaucracy that the measures conceal while repeating the old powers. This bureaucracy can be seen in the definitions contained in the schedule to the regulations. Hitherto the definition referred to live animals of the bovine species. That is bad enough but it now becomes:
  "Edible meat of bovine species, salted or in brine, dried or smoked."
  Bacon cannot be called bacon. It is called
  "Meat and edible meat offals of domestic swine, salted, in brine, dried or smoked."

  1805
  The language reflects the bureaucracy of which it is a part.
  Another new element is the export levies. The Minister listed the forms of support of the common agricultural policy. The fifth item was the export levy It is not a structure—or even a term —that is widely known in this country. I understand that it deals with commodities which are in deficiency within the Common Market and the export of which it is wished to discourage. The levy is a curious counterpart to the export restitution that we normally provide.
  The levy covers olive oil, starch, glucose and milk powder. I find this interesting because it relates to some of the other discussions which we have had in this House. There is reference to processed milk, and I immediately think of aid to Bangladesh which is concerned with processed products. Will we now, because of the imposition of these levies, have to cut that kind of overseas aid?
  I wish to contrast these provisions with the provision of overseas aid because this helps to bring into focus the purpose of so many of the powers that are being given in these instruments. Part of the process and the returns covered by these regulations, for example on cereals, involves a policy the end of which is the destruction of food.
  I should like to cite some of the things with which farmers will now have to deal. The Home Grown Cereals Authority, in a document dealing with the denaturing process, sets out to give advice to farmers on how to denature cereals. Let me tell hon. Members who have never heard the term that it involves the destruction of food for human consumption and turning that material into something else. This is what is to be done under the common agricultural policy.
  The document states:
  "The EEC arrangements are a market management device designed to sustain the traditionally high-priced market for milling wheat; to divert wheat from milling to animal feed by making the grain unsuitable for human consumption".
  Specific instructions are given about how to remove food from human consumption for the purpose of fufilling this market management process to sustain the tradi-
  1806
  tional high-priced market. I regard this as immoral.
  There is a description of the methods by which our farmers will have to embark on a process which I am sure will be incredibly distasteful to them. We are told that
  "Not less than 40 metric tons of cereals must be denatured in one day."
  And in terms of fishmeal,
  "Not less than 50 metric tons in 30 days, or 20 metric tons in a working day of 8 hours"
  This is 1984 bureaucracy. It is the kind of detail for which the authorities are now asking.
  I was interested to read a recent answer given by the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He was asked whether he would
  "make a statement on the availability of blue dye or fish oil as specified by the European Economic Community Regulations for the purpose of denaturing wheat; and what alternative dyes may be used."
  His reply was as follows:
  "The blue dye specified in the European Economic Community's regulations dealing with the denaturing of wheat is Patent Blue V. It is in short supply just now, but fish oil is readily available. In view of the shortage of Patent Blue V it has been agreed with the EEC Commission that four other dyes may be used in the United Kingdom until 30th April 1973. These dyes are amaranth, orange G, indigo-carmine and green S."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February 1973; Vol. 851, c. 334]
  That is pure poetry—for the purpose of destroying human food. This is one of the aspects which we must examine when dealing with these instruments. I am not accusing the Minister of encouraging that sort of detail but it is part of the structure to which this spate of measures leads us.
  The next matter I want to consider is the extension of the bureaucracy. I should like to refer to Part 15 of our 42-part set of regulations—among the thousands of regulations which we must now obey. I looked at the kind of forms which our farmers are to be asked to complete. There is a section on mules, and there are pages of instructions to be read before returns can be made. I refuse to believe that this kind of bureaucratic monstrosity should apply to the kind of forms which farmers have become accustomed to completing in the past. The document in question extends to

  1807
  page 63 before we come to the end of the instructions which are said to guide farmers. Come friendly form and fall on the Ministry of Agriculture!
  This is only one of a spate of regulations now coming in, unscrambling the British structure. This week we have seen documents dealing with bacon and sugar. These all have the same effect, namely, of loosening our control over our own food and prices policy—a system which is essential to our well being—and of linking it to a system based on a procedure that is hostile to British food needs. It is a system that is based on high prices and, as I have shown, it is based on denaturing processes.
  The effect of all this is to throw into question the kind of decisions which we should be making about our agricultural policies, decisions which I suspect will be coming in any day now. Our own decisions on our own agricultural policy will be equally subject to ratification, approval or disapproval by the EEC.
  One reason for the delay, if it is not the election in France, is the whole pricing problem facing the Common Market. That is the background against which these instruments must be judged, and it is necessary to spell out these matters before we can decide to approve them.
  On Monday we discussed the order affecting bacon. We challenged the Minister on the effect of it. Bacon is referred to in these instruments as
  "edible meat of the swine species."
  The Minister assured us that the price increase would be of the order of ½p a pound. Within two days we read in The Times that Sir John Stratton, Chairman of the British Federation of Bacon Curers, predicted a wholesale price increase of at least 5p a pound on British bacon if the phase 2 proposals of the prices and incomes policy were implemented. He said that British bacon had not been classed as a processed food and that if it had been controls could have been maintained. However, it is classed as a fresh food and therefore the price can increase.
  We want to know the truth. If Sir John Stratton is right and it is a fresh food, it means that the ½p assurance that we were given on Monday about the
  1808
  effect of beginning to phase out bacon stabilisation is nonsense because freedom will be given to the trade to increase the price without control by 5p a pound. If Sir John Stratton is right it will result in an increase which is 10 times the percentage figure given on Monday about the effect on the cost of living.
  A similar position has arisen with regard to sugar which is also one of the items related to these instruments. I draw attention to the article in Wednesday's Financial Times about the anxieties which have been expressed about the future of Commonwealth sugar exporters and the effect of a surplus of sugar in the Common Market on the inability of the world market to absorb this extra quantity of sugar.
  The third item is the curious reference to butter and the unloading of surplus butter in the Common Market. This debate is a useful opportunity to refer to it and we should like an answer tonight. Are the British people to get the same benefit of a reduction in butter prices as that now being given to the EEC countries?
  This week we have had the processed food announcement. We have had the Price and Pay Code. Incidentally when one bears in mind that the hottest item in Britain at the moment is the rapidly increasing price of food, when the British people see the number of exclusions which are made, from auction marts to fresh foods, they will not be greatly comforted when they examine the code which is supposed to keep down prices.
  We have seen the way figures have gone in recent weeks. For example, the Grocer index says that in six months last winter between the beginning of November and the end of April, food prices rose by 1·2 per cent.—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The hon. Gentleman is slipping a little away from the subject matter of these instruments.
  Mr. Buchan: I agree that I might be just a little Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely about to point out that because of instruments of this kind beginning to come in, the price increase of 1·2 per cent. 12 months ago has shot up to the figure of 7·3 per cent. over the four months of this winter, which is six times the rate of increase shown 12 months ago.

  1809
  It is against that background that the instruments have to be judged. Their form repeats the requirement under the 1957 Act, and only by analysing the background in this way can one decide whether to approve them.
  I think I have said enough to show that the Opposition do not regard this as being the simple proposition that has been advanced. I accept the form. The content is the same but the background and the purposes to which these measures apply are very different.
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Body: The hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) has given us only a soupcon of the nonsense that goes by the name of the Common Agricultural Policy. I suggest he was right to touch on some of those commodities, and in particular, in the light of the way in which these orders have been phrased, to refer to wheat and the way it has been denatured.
  I, as a livestock producer, register my own protest at the way feedstuffs that I have to use must now be more expensive because we must now use denatured wheat at a price which I know only too well. My right hon. Friend may doubt my purchases but if I show him the bills he will not doubt the difficulty that some of us will have in making a profit at the end of the year when we could be buying other raw materials for these compounds. As to the reference to bacon—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. That seems to me to be outside the statutory instruments.
  Mr. Body: I felt that one ought to follow the practice of replying to what may have been put on the other side, and when the hon. Gentleman referred to bacon he passed over the fact that because of what is flowing from this order, and other matters connected with it, the Hungarian bacon industry is now coming to an end altogether. The Polish bacon industry has decided—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must stop the hon. Gentleman. This is about the keeping of records.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the schedule to the regulations, unnumbered, I read under "Cereals" a reference to
  "other preparations of a kind used in animal feeding."
  I should have thought that was what I heard the hon. Gentleman refer to.
  Mr. Body: I certainly do not wish to stray out of order, for there is enough to be said on this matter. Butter is one of the commodities listed here and if it is right that there is now to be a huge mountain of it, I hope that, rather than ship it to Hong Kong at 2s. a pound, perhaps we shall have an opportunity of feeding it back to the cows, as was the practice a few years ago in the Community when feedstuffs in the Community contained 6 per cent. butter in order to get rid of the butter mountain. We may return to that.
  My comments on this will be disjointed, with the result that they may be as inaccurate as they are prejudiced, but I regret to say that some of us had an opportunity of looking at these orders only a few hours before this debate began. Therefore, I apologise for not having been able to give any notice to my hon. Friend who will reply tonight of the criticisms I have to offer. I hope that what I say will not be too inaccurate as a result.
  These instruments are creating new criminal offences which it seems are punishable by imprisonment. This is a serious matter for the hundreds of thousands of people who may come within the scope of these orders. At one point I tried to count the new crimes that are to be created. I failed because there seemed to be rather a lot of them. I do not want to refer to a reductio ad absurdum but as I read it—I may be corrected in due course—even sweet lavender sellers, if there are any left in Piccadilly, can be stopped by an inspector and asked to produce any accounts they may have at any time. As I understand it, day or night—not even at reasonable times—according to one paragraph in these orders.
  A tobacconist can be knocked up and required to give a sample of his goods—a few ounces of tobacco—and no payment given.
  My house can be entered, my deep freeze probed, and a pound of pork chops

  1811
  removed provided they have been produced on my farm, again without payment.
  Indeed, the paddy fields of England can be specifically entered upon. I cannot speak about my constituency, because it does not have any paddy fields, but there must be some in England if they are specifically included. Those who own the paddy fields of England—
  Miss Joan Hall: It means the Po Valley.
  Mr. Body: I thought a constituency interest from Yorkshire was being mooted. Wherever these paddy fields may be, they can be entered upon by an inspector and any accounts or books relating to their activities can be examined.
  The rule of law is infringed because these statutory instruments do not define other than vaguely, indecisively and approximately, these new crimes. We are giving the Intervention Board considerable powers of deciding what information it requires and what rights its inspectors will have in entering, when they will enter, and what accounts and books relating to certain activities they will be entitled to examine.
  This is a serious departure from past practice. There has been nothing like it previously. I regret that we should have it now. I assume that we are bound to have it not because my right hon. Friend wishes it but because we are bound to conform to regulations and procedures designed for us in another country and which we now have to take over.
  I am deeply concerned about some of these powers. I hope that in replying to debate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office will tell us more about them.
  The kind of records that can be examined by the inspectorate go much further than those which I thought my right hon. Friend had in mind when he spoke about common prudence, policing the operations, and protecting public money. I submit that under article 5 an official of the board or the Ministry can examine any book, account or record of an activity or transaction in the possession of a farmer, shopkeeper or wholesaler who is concerned with the buying or selling of the items set out in the schedule.
  1812
  I invite my hon. Friend to tell us whether it is necessary to extend the powers quite so far. Indeed, I suggest that it would be impossible to give the Intervention Board greater powers than these to inspect the books, accounts or records of hundreds of thousands of farmers, shopkeepers and wholesalers.
  Another serious aspect is that all this is to be done by notice. The Intervention Board has power to give a notice setting out what individual farmers and shopkeepers are required to disclose by way of information. This notice is to be sent by post to the last known abode of the recipient. It can also be handed in. In the case of a company it can be handed in to the secretary or any clerk of that company. I do not want to be frivolous, but it seems possible that some flighty little "temp", who may be in an office on a Friday afternoon and about to leave that engagement, may be handed a notice. She may or may not hand it to a responsible employee of the company. Once it is delivered into her hands, that is sufficient. From that time forth the company will he breaking the law and can be fined, and it would seem that certain of its officers could be sent to prison, if the terms of the notice are not complied with. These are greater powers than the board need have.
  I applaud any effort by the Government to keep an eye on public expenditure. That is an excellent objective. I applaud any attempt in the Ministry or any part of it, including the Intervention Board, to keep a check on public expenditure, but this is going much too far. It infringes the rule of law because it creates a crime which it does not define. It hands over to others, the Intervention Board acting in good faith, the function of saying what the particular crime will be. This House will not have that function.
  That seems wholly wrong and indefensible and, I suspect, without precedent. It goes much further than it should. For that reason I regret enormously that the powers here are much greater than they need to be. That must be a matter for very real regret.
  8.52 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: These are certainly very remarkable

  1813
  measures. I thought the Minister's reticence in introducing them showed that he was rather ashamed of what he had to defend.
  There are constant references in them to the Intervention Board, but I noticed that the Minister, when giving a description of the functions of the board, never mentioned the denaturing of cereals and other foodstuffs. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) said that one of the purposes of the Intervention Board would be to destroy, to render unfit for human consumption, perfectly good foodstuffs in this country. Before we end this debate the Minister should tell us whether that is true. I think it will come as a surprise, not only to hon. Members but to people outside, that the British Government in 1973—it sounds more like 1984—is positively setting up an organisation one of whose functions will be to destroy human food so as to hold the price to higher levels.
  Of course if the Minister can give us an assurance that the Intervention Board will in no circumstances without specific approval by Parliament denature or destroy human food, we shall be very glad to hear it. Then this debate will have achieved at least something. If he cannot give that assurance I am afraid that that is the only conclusion which the public can draw. The purpose of the Intervention Board so far as we know, whether by these means or others, is simply to hold up the price of food paid by the consumer in this country. That is its whole purpose, by one means or another, and the very existence of the power and establishment of the board, and the introduction of these orders to give it the necessary power, in themselves give the lie to the contention that we have constantly heard from the Government that they have no power to prevent the rise in food prices that is going on.
  In one debate on one day we are told that we cannot have controls over the price of food because it is outside the power of the Government to take such action, yet tonight we have powers given by these statutory instruments to a board whose whole purpose, if any, is to prevent prices from falling, and that exposes a good deal of the humbug of the whole business.
  1814
  These measures do not refer only to the keeping of orders. They include that but, as the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) said, they also include powers of entry upon land—presumably that means forcible entry in the plain man's interpretation— and into buildings, and the power to require people in the food industries to keep hooks, accounts, records, and so on. These measures therefore go a good deal beyond the mere keeping of records by the Intervention Board itself. What this shows, reading these statutory instruments literally, is that the common agricultural policy will not merely, as we know, have a disastrous effect upon rising food prices in this country but will introduce a whole new series of bureaucratic controls and interventions.
  It is rather characteristic of the whole business that the first time the Minister has to bring forward one of these reports he has to start by saying that the first attempt made by his Ministry was full of errors and therefore the original order had to be revised and brought before us again. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that a large part of the bureaucratic apparatus is inspired by a desire to avoid fraud. All this proves that not merely is this policy raising food prices, with all the serious effects that that is having on our economy, but that it is also introducing an elaborate bureaucratic intervention process which has already led to administrative errors and which the Minister fears may lead to fraud on a considerable scale.
  The fact is that all the worst fears expressed by those who were pessimists and critics of the CAP, which the Minister said these orders were intended to implement, have been realised. We were told in the Government's famous White Paper that as a result of the policy food prices in this country would rise by 21 per cent. a year. It is interesting to recall—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. I hope that the right hon. Member will not pursue this matter any further, but will confine himself to the measures before us.
  Mr. Jay: I was pursuing the Minister's words, which he was allowed to pronounce and which were therefore presumably in order. The right hon.

  1815
  Gentleman said that the purpose of these measures was to implement the CAP. Their justification must be the CAP.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the merits of the CAP. We are discussing these measures.
  Mr. Jay: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am sure you will agree that we are discussing these measures in the light of the CAP because, in the words of the Minister, that is their whole purpose.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member knows as well as I do that it is one thing to refer to the CAP, but quite another to debate it. He must not debate it.
  Mr. Jay: Referring to the CAP was precisely what I was doing, as the Minister did, and I was arguing that it is not justifiable to give powers of this kind, which are bureaucratic and expensive, purely for the purpose of implementing a policy which has had the result of of raising prices—in respect of meat by 50 per cent. or more—and which is raising retail prices—
  Mr. Godber Mr. Godber rose—
  Mr. Jay: I am in the middle of a sentence—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must pay attention to the remarks of the Chair in this matter. He is now again debating the common agricultural policy and its effect.
  Mr. Jay: I was merely referring to it, and saying that it had had—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is the answer that the right hon. Gentleman gave me last time. He is now referring to it again and persisting in referring to it. That must not be done. That becomes a debate.
  Mr. Jay: I was saying that I do not believe that we are justified in giving legal powers to this board to carry out a policy which has had these disastrous consequences which are principally to be seen in the rise in prices which has already occurred. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us whether it will be among the powers of the board and among its functions to destroy food which is fit for human consumption, as
  1816
  my hon. Friend has suggested it would, and whether he believes that the purposes of this policy justify these rigorous powers which he is asking us to give the board.
  Mr. Godber: I do not wish in any way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to encroach on what you have said, but I felt that I must rise when the right hon. Gentleman said something which was totally incorrect in regard to the effect of the common agricultural policy on the price of meat. That was utterly and completely wrong.
  Mr. Jay: I am afraid that, on that, I must disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, since he is already imposing an import duty, for instance, on mutton and lamb, as part of this policy, which obviously must have had an effect on the price. But I wonder whether he could give an assurance that these powers will not be used for the purpose of denaturing perfectly good human food.
  Mr. Godber: Since the right hon. Gentleman challenges me on this, perhaps I had better point out that the point of denaturing perfectly good human food is to render it in precisely the same form as wheat, which is used in feeding animals now. Denaturing is not the same as destroying. Such food is used for feeding animals, which are then used for human food. At present, there is milling wheat and feeding wheat. The fact that feeding wheat is now denatured makes no difference to its ability to be used as food for animals, which are then used as food for human beings. That is a basic fact of agriculture.
  Mr. Jay: That was not my question. My question was, will these powers be used for rendering food unfit for human consumption?
  Mr. Godber: I have just told the right hon. Gentleman precisely what denaturing is, and I am surprised at his ignorance of it. As he will find, if he asks anyone in the farming community, this is done merely to enable one to distinguish between the type of wheat used for human food and the type used for animal food. That has been traditionally done. The fact that it has not been actually denatured in the past has not affected the position.
  Mr. Jay: I take that as an abject confession by the Minister that he does intend

  1817
  to use these powers to make food unfit for human consumption. At least we have established something.
  9.3 p.m.
  Mr. James Kilfedder: The Minister said that these instruments are an aid to the Common Market and that they are necessary because of the wide coverage of the European Economic Community. I agree that they are for the protection of the Common Market, but they are neither clear nor are they for the assistance of the ordinary farmer, who has a tremendous amount of work to do on his farm to make his living without additional labour.
  On behalf of the farmers of Northern Ireland—I am speaking particularly about them, although I think that my remarks apply to all farmers in the United Kingdom—I should like to register my protest, albeit, at this time of night, briefly.
  I cannot comprehend these instruments. Perhaps it is because I left my practice at the Bar in 1970 to devote myself full-time to my constituency. I am in some confusion over their interpretation. The last paragraph of the Common Agricultural Policy Regulations 1973, although it may make sense to the bureacrats of the Common Market, states:
  "A reference in this Schedule to any specified commodity shall be construed as a reference to everything (whether live or dead) which is for the time being subject to Community arrangements for or related to the regulation of the market for that specified commodity and not to anything which is not so subject."
  Perhaps the Minister will translate that sentence.
  I wish to ask my right hon. Friend to deal with some of the commodities and their descriptions as set out in the schedules because I find myself in some confusion. To take one example only, in one measure the commodity of wine is described as
  "fresh grapes other than dessert grapes".
  It is not the trouble I am facing about which I am concerned, but that which the ordinary farmer will face on his farm. This applies particularly to the small farmer.
  As my right hon. Friend said, these measures require the keeping and production of records. I fully appreciate that farmers have had to keep records in
  1818
  the past. I am speaking of the burden on the many small farmers in Northern Ireland. According to the Ministry of Agriculture, half the farms in Northern Ireland are regarded as small farms. The small farmers have found it difficult enough in the past to cope with paper work, but now they are faced with the reading and interpretation of hundreds of regulations to which reference has already been made by both the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend.
  There will also be the imposition on the farmer of the maintenance of books, accounts and records far in excess of anything they have had to keep in the past. I pity the poor farmer.
  In addition to this onerous task added to the burden he already has of trying to make a profit from his land, the farmer is now faced with the powers contained in these measures of entry on to his land and into his building at any time.
  I await with great eagerness the reply of the Minister, but I look upon these innovations with regret and disdain. I was born on a farm and so my sympathy has always gone out to the farmer. I suppose I am therefore biased in favour of the farmers, a bias I do not regret. I feel particularly sad tonight about the future indicated by these measures. We have here the manifestation of a monster European Economic Community bureaucracy.
  My right hon. Friend, in opening the debate, spoke about the powers to police which are given to the Intervention Board by these measures. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) has pointed out, these measures create new crimes. We ought to be very careful about taking part in creating offences. These are new crimes which will be the result, not of decisions initiated in this House, but of decisions made outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.
  Following on the remarks of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), I regret that Britain is committed in these orders to the denaturing of cereals and other foodstuffs. I appreciate what my right hon. Friend says, that the wheat and cereals can afterwards be used for feeding to livestock. But we have here a provision for the destruction of food for human consumption when there are

  1819
  countries—I think immediately of Nepal —where there is famine and where people are crying out for food.
  I promised to be brief. I conclude by saying that I am waiting in anticipation to hear from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary just how many inspectors will have to be appointed to go around farms and visit farmers, snooping into their buildings and on their land, and snooping into their books, in order to make sure that the orders of Eurocrats in the EEC are obeyed by those who in the past have been providing us with food at a very reasonable price.
  9.11 p.m.
  Mr. William Small: I am rather mystified by some of the legal concepts behind these measures. When my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) was describing the dye colours, I remembered that when I was a boy at school I used to get a sheet of white paper and draw in red, white and blue upon it. Nations have fought over the upholding of those colours as a symbol of a free society. To that degree the description of the changeover from British institutions to European institutions is confusing and mystifying.
  I wish that a Law Officer had been present to help me on this. I am dealing with the difference between the two instruments, one of which does not have a number the other of which is numbered 288. I am a member of the untutored proletariat. I have always doffed my cap to the man with the umbrella and the bowler hat This is to be his aidememoire, and he must know more about it than I know. But I have to explain it to my community. On page 2 of the unnumbered regulations—there is nothing there but a blank—the following appears:
  "The Interpretation Act 1889(a) shall apply to the interpretation of these regulations as it applies to the interpretation of an Act of Parliament."
  Coming to the next one, the order numbered 288 states:
  "The Interpretation Act 1889(a) shall apply to the interpretation of this order as it applies to the interpretation of an Act of Parliament and as if this order and the order hereby revoked were Acts of Parliament."
  Now we enter into the plural. To what Acts of Parliament are we referring?
  1820
  "1889(a)" cannot have the same meaning when being used singularly in the first instance and plurally in the second instance. That is what confuses me about these measures. So it is natural for me to request an interpretation from the legal adviser of the Department. On that ground alone I could make a long speech of protestation. However, I take the point and I do not accept the Minister's position in terms of denaturing, because denaturing preserves the better quality and provides for a new selling price. The idea of a pro rata agreement is that no producer will produce any more than 60 per cent. across the board, and the grain growers' organisation will protect prices.
  The concept of planning for foodstuffs does not balance the sensitive problem of denying that food for human consumption in the underprivileged areas of the world. I remember what happened about the surplus of milk in Britain. It was to be put down a mine shaft and destroyed, but a contract was then entered into to turn it into powdered milk and redistribute it to a starving community. It is these elements and the symbols behind the written word that need a great deal of examination.
  9.17 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: These orders about agricultural records bring to mind the period, which was mentioned by the Minister when he introduced them, of the previous agricultural system in this country. I recall that at that time a campaign was waged by hon. Members of this House against the incursions of the State, of inspectors, of agricultural executive committees and of various organs of executive Government prying into the private accounts of farmers in this country. There were complaints and questions. Indeed, as I have said, there was a campaign.
  All of us know and understand the prized independence of agricultural men as regards the way they manage their farms and, in particular, the little bit of profit they manage to get from the produce they are able to grow and to sell. Therefore, anything which deals with the records of agricultural business is bound to cause a great deal of feeling in the country, as indeed are these powers under these orders to inspect the books and the profits on any of the commodities mentioned in the schedules.

  1821
  At that time my then hon. Friends were arguing, and with effect, that the reason for those records was to enable the housewife to get food at a relatively low price and the farmer to receive a relatively high price. The social reasons behind the orders were accepted as being a good objective. At that time it was considered a reasonable price to pay in terms of these agricultural records, which the Minister said in his introduction were not, in basis and in substance, any different from those we have before us today.
  Therefore, I think he has to tell us why, in presenting very similar orders, he justifies these exactly similar powers by rather different objectives. He said they were for the purpose of protection—the protection of large sums. He did not specify the amount or mention the range. He did not say whether they were larger or wider. He did not mention the cost of applying these regulations. If they are the same as the regulations they replace under the former system, perhaps he will tell us. If it requires a very expensive system of inspection and standards of inspection which he will not decide—because it may be that he has no choice and that the standards will be imposed on him from elsewhere—then he should tell us, and also tell us the cost involved.
  He mentioned that there were five reasons why these records have to be kept. The first of these was import levies, and I assume, therefore, that every importer of any of the products mentioned in the schedule and specified here will have to keep extremely detailed records of the import of these products and the prices, so that the levy can be imposed—a levy which of course puts up the price to the consumer in this country, and certainly does not reduce it, as was the purpose of the previous orders.
  Secondly, he said that it was for the purpose of support buying. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) enlarged upon that because he quoted from the parent regulations which impose upon any producer or any seller a most curious form of regulation which I do not quite follow but which has to do with the fish oil and the various dyes which would be mixed with these products. I presume therefore that any farmer or grain merchant will have to keep record books which tell the amount
  1822
  of fish oil which is imported into his warehouse, the numbers and types of dyes he has bought from various local chemists or wholesalers and the amount put in for each ton of grain and, if my hon. Friend is correct, the period over which all this is mixed up. These will therefore be an additional set of records, the like of which are not kept at the moment.
  The Minister argued that the system was necessary to ensure that the animals got their feed. But what he did not say was—it would be illegal, if not impossible, for this material to be used for human consumption—that the record will enable inspectors to determine where the consignments were sent. But if this complicated record is not for the purpose of destroying food intended for human consumption, perhaps the Minister will tell us what it is for. Although he made a careful reply to my hon. Friend he could not deny what we all know is the fact, that these records will be kept to ensure that food grown in this country, perhaps by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body), is rendered unfit for consumption by people in this country and to make sure that the grain is not used for biscuits and bread.
  The British people were quite happy to accept the previous regulations, as was the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary. But I am not at all confident that the British public will tolerate regulations such as those before us which enable and require food to be made unfit for human consumption.
  The Minister mentioned export restitution. "Restitution" has a wonderful, just ringing tone about it. It is restitution for something that has been taken away wrongly. It is a just-sounding word, but, as was suggested by my hon. Friend, if there is a surplus of sugar in this country the farmers who are producing too much, the merchants and the British Sugar Corporation will have to keep detailed records of the sugar they export and dump on the world markets at subsidised prices to make sure that they get their money back. That is the purpose of the regulations.
  The earlier regulations, to which the Minister referred, were accepted by the farmers, albeit reluctantly, because they knew they were getting a reasonable price

  1823
  and they knew that the housewife was getting a reasonable price. But, as we have seen, the purpose of the new regulations is to achieve the opposite. The British farmer will have to keep records which will show what he has been paid for food which is rendered unfit for consumption. I am sure that their attitude to the keeping of records will be different from that of the last 15 or 20 years under the previous regulations and under the previous farm support scheme, which was the pride of this country and the envy of the other price support schemes in the world.
  9.25 p.m.
  Mr. Buchan: With permission, I should like to reply to this interesting debate. Not one hon. Member who has spoken has felt that there is much justification for the common agricultural policy with which these statutory instruments deal. In a sense, the debate has made the point that the British people have been making in recent months when expressing their anxiety about the effects of the common agricultural policy.
  There is little to which I want to reply but I must deal with one or two points. First, there is the legal point. I think I know the reason for the change in identification. However, the Solicitor-General is present and he may want to give the reason. The reason is fairly clear, but as I am not a lawyer I will not enunciate it.
  Frequently in debates of this kind a moral point arises and a sense of outrage can be expressed. Clearly the whole denaturing policy that has suddenly become the main theme of our discussion is not the main subject of these measures. It has been taken by both sides of the House as a symbol of some of the errors, to put it no higher, that we see in the Common Market.
  I cannot quote from the document of the Home Grown Cereals Authority because HANSARD, which was as astonished as my hon. Friends, has sent for the document so that it can be quoted accurately. The only other piece of information which I have in my hand is a photograph of a mobile denaturing unit, which denatures with a blue dye. It has a capacity of 30 tons an hour. If the hon. Member for Holland with Boston
  1824
  (Mr. Body) wants to get on with his denaturing, here is an opportunity. This monstrosity exists.
  Of course, after denaturing the material is used as an animal feedstuff. Various dyes are used, and Milton could not have done better in describing them. The dyeing goes much further than a means of identification. It is done for the purpose that I enunciated in quoting from the Home Grown Cereals Authority's regulations, as part of the marketing arrangements in conformity with the high price policy of the Common Market.
  It is no use Conservative Members, including the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is responsible for food prices, muttering that the grain is still foodstuff and that unless we are all vegetarians we can eat the meat that comes from this coloured foodstuff. I have never seen a purple cow, but we may yet see it.
  The whole point is to make food dearer. As soon as another stage is added in the mechanism of converting grain to animal to meat, we subtract energy. As Einstein said, energy is not infinite in its potential. The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) said that if food is not needed here, it is needed somewhere in the world. The indictment is that the policy is to put up prices and prevent such surpluses being used in other more useful ways.
  There will be an addition to costs. With the extension of the regulations, and normal investigations in relation to the deficiency payment and all the other regulations that I know too well, the whole investigation into processing and manufacturing, involving as it does the whole aspect of import and export levies, restitution and all the rest, we go beyond the good relationship that existed with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The matter now cuts across a whole number of Departments. It is a big operation, often for a small purpose. There will not be much in the way of export levies to consider, but the mechanism must be created.
  Has there been an estimate of the additional cost? The Prime Minister's promise was not only to cut prices at a stroke but to cut the number of civil servants. A third promise was to cut public expenditure. The number of

  1825
  pledges that must be fulfilled over the next week or two is remarkable. How many additional civil servants will be needed? The Government had better not bring in too many. On Tuesday the civil servants showed that they have quite strong teeth, so the Government had better treat them better than they have over the past few months in the wages freeze.
  Clearly, there is dissatisfaction with the statutory instruments. It arises not from their formal structure but from the new and inverted purpose for which they are being used.
  I cannot advise my hon. Friends to divide the House. Perhaps we should have done so—
  Mr. Godber: All four?
  Mr. Buchan: The right hon. Gentleman should not tempt us, but a Scotsman's word is his bond, and I shall not divide the House. We have made our point. As not a single voice has been raised in favour of the measures except from the Government Front Bench, enough has been said to show what is thought of them and the policy they represent.
  9.32 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): The one thing that does not surprise me is that the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) does not propose to divide the House. After the beating the Opposition have sustained in the past few days they are probably ashamed to put anything further to the vote this week.
  We have had a wide-ranging debate. I have rarely in a debate in recent weeks heard so much contrived exaggeration and misrepresentation. Anyone who has taken an interest in our Common Market debates appreciates that those who take part include Members who will use any occasion, such as the present, to parade their prejudices about Europe, at the same time revealing their ignorance of both the current regulations under our own agricultural policy and farming practice on the farms of this country. For those reasons, I want to deal with some of the more general points that
  1826
  have been raised, but I turn first to more specific matters.
  I always enjoy the interventions of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) here or in Committee. They always bring a note of originality to our proceedings. The hon. Gentleman asked why one of the statutory instruments was in draft form and the other was in a numbered form. The order in the numbered form has already been placed and is already in effect, subject to the approval of the House. The regulations do not come into effect until the House has approved them. The other difference is that they are under different parent legislation. The order comes under one of our Agriculture Acts and the regulations come under the European Communities Act.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the differences between article 2(2) of the orders. It is not a matter that calls for pin stripes or a black coat. I do not have either. It is a matter for a schoolmaster, perhaps for the hon. Member for Renfrew, West. It is simply a matter of grammar. In the one case the article refers to two orders, the current order and the order that is revoked, whereas in the other the reference is only to the one order.
  I will not be drawn too far into the question of costs because an intervention policy raises the question of the cost of agricultural policies generally. It involves enormous assumptions about the level of prices. In recent months, because of the world shortages of many of these commodities, intervention has not been taking place. To enter into any debate about costs would be to embark upon an hypothetical argument.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite have used this occasion for totally misrepresenting the current food price situation. I thought that we had enlightened the hon. Member for Renfrew, West on Monday evening. We clearly failed, although I thought that he was listening to the debate. The Minister of State and I referred to the figure of ½p per pound of bacon and we were referring to the increase of £25 per ton in the price of bacon whereas he has taken a hypothetical figure given by the Chairman of the Fat stock Marketing Corporation dealing with the price that bacon may

  1827
  reach at some unspecified future date. If he wants to play around with hypotheses he is entitled to do so but I ask him not to misrepresent what I and my hon. Friend said quite specifically earlier.
  Mr. Buchan: I do not have HANSARD in front of me but it will make interesting reading. It was not a figure of it was £25 a ton. If that is divided we end up with 1p per pound. That was why we challenged the figure of ½p. The argument is about the definition of bacon, and whether it is regarded as a fresh food, which puts it outside controls, rather than a processed food. It is on this assumption that the trade expects an increase of 5p per pound in the wholesale price. The answer about the ½p increase is irrelevant because the definition is different. That is the point the hon. Gentleman has to answer.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman has demonstrated even more fully than in his speech that he was not listening on Monday evening. On that occasion we had a discussion of what was meant by an average. Although he is a schoolmaster the hon. Gentleman apparently does not understand English and has been unable to explain this situation to his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun. Nor does he understand mathematics and how averages work. As this was explained at great length I do not propose to weary the House by going into it again. The hon. Member can read it in HANSARD over the weekend. The position is explained quite clearly.
  What has been said by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite about food prices and the European Community is nonsense.
  The trouble is that hon. Gentlemen opposite are not prepared to look further than their own noses. They are not prepared to look at the world situation or to take account of the relationship between supply and demand. So long as they are blind to these natural economic forces, nothing that I say will shake them out of their ignorance and remove the blinkers firmly placed on either side of their heads.
  Mr. Body: My hon. Friend has said, rightly, that world prices must have their effect, but will he remove my blinkers
  1828
  about the world prices of milk, milk products, butter and cheese? Is there a world shortage of those commodities?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No, there is no world shortage of those commodities. Equally, I ask my hon. Friend what effect on the food index in recent weeks the price of milk has had. Of course it has had none.
  Mr. Jay: As the hon. Gentleman is so keen on calling everyone but himself ignorant, may I ask him whether he has read the report of the committee which the Government set up at Christmas to inquire into the rise in meat prices? Did he note the passage in the report to the effect that as a result of EEC policies it was unlikely that meat prices would fall from their present excessive levels?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Has the right hon. Gentleman looked at the relevant levels of prices in this country and the EEC? By comparing them he will get a better idea of the relationship between our prices and EEC prices.
  Meat prices and the prices of imported foods are a worldwide phenomenon which does not simply affect the EEC countries. The phenomenon affects the Argentine and has made a difference in the trade of Australia and New Zealand. It is not unique to the EEC.
  Mr. Jay Mr. Jay rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate has gone quite wide enough.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As the right hon. Gentleman raised these points, it is important for me to answer them to put the record straight.
  Hon. Members have referred to the denaturing and destruction of food. My right hon. Friend said that there was no question of destroying food for human consumption. With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body), if he had followed what has been happening in farming operations in recent weeks he would have known that because of denaturing the price of cereals to livestock breeders in this country has been reduced.
  Mr. Body: Which is cheaper—barley or denatured wheat?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not under stand what has happened to the debate. We are miles away from the statutory instruments.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In reply to my hon. Friend, they are both forms of feeding stuff. Wheat is a major source of energy in livestock production, and denatured wheat is cheaper. I suggest that my hon. Friend discusses this with his farming friends. We have heard hair-raising stories about colours and other forms of denaturing, but there is nothing new in this.
  The hon. Member for Scotstoun mentioned milk powder being put down a coal mine. That is far more serious than denaturing.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not relevant to these measures.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, these points were made and I am merely seeking to answer them. This is not a new point. These orders are needed to carry out the denaturing process and to enable us to inspect the records of those involved, and denaturing is therefore relevant. There-fore, I believe that it is helpful to explain what happens in terms of the operations carried out by those whom the orders will affect.
  The principle of denaturing is not new. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West was a Minister who was responsible for agricultural matters and I would remind him of what happened to potatoes. They were treated with dye and fed to animals. There is nothing new in this. It happened under the Labour Government in terms of imported wheat which was used for animal consumption. That, too, was denatured. That was accepted at the time by Labour Members, and it demonstrates the sheer hypocrisy of what has been said by them today.
  Let us be clear what some of these agricultural surpluses are to be used for. They will not he put down a coal mine. Let us remember what the EEC countries did when they sent skimmed milk powder to Bangladesh. This is an example of surplus foodstuffs being used to assist in world disaster areas.
  Mr. Buchan Mr. Buchan rose—
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No, I shall not give way.
  I turn to my last point and I apologise, Mr. Speaker, if I have taken up time in dealing with the other points which were raised, but I thought it right to put the record straight.
  To deal with the order itself, questions have been raised about powers of inspection, entry and so on. I wish to make it absolutely plain that these are not new powers, as some Labour Members have tried to portray them. With great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston, we are not creating new crimes and there is no serious departure from what has happened in the past. My hon. Friend was wrong to say that there has been nothing like this in the past. He said that he suspected that this order was without precedent. I assure him that it is totally within precedent. There have been precedents under the Labour Government—
  Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No, I am sorry I cannot give way. Time is getting on and I have already been generous in giving way. The powers in this order are similar to the powers under previous protection of guarantee orders. They are similar to what was contained in the Agriculture Guaranteed Prices and Assured Markets, Fatstock (Protection of Guarantees) Order 1958, Statutory Instrument No. 958 of 1958. In that order there was a provision relating to records in the following terms:
  "Every person who buys, sells or transports any fatstock … shall produce on request such record for inspection …"
  Later in that order we find powers of entry and to obtain evidence. We see there reference to an authorised officer being enabled
  "…at all reasonable times to enter upon the land used for the production, slaughter or sale of livestock …"
  and so on. And I could go on and on.
  I should also like to refer to Statutory Instrument No. 187 of 1969 dealing with the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) Order There, under a Labour Government, we find similar powers in relation to the marking of containers, restriction on sale and the keeping and production of records. There are further provisions dealing with right of entry, the right to

  1831
  demand production of books, accounts and records, and the service of notices. When we look at the small print we see the same kind of powers as we find in the present orders. I have a whole sheaf of these orders from past years which were in operation under the Labour Government, and indeed under its Conservative predecessor. There is nothing new in what we are doing tonight.
  I want to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), who expressed great worries on behalf of smaller farmers in Northern Ireland, that we are not placing upon them any greater obligation or intrusion on their privacy than at present. I am sure that if my hon. Friend asks them, as I have asked farmers in my own constituency, they will not object to the proposed benefits any more than they objected previously to the benefits under our guaranteed price system.
  It is true that the one difference is that there is a certain widening in terms of the number of those covered by the order compared with previous orders. But there are reasons for it. There are many more types of people involved in the receipt and payment of subsidies under this system than under the United Kingdom system of guaranteed prices. They include producers, manufacturers, exports, merchants and so on It is difficult to list them without running the risk of leaving someone out. The use of the phrase "any person" may worry my hon. Friend. This is no different from phrases that we have used before such as "No person shall", "Every person shall", and so on.
  There will not be an enormous number of bureaucrats going round requiring these provisions to be complied with regardless of need. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) raise this bogy, suggesting that there will be armies of bureaucrats imposing their will on farmers. After all, it was the right hon. Gentleman who once said that the gentlemen in Whitehall know best. If the right hon. Gentleman studies the order, he will see that the need to keep records is only imposed, if so required, by a notice in writing served on the person concerned by the board. I give the undertaking that the board will not serve
  1832
  such a notice other than to a person who has received a direct financial benefit from the Community arrangements or has incurred a direct financial liability as a result of them. There is no intention of employing these powers any wider than is absolutely necessary.
  Whatever hares and whatever scares right hon. and hon. Members may raise, when it comes down to the application in practice of a policy which will benefit the British farmer and the producer and through them the consumer, I do not think that anyone will be resentful of the powers that we are taking.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Common Agricultural Policy (Protection of Community Arrangements) Regulations 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the Common Agricultural Policy (Agricultural Produce) (Protection of Community Arrangements) (No. 2) Order 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.—[Mr. Godber.]

  ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (No. 2) BILL
  Ordered,
  That Mrs. Joyce Butler, Mr. Patrick Cormack, Mr. W. W. Hamilton, Mr. Richard Hornby, Mr. Douglas Houghton, Mrs, Sally Oppenheim, and Mr. Rees-Davies be members of the Select Committee on the Anti-Discrimination (No. 2) Bill.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to appoint persons with expert knowledge for the purpose of particular inquiries, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity relating to the Bill.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report Minutes of Evidence from time to time.
  Ordered,
  That Three be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Jopling.]

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

  COURT OF PROTECTION (INVESTMENT POLICIES)
  9.55 p.m.
  Mr. James Johnson: I wish to forget statutory instruments and bureaucratic forms and turn to a much more human subject: the welfare and financial affairs of our older citizens who are confined, often in the evening of their life, to mental institutions. This debate tonight is an unusual one on a somewhat obscure subject. To discover what is happening one had to go down those long and dusty corridors and purlieus of the House of Lords and the Lord Chancellor's Department to find out what the Court of Protection is. One discovers some unusual facts in doing so.
  A Law Officer is present with us. I am glad to see him because he is my Member of Parliament and I am a constituent of his in Wimbledon. I am sure that in this somewhat intimate debate between us we shall get somewhere. There are not many Members here at this time of night, but obviously the words we utter will go out to millions of people, and answers may be needed to the questions we put.
  Our concern for old and sick people is a personal issue. I wish to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to have this debate in view of my indelicacy in being somewhat late in coming to the Chamber a few days ago. My colleague the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) was to have been here with me but unfortunately he is ill. Since, however, this is a somewhat intimate matter and Rugby is my old constituency, I can speak on my hon. Friend's behalf and on behalf of his constituents.
  I shall deal with only two cases tonight, two of many that one could cite, and I shall refer to a lady who lives in a Warwickshire village. I believe this subject to be of the most intense human importance since it concerns the personal welfare and intimate financial affairs of many unfortunate senior citizens who suffer mental illness, and as with other illnesses, have to be given attention in hospital. I hope that all of us have the will and the intention to find a solution to this kind of situation even if legislation is later needed.
  The people concerned represent a not insignificant element of our society and
  1834
  being, if one may use the words, non compos mentis they are quite unable to look after their own financial affairs. There is no party issue here. The same situation arose under my Government. It is something which should be brought out into the open. It has for too long been hidden, although occasionally Questions have been asked by hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby, who asked a Question in July last year.
  I begin factually by giving two cases. The Minister will have sympathy with me. I shall not give names, because no constituent would seek publicity in matters of this kind. One of my constituents died a few months ago having lived for the last 20 years in hospital. When this lady was admitted to hospital it was decided that her small capital—something like £450 in 1947—should be entrusted, as was legally necessary, to the Court of Protection for investment purposes.
  Last year my constituent, having inquired from the court about the current value of that investment, was amazed to find that not only had the original capital been invested in 3½ per cent. War Stock but all the interest had been used to purchase the same stock. Thus, last year this lady had £1,055 of War Loan, which at today's market value is worth only approximately £380, which, as anyone looking at the figures would at once be startled to find, is less than the original value of the investment way back in 1947, ignoring the fall in the value of money.
  It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jopling.]
  Mr. Johnson: Obviously one's first assumption is that there has been some mismanagement. I know that the Solicitor-General is looking into this matter and I hope he will tell me the the present position. I was purposely given the evidence of what I term "mismanagement" and was asked, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and, no doubt, many other hon. Members, what action if any was contemplated in Parliament to remedy the unfortunate situation concerning this 3½ per cent. War Loan.

  1835
  An even worse case is that of my former constituent. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby, who is ill and unfortunately cannot be present, has asked me to put this case forward. It is quite startling. A man committed to a mental hospital in 1948 had his capital of £800 invested for him by this Government Department. In mid-1972 he died and his 60-year-old widow expected to inherit certainly some thousands of pounds I am not specifically talking about 5 per cent. or 7 per cent. compound interest, but if this money had been invested in the market she could have expected at least between £4,000 and £5,000. The widow learned that only £230 remained. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby at that time stated that this was "scandalous inefficiency." In addition, the Daily Mail of 30th June 1972 quotes him as stating that
  "She would have been better off if the money had been left in a biscuit tin."
  This seems to have been the course of events. The husband entered the mental hospital and his affairs were taken over by the court, which invested his £800 in War Loan. It remained there for 24 or 25 years, despite its steady but catastrophic decline. I shall not go into what happened in the 1950s. I suggest that if a good merchant banker in the City had been advising the court, he would have said "Please get out of War Loan and into something else." Even a local businessman would have done this. However, that was how the situation remained for almost a quarter of a century.
  It might be said that this is a case for the Parliamentary Commissioner. We are placing this matter before the Lord Chancellor's office. Knowing the Solicitor-General, I imagine that he will have an adequate answer. If not. I am sure that he will take steps to see that the position is altered for the future.
  Without being too provocative, I should like to quote again what my hon. Friend said:
  "I should have thought you would have to be some sort of perverted financial genius to invest £800 back in 1948 and end up with a loss. Even the safest, most conservative investment should now be worth nearly £10,000."
  I do not know, but I should have thought that at interest of 5 per cent. or more it must be worth about £5,000 or £6,000.
  1836
  I have talked to a number of my hon. Friends about this matter to see whether they know of similar cases of a son, a daughter or a widow badly in need of money and expecting thousands of pounds but who is disappointed in this way. It is fantastic how often this kind of thing occurs. By coincidence, the day after I spoke to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) on this subject, he had a letter from a constituent who was in the same parlous position. The Court of Protection—what a misnomer! As a Member of this House, when I meet this kind of constituency problem I think that we need another court to defend people against this so-called Court of Protection.
  I am seeking legal advice in this debate. I sought legal advice from a colleague on the Opposition benches who is a Queen's Counsel. He turned to a textbook whose author, I believe, is Halsbury, a famous legal luminary, and this was the advice I received: "I have had a look at the law on this, and on the surface there seems to be adequate protection for the proper investment of funds." I was a little foxed by that. If, as my colleague says, there seems to be adequate protection but it is not afforded, where does the fault lie? Who is advising the court? Any decent merchant banker would have put these funds to much better use.
  I wonder how much money there is in this fund. There must be millions of pounds. When one thinks of the tens of thousands of fellow citizens who because of mental illness have to go into a home or a hospital and whose funds are made over, one realises that there must be a lot of money placed in the care of the court. If there are many cases of this kind there must he millions of pounds invested, not of course to the best advantage. Who manages, or apparently mismanages, the investment of these old people's assets?
  I had a letter yesterday, not from a constituent living in Hull, but from one who lives just outside Hull, in Cottingham. He told me that he was employed in the work of advising on investment for people who were committed to similar homes. He said "We do a wonderful job. What is all this about?" I ask the Solicitor-General to tell me who are the

  1837
  advisers to the court. Who is the chairman of the board and who are the members of the court? What happens down those dusty purlieus leading to the Lord Chancellor's Department in the House of Lords? Letters to my constituent are signed by a divisional officer, so-called, but any reply must be addressed to a chief clerk. I wonder who these people are and what is the position of the court.
  What are the powers of the court? I wonder whether new and wider powers are needed to enable it to invest wisely and, in my view, much better than it seems to have done in the past. It is investing on behalf of elderly people who obviously cannot manage their own affairs. Without being too sarcastic, I should say that the court could place this money in the Co-operative Building Society, now known as Nationwide. Even I with my few assets have my money in the Co-op which can guarantee me 5½ per cent. free of tax.
  There is a moral or an ethical side to what I deem to be the sordid history of two cases which could be multiplied many times. It is quite scandalous that at the end of 25 years the value of the assets should be less than the original sum. That is absolutely indefensible. In the New Testament, in the Parable of the Talents, the man who hid his talent in the ground got back 100 per cent. when he dug it up again. There is an obligation on the court at least to hand over to a son or daughter 100 per cent. of the value of the original asset. There is a moral obligation upon the Government of the day to make good any deficit. Indeed, there is a moral obligation to make it up to a figure beyond that—perhaps a guaranteed 5 per cent., or something of that nature.
  The members of the court are in the position of stewards. They have an obligation towards these people who, because of their condition, are unable to manage their own affairs. These people are the casualties of our society. There is an obligation upon us all to look after their assets and ensure that in future they are not given this kind of shabby treatment.
  10.11 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Michael Havers): I am sure that the House is
  1838
  grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson), who is also my constituent, for having raised this important matter, and I am grateful to him for doing me the service of mentioning in advance some of the detail that he intended putting before the House.
  This problem arises because of the steady drop in the nominal value of 3½ per cent. War Loan that has occurred since shortly after the last war due, no doubt in part anyway, to the fact that it is undated stock. In 1950 it stood at 92 13/16. Five years later it was down to 87¼. In 1960 it was 65 5/16. In the next five years it dropped to just under 50. In 1970 it was down to 40, and in 1973 it was down to 36, although it went up slightly to 36⅜ about a week ago.
  The responsibility of a Law Officer for replying to this debate arises from his duty to speak in this House on behalf of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor as this is a matter which falls within his province since the Court of Protection is part of the Supreme Court.
  The Court of Protection is not a court in the ordinary sense. It is an office of the Supreme Court, the function of which, under the Mental Health Act 1959, is to protect and manage the property of persons who, by reason of mental disorder, are incapable of managing their property for themselves.
  There is a reference to a nominated judge, as the hon. Gentleman described it, being a judge of the High Court, but the day-to-day functions of the court are performed by the Master and Deputy Master who have the responsibility, among other things, of supervising the patient's property and finances and doing the sort of jobs which ordinarily people of sound mind can do for themselves, and they have the advantage of expert professional advice in these matters.
  I have been asked about general policy. One of the first matters that has to be decided is the future of the patient. If one takes an elderly patient, one tries to deal with the investment on a ratio of two to one between fixed interest stock and equities. If one has a younger patient, where it is expected that he has at least a 15-year expectation of life, the reverse ratio applies—that is, one of

  1839
  fixed-interest stock to two parts of equities.
  In many cases the patient coming within the care of the Court of Protection may have considerable assets, may have legal advisers, may have his own solicitors, and may even have his own stockbroker. The funds of the Court of Protection amount to about £100 million. The number of patients that it looks after is 20,000. That gives an average of about £5,000 for each patient. But one knows that in many cases the sum involved is less than £1,000, while in many others the sums protected are very much greater. Often, in those cases, solicitors and stockbrokers will be on the scene when the Court of Protection takes over the responsibility. It is not the policy of the court to make any substantial changes in the portfolio of investments, unless there are very good reasons so to do. Often, when the patient comes within the control of the court, the portfolio has already been created as a result of advice and not a great deal of difference is made.
  Mr. James Johnson: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would tell me why, in the 'fifties, with the catastrophic decline which has been mentioned, the investments were kept in the same portfolio. Why did not someone with some common sense switch out of those areas as anyone would normally do?
  The Solicitor-General: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment, I am coming to that point. I am trying to deal with the cases which are so often reported to hon. Members involving capital sums of three figures. These are under £1,000, usually between £500 and £1,000. In those cases, one has to consider the interest of the patient himself, and find whether it is possible to provide the highest possible interest in order to give him the extra comforts which will make his lot easier.
  Again, in many cases, one finds that when he is taken into hospital such a man has left a wife at home who is often herself elderly and also in desperate need of money. Sometimes, a receiver is appointed, although that is in a sense a formality, and the court's policy then is to try to get the highest possible interest. Capital is of relatively little importance.
  1840
  In too many cases, when the patient came within the care of the court, he had invested a great deal of his money already in War Loan, and this was some years after the peak, when the downward trend was going on, and it was standing at £65 or £70. It being a fixed interest stock paying 3½ per cent. on £100, the moment that it was brought in standing at £65, the interest was a great deal more than 3½ per cent.
  So the court has always been faced with the problem of having to say. "If we move out of this stock, when there is not a great deal of money involved, into some other stock which is less likely to depreciate, we shall get nothing like that interest rate." After all, if the stock stood at £65, the interest would be nearly 6 per cent. It would be very difficult to find something else giving 6 per cent. One always had to have the highest possible interest.
  There were other advantages, which were not minor. War Loan stock provided payment of the interest without deduction of tax, it meant that there were no administrative costs or difficulties in recovering that tax, the capital itself was easily accessible without incurring brokerage and legal expenses. In many of these cases, because of the desperate condition of the wife and also because the court wanted to go on providing the little extra comforts, capital would also be disposed of. If, say, there was a possible seven-year future, it was right to spend some of the capital also to bring comfort. Bearing in mind the high interest, and the fact that one could sell some of the stock without brokerage and legal expenses, when one was dealing with figures under £1,000 and with patients who had only a limited life ahead of them, this action was taken.
  The court was advised, throughout this period from 1965 onwards, by a very high-powered investment advisory committee appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The hon. Member has asked me to speak of that. The present members—I emphasise the word "present" because it would be wrong to commit them for what has happened in the past—include Viscount Sandon, Deputy Chairman of the Westminster Bank, Mr. Touche, who is in a high position in the insurance world, Mr. Ginsberg and Mr. Hunter Johnston. The last two are concerned

  1841
  with merchant banking. Until very recently they have not been advising disposal of stocks of under £1,000 in War Loan because they were prepared to accept that there would be some drop. But to move out of War Loan after the major drop that occurred in the early part of the 'fifties would have meant too marked a drop in the interest rates.
  I can tell the hon. Member that it is a matter of anxiety to everybody that the arrangements for managing patients' estates should be efficient. As for the present proposal, there must obviously be some improvement of the staff of the Court of Protection because, with £100 million and 20,000 different patients involved, each patient has a different portfolio.
  I would have liked to be able to deal with the case from Rugby raised by the hon. Member's colleague but there is not time. In that case, throughout the period that the investment was looked after by the court, not only was it necessary to find money to provide the extra comforts for the patient, but his wife was in desperate financial straits and from time to time stock had to be sold in order to provide her with money. In fact, the individual in question, obviously through an oversight, had not disclosed that he had got that capital and had been on National Assistance for two years and there was, as a result, a substantial sum to repay.
  Thus the details the hon. Member has given as to the figure at which it started and the figure at which it ended must also take into account that there were, in addition, considerable capital payments during that time.
  That is another example why each one of these portfolios, which may be small or large, requires attention at least every six months so that it may be reviewed. Not only must there be reviews as to whether the investments are the right ones, but the financial circumstances of the patient and those of his wife, his family or his dependants must be looked at as matters progress. If wives who are in work then fall out of work the whole situation has to be changed. It is an enormous task to look after 20,000 different portfolios.
  1842
  This has now become clear and an increase of strength of the investment branch has recently been approved. This is expected to ensure that the business is dealt with efficiently. I can give the undertaking that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will keep the matter under review.
  Having made that explanation, I hope the hon. Member will feel that "mismanaged funds" rather than "managed" over the years is language a little stronger than was right. This has been a great difficulty. It is work which is done with practically no charge. In many cases it is a labour of duty and not one of love by departments that have been understaffed and faced with all kinds of competing interests. But the main interest has been that they must administer these funds in the ordinary cases to provide the maximum income for comforts for the patient and the maximum protection for his dependants. That difficulty has faced them constantly over the years.

  SPORTS GROUNDS (CROWD SAFETY)
  10.24 p.m.
  Mr. Ernie Money: I welcome the opportunity that the peculiar and interesting procedures of the House afford me to raise in the two and a half minutes available to me matters which are of deep concern to large numbers of people in the country who support association football. I am deeply grateful for the presence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Home Department to answer three questions on the subject.
  It has been widely routed about, and is now generally accepted, that the Home Office intends in the foreseeable future to take some legislative steps to implement the report of the Committee presided over by Lord Wheatley on crowd safety at sports grounds. It is also a matter of considerable concern to a large number of football clubs that this is something which is liable to place considerable financial burdens on those clubs which can probably least afford to pay for the improvements which are called for in the circumstances.
  I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend can give us some sort of hope in this

  1843
  regard and that he will make recommendations to his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury that the time is now coming when something must be done about the totally inequitable tax system by which it is possible for clubs to buy players before paying tax and then have to pay tax on any money which will lead to ground improvements.
  I know that my hon. Friend cannot say more now, because we are in the pre-Budget period, but I hope that he will make recommendations to our right hon. and hon. Friends on that matter.
  Secondly, I hope that an assurance will be given that the maximum consultation will take place with the clubs. I speak not so much as representing a borough which has a distinguished—a very distinguished—first division football club, but also for the clubs in the three other divisions which are deeply concerned that the weight of the burden which is likely to be placed on them will be such that the cost of implementing Wheatley could put many of the smaller clubs totally out of business. At the same time, I hope that my hon. Friend will speak to his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of the Environment with the hope that the Sports Council will encourage the setting up of sports complexes, which will mean the maximum utilisation of grounds with full support from the Government.
  Above all, I hope that the Government will consider the chance of giving some sort of effective formula to clubs so that all the problems with which we are concerned, particularly that of crowd safety and hooliganism at football matches, can be coped with in the most effective way, thus making sure that everyone feels that he can go safely and comfortably to watch football.
  10.27 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) for the reasonable way in which he has raised this matter, giving us the chance of two or three minutes on this very important subject following the debate in another place on 24th January.
  I echo the thanks that were expressed to Lord Wheatley in May last year, when
  1844
  his report was published, for the very efficient and skilful job he did, for which the whole House is grateful.
  I now answer my hon. Friend's three questions. First, as he knows, we have accepted the report in principle and are preparing to legislate as soon as possible.
  Secondly, my hon. Friend raised the question of finance. All I can say about this now is that the Government are very much aware of the anxieties about finance throughout the football world. In the context of legislation to implement the Wheatley proposals, we are considering this problem very carefully. We have reached no decisions. On the point about tax, I shall see that what my hon. Friend has said is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  My hon. Friend's third question was about consultation. We are already engaged in consultation. We want to carry it further. Up to now it has centred a good deal on the technical appendix of the Wheatley Report and it is on that that we are most anxious to get agreement, with the widest possible consultations in the time available.
  I take entirely my hon. Friend's point about some of the worries caused particularly to the smaller clubs. I assure him that within these consultations we are also involving my colleagues at the Department of the Environment.
  I conclude with this additional assurance. We have got these consultations off to a good start. I cannot forecast tonight when legislation will be introduced, but we attach the very highest importance, from the point of view of public safety, to implementing these recommendations as quickly as possible. We must avoid another Ibrox. In that connection I appeal tonight to everyone concerned, during this interim period before legislation, to realise that we must not relax or abandon the present arrangements which are in force. I am sure that all clubs will co-operate to make—
  The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police (Firearms)
  Police (Firearms)
  Picketing
  Picketing
  Children and Young Persons Act 1969
  Children and Young Persons Act 1969
  Football (Crowd Behaviour)
  Football (Crowd Behaviour)
  Police Interviews (Recordings)
  Police Interviews (Recordings)
  Racial Harmony
  Racial Harmony
  Community Relations Commission (References)
  Community Relations Commission (References)
  Urban Aid Programme
  Urban Aid Programme
  Adoption of Children
  Adoption of Children
  Cooked Food Shops (Closing Hours)
  Cooked Food Shops (Closing Hours)
  Wartime Emergencies
  Wartime Emergencies
  Identity Cards
  Identity Cards
  Ugandan Asians
  Ugandan Asians
  Lead Poisoning (Behavioural Effects)
  Lead Poisoning (Behavioural Effects)
  Probation Service (Pay)
  Probation Service (Pay)
  Emergency Services
  Emergency Services
  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Live Animals (Competition Prizes)
  Live Animals (Competition Prizes)
  Political Prisoners (Northern Ireland)
  Political Prisoners (Northern Ireland)
  Prisons (Designation)
  Prisons (Designation)
  Immigration Rules
  Immigration Rules
  Replica Firearms
  Replica Firearms
  Indian High Commission (Shooting Incident)
  Indian High Commission (Shooting Incident)
  Local Government (North Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Local Government (North Yorkshire and Humberside)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  New House Sales (Taxation of Profits)
  New House Sales (Taxation of Profits)
  British Citizens Overseas (Earnings)
  British Citizens Overseas (Earnings)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Male Workers (Take-home Pay)
  Male Workers (Take-home Pay)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Employment Statistics
  Employment Statistics
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Ship Repairing
  Ship Repairing
  Nuclear Pollution
  Nuclear Pollution
  Price Increases
  Price Increases
  Gas Explosion (Botley)
  Gas Explosion (Botley)
  British Airways (Boeing 747 Purchase)
  British Airways (Boeing 747 Purchase)
  Financial Assistance (Interest Relief)
  Financial Assistance (Interest Relief)
  Esperanto
  Esperanto
  Heathrow (Passenger and Baggage Movement)
  Heathrow (Passenger and Baggage Movement)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Retired Civil Servants (Appointments)
  Retired Civil Servants (Appointments)
  Nationalised Industries (Appointments)
  Nationalised Industries (Appointments)
  Pay
  Pay
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Denmark (Faröese Fishing Incident)
  Denmark (Faröese Fishing Incident)
  British Embassy, Dublin
  British Embassy, Dublin
  Vietnam
  Vietnam
  Overseas Aid and Development (Exhibition)
  Overseas Aid and Development (Exhibition)
  Continental Shelf
  Continental Shelf
  COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY
  COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY
  JUVENILE OFFENDERS
  JUVENILE OFFENDERS
  INTERNATIONAL FINANCE (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  INTERNATIONAL FINANCE (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  CHINA (MILITARY AIRCRAFT EXPORTS)
  CHINA (MILITARY AIRCRAFT EXPORTS)
  PAKISTAN, INDIA AND BANGLADESH
  PAKISTAN, INDIA AND BANGLADESH
  GOVERNMENT OFFICES (DISPERSAL)
  GOVERNMENT OFFICES (DISPERSAL)
  LORD ATTLEE (MEMORIAL)
  LORD ATTLEE (MEMORIAL)
  RATES
  RATES
  No. 10 DOWNING STREET
  No. 10 DOWNING STREET
  SUBSIDISED FOOD
  SUBSIDISED FOOD
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Nitrosamines
  Nitrosamines
  Food Consumption (Departmental Tables)
  Food Consumption (Departmental Tables)
  Livestock Diseases
  Livestock Diseases
  Agricultural Workers (Pay)
  Agricultural Workers (Pay)
DEFENCE
  Naval Vessels (Collisions)
  Naval Vessels (Collisions)
  Training Prison, Watchfield
  Training Prison, Watchfield
  DIVORCE (COSTS)
  DIVORCE (COSTS)
  HOSPITAL PATIENTS (POSSESSIONS)
  HOSPITAL PATIENTS (POSSESSIONS)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Dental Service
  School Dental Service
  Primary Classes
  Primary Classes
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Polyurethane Furnishings (Fire Hazard)
  Polyurethane Furnishings (Fire Hazard)
  Handicapped Persons (Services)
  Handicapped Persons (Services)
  Homeless Persons (Accommodation)
  Homeless Persons (Accommodation)
  Handicapped Persons (Survey)
  Handicapped Persons (Survey)
  Heating Allowance Refund (South Elmsall)
  Heating Allowance Refund (South Elmsall)
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Family Practitioners Committee (Portsmouth)
  Family Practitioners Committee (Portsmouth)
ENVIRONMENT
  Parliamentary Building
  Parliamentary Building
  Gipsy Caravans
  Gipsy Caravans
  Motor Vehicles (Colours)
  Motor Vehicles (Colours)
  Housing (London)
  Housing (London)
  Refuse Disposal (Plastic Containers)
  Refuse Disposal (Plastic Containers)
  Operation Eyesore (Leek)
  Operation Eyesore (Leek)
  House Building (Leek)
  House Building (Leek)
  Railway Routes (Hull)
  Railway Routes (Hull)
  Woodgate Valley, Birmingham (Housing Contract)
  Woodgate Valley, Birmingham (Housing Contract)
  Maplin
  Maplin
  Polychlorinated Biphenyls
  Polychlorinated Biphenyls
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government Reorganisation
  West Cross Route
  West Cross Route
  M1 (Crash Barrier)
  M1 (Crash Barrier)
  Poisonous Wastes Act (Prosecutions)
  Poisonous Wastes Act (Prosecutions)
  New Towns (United Nations Seminar)
  New Towns (United Nations Seminar)
  Urban Road Building
  Urban Road Building
  Rail Closures
  Rail Closures

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

AIR FARES ON NORTH ATLANTIC ROUTES
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the discussions held between the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority and the United States Civil Aeronautics Board concerning fares on the North Atlantic routes; what fares have been agreed and when these are to come into operation.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, no agreement was reached between the two Governments concerned on the fares to apply on North Atlantic routes from April 1. The United States authorities have proved unwilling to accept advance booking fares on scheduled services from the United Kingdom at the competitive levels which British airlines are seeking and which the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority fully support. In face of this position and the urgent need for a decision on summer fares, European Governments met in Paris yesterday and agreed that, rather than accept the levels of fare proposed by the U.S. carriers, which were generally higher than those proposed by the United Kingdom carriers, existing fares should continue in force on North Atlantic routes, with limited adjustments to take account of changes in exchange rates. The European Civil Aviation Conference is urging airlines to implement this through IATA. Failing an IATA agreement by March 10, European Governments propose themselves to introduce fares on this basis. This is a disappointing outcome for this summer, and
752
Her Majesty's Government and the Civil Aviation Authority intend, with other European Governments, to seek a more satisfactory arrangement for next year.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that detailed reply, may I ask him why, if the British Government and their agency, the Civil Aviation Authority, support the suggested fares put up by our own scheduled airlines in this particular case, they should not be able to enforce those fares on flights originating from this country? Is the noble Lord aware that I have just read in the Daily Telegraph, before coming into the Chamber, that the British airlines believe that the best way to fill empty seats is to reduce fares and that half the seats on the Atlantic routes are empty? Is there anything the Government can do to get this affair settled before next year?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the answer to the first part of that supplementary question is the Bermuda Agreement, under which fares have to be agreed between the two countries concerned. It is a matter of bilateral agreement. Where that agreement cannot be obtained there is a complete breakdown of air services. We hope it will never come to that. It is possible that agreement will have to be reached on some such basis as the noble Baroness suggests, and that each country will operate on its own terms for traffic originating from that country.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, arising out of that answer, may I ask the Minister this further question? As we might gather from his reply that it seems possible to act irrespective of the Bermula Agreement, why can we not do it now?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords; it is not possible to act irrespective of the Bermuda Agreement. To do what I was suggesting would need an agreement between the two sides that it should be done.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, arising from the fact that the noble Lord is saying that air fares could be dictated in the case of aircraft leaving a country, may I ask him whether they could not also be dictated in the case of aircraft arriving in a country as well, at this lower level?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords; it is not a question of air fares being dictated. Air fares have to be agreed between the two parties to the agreement; that is, from where the flight starts and where it ends. They have to be agreed at both ends.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: But really, my Lords, is there any reason why, if the American airlines cannot fill their planes, we should not be allowed to fill ours?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the reason, I am afraid, is the Bermuda Agreement.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, might it not be possible to come to some arrangement with Canada, whereby we could fly cheap flights to Toronto and Montreal, both of which are comparatively close to New York, Washington and Philadelphia, and thereby force the hands of the Americans?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we have already reached an agreement with Canada.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, have we given notice to cancel the Bermuda Agreement, which seems to impede us?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords; because that would leave an exceedingly open situation.

LEYHILL OPEN PRISON: EDUCATION FACILITIES
3.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: 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 facilities for education are available at Leyhill Open Prison.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, there are day classes in remedial education and evening classes in academic, technical and recreational subjects. Correspondence courses can be undertaken, tutors brought in and arrangements made for prisoners to sit for
754
public examinations. Under certain safeguards, carefully selected prisoners are sometimes permitted day-release to attend local educational establishments.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for that rather cryptic Answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that Mr. Walter Probyn, a prisoner who has served many years' imprisonment, has recently been denied facilities at Leyhill which were open to him at Wormwood Scrubs?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, my Lords. I hoped that my Answer was not cryptic, but rather full. I am fully aware of the circumstances of this particular prisoner, and they are these: that while he was at Wormwood Scrubs he was doing full-time education on his own all day. The régime at Leyhill is simply not designed to allow people to do education, except for remedial education, all day, because the whole object is to create a régime where they prepare themselves, by means of discussions and activities of one sort or another, for the outside world. He can have all the facilities he wants in the evening and he will be let off for two or three weeks prior to examinations. He can have correspondence courses and tutors. He has used some of these facilities. But he must work during the weekends and in the evenings.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, to what exert are these educational plans inhibited by the degree of illiterarcy among prisoners?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this depends on the individual case. At most prisons the educational officer runs classes for people who are nearly, if not wholly, illiterate. This is a subject to which a good deal of attention is paid and to which I myself have paid a good deal of attention. There are quite a number of people in prison who are illiterate.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I ask a supplementary question to ask whether we are to understand that the position of this prisoner—recommended, it is said, by the Parole Board for parole; although the parole was denied by the Home Secretary—has deteriorated since he has moved to

755
Leyhill, although he was given to understand that it would improve?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I should not have thought that it had deteriorated at all. The move to Leyhill is a move from a restrictive régime in a closed prison to one specifically designed to enable a man satisfactorily to take the step, after a long period of imprisonment, from a closed institutional life to ordinary life in society. I must say that education is one part, and an important part, but only one part in this process. I hope that the noble Earl will take account of the whole matter of the régime at Leyhill when he attempts to judge this matter.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell us whether the facilities available at this prison include registration in the Open University plus all the tutorial facilities for the Open University.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think that the answer to that question is, Yes. The tutorial facilities, as I understand, are largely television and post; and there will be no difficulty about those. That is possible, I think, if people are there long enough.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, while appreciating the advantages of transfer to an open prison, may I ask the Minister whether this particular prisoner was told before he agreed to go to Leyhill—I understand that he had the option—that it would mean giving up his full-time education?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am not sure of the answer to that question. I can tell the noble Baroness that we have offered that he should go back to closed conditions if he is dissatisfied, and he has said that he would rather let matters stay as they are at the moment. We will review the situation as time goes on, and if there is a possibility of giving him the facilities mentioned we will do so if he wants them.

EXPORT OF CATTLE FOR SLAUGHTER
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to
756
ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, now that they have stopped the export of sheep on the hoof for slaughter, whether they intend to take similar action with regard to cattle.
EARL FERRERS: No, my Lords. The decision to suspend export licences for sheep, other than for breeding or exhibition, was taken as a result of widespread breaches of the Balfour Assurances as regards the treatment of sheep exported for slaughter. There have been no comparable substantiated reports which would justify similar action in respect of cattle.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, would he not agree that for some considerable time there has been evidence from various bodies and individuals that the Balfour Assurances are not being adhered to with respect to cattle? Should not this trade, for humane reasons be stopped? If Her Majesty's Government do not feel so inclined, should they not try to ensure that the Balfour Assurances are adhered to with regard to the export of cattle?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, as I indicated in my original Answer, we have no evidence that the Balfour Assurances in regard to cattle are not being adhered to. If my noble friend has evidence and cares to let me know of it, I will see that it is produced. I would remind him that the reason for banning the export of sheep is simply that the Balfour Assurances have been broken. It is because we do not wish to see them broken that we have taken this action.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, apart from the humane aspect, and that is most important, does the noble Earl not agree that the economic side is also important? There is the question of by-products. We are suffering from a growing shortage of leather in this country and are exporting cattle with valuable hides. Cannot the matter be looked at from the economic as well as the humane point of view?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Royle, I do not think we want to get the

757
two things muddled up. The ban on the export of sheep is based, and what my noble friend is requiring, a ban on the export of cattle, would be based, entirely on humane grounds, on contraventions of the Balfour Assurances. In our view, no such contravention, to any reasonable extent, has taken place with regard to cattle. As to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Royle, we are also concerned with the economic side of the matter. That is another reason why we should not wish to see a wholesale ban on exports.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, why should the noble Earl suggest that my noble friend's supplementary question does not bear on the Question on the Order Paper?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I did not say so. I said that we must not get the two things muddled tip. One side is economic, the selling of cattle for export; the other is a matter of animal health and welfare.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is it not possible for the noble Earl and his Government to consider two things at once without muddling them up? Would he not agree that the economic considerations should lead us to the view that there is a case for banning the export of cattle?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it is because the Government have considered both these things without muddling them up that they have decided that the export of sheep should be banned and the export of cattle should not.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that there is nothing in the E.E.C. Treaties which in any way inhibits our complete freedom of action in this sphere?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, a complete ban on the export of live animals would appear to be incompatible with 'our Treaty obligations. The Balfour Assurances still apply. We have asked for discussions on the improvement of animal welfare and humane slaughter throughout the Community.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the real reason we cannot ban this trade at the moment is
758
that we have not enough slaughterhouses licensed to kill livestock for export? If that is the case, can my noble friend say whether the Government could increase the number of licensed slaughterhouses to be used for this purpose and bring them up to the required standards?
EARL FERRERS: No, my Lords; I cannot confirm what my noble friend wishes me to confirm. In fact, exported meat accounts for only about 1 per cent. of the total output of our abattoirs and I have no reason to believe that the position which my noble friend postulates is correct.

COUNTER-INFLATION BILL
Brought from the Commons yesterday, and printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 48; read 1ª.

COSTS IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45(2), I rise to move that the Order of Recommitment be discharged. I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak on the Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Recommitment be discharged.
Perhaps I should inform your Lordships that the Bill is a pure Consolidation Bill. The Joint Committee have reported that in their opinion the Bill represents the existing law and there is no point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn. I therefore beg to move.
Moved, That the Order of Recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE DEFENCE ESTIMATES
3.22 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON) rose to move, That this House takes note of

759
the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1973. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move that this House takes note of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1973.
It is just four months since we last discussed Defence in your Lordships' House during the debate on the Address. Even in that short time important events have happened on the world scene: the end of the war in Vietnam; the beginning of preparatory talks on Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions; our own entry into the E.E.C. and the electoral victories of Chancellor Brandt and President Nixon. Throughout 1972 and in the early months of 1973 events have moved at a remarkable pace. President Nixon's visits to Moscow and Peking, Chancellor Brandt's policy of Ostpolitik in Europe, the major reduction in the Russian military presence in Egypt, the decision of China and Japan to settle their differences—all these are developments of truly global significance. It may well be that in the 1970s we are witnessing the break up of the rigid bipolar relationship of the 1950s and 1960s and its replacement by a more flexible system in which concepts such as the balance of power will once again become important. I believe that, as the first chapter of the Defence White Paper suggests, 1973 will be a year of both challenge and opportunity.
Negotiations are currently in progress which touch on every aspect of Alliance security: on strategic issues in the bilateral negotiations on SALT; on European security and co-operation in the C.S.C.E.; on force levels in Central Europe in M.B.F.R.; and on chemical warfare at the Disarmament Conference in Geneva. There may at last be a real prospect of achieving something like a civilised relationship between East and West here in Europe. No one in his right mind would want to reject that prospect. No Government want to spend over £3,000 million a year on defence if security can be assured at lower cost. We can all think of other more attractive—and electorally more popular—ways of spending money.
I am therefore all for détente, if by this we mean the establishment of a more relaxed relationship between the Communist bloc and the rest of us within
760
which we would have enough mutual confidence to halt the competition in armaments and collaborate in solving the formidable problems—social, economic, environmental—which beset us all wherever we live. But let us be sure before we relax our own defence efforts that this really is what Mr. Brezhnev and the other Soviet leaders mean by détente. We must be satisfied that their objectives are not purely tactical, in the sense that they have concluded that instead of frightening NATO, as they have done for some time, it is better to lull us into a sense of false security. We cannot ignore the fact that, as we move into a period of negotiation in Europe, they continue to build up their military forces to a degree which seems to go beyond any reasonable requirements of self-defence. In these circumstances I believe that while we must certainly pursue a policy of détente we must do so with caution. Let me take M.B.F.R. as an example.
The preparations for talks on Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions in Central Europe are central to all current East-West dialogue. The Soviet Union has at long last accepted NATO'S invitation, and exploratory talks are currently under way in Vienna. Their purpose is to prepare the way for serious negotiations on the reduction of force levels. They will therefore be concentrating on questions of procedure, organisation and, of course, the agenda for these negotiations which we hope will begin in the autumn. But at the same time there should be opportunities for each side to learn something of the other's thinking on the substantive issues, and so to establish that a sound basis for the negotiations exists. These talks, I think, may well prove to be of crucial importance to the Western Alliance. Certainly they will be difficult and prolonged, but there is the prospect of a very valuable prize at the end.
The difficulty, of course, with M.B.F.R. is that it will not be easy to negotiate an agreement that does not in practice work to the military disadvantage of NATO. The Warsaw Pact has an overwhelming superiority in conventional forces; NATO'S manpower is outnumbered by two to one in Central Europe; our tanks by four to one; our artillery by two and threequarters to one. Geography favours the Pact in terms of reinforcement capa-

761
bility; no forces, for example, redeployed to the United States under a reduction agreement could be made available in a crisis as speedily as those Russian forces redeployed from the central front to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union could, moreover, mobilise with none of the inhibitions that constrain a Western democracy. Finally, we must not forget that NATO's strength is closely tailored to its defensive strategy. The suit is already an uncomfortably tight fit, and there are limits to the extent that we can cut away the cloth before it begins to split at the seams.
My Lords, there is another and more general reason why I believe that this question must be approached with caution; that is the danger that the prospect of potential troop reductions may encourage people to think that détente is just round the corner, and that at last it is safe to lower NATO's guard. The temptation to anticipate reductions might, as a result, be hard to resist. But to undermine NATO's negotiating position in this way, to trade reductions in one's forces for what may yet prove to be an illusory promise of détente, would I think be very foolish, and we cannot expect quick results from these talks. We have to go forward at each stage of the negotiations with a complete awareness of the issues and the implications for European security, and the NATO Powers must be united. We are playing for high stakes. Nevertheless, M.B.F.R. is a highly significant development in the East-West dialogue on the security of Europe. If we can get it right, we shall have taken a giant step in the cause of furthering peace, not only in Europe, but all over the world.
Let us be conscious of this responsibility and opportunity and not underestimate the difficulties before us. We need as a country and as an Alliance to recognise Defence and détente as twin objectives. It is axiomatic that if we want to negotiate successfully on force reductions—and I hope I have made it quite clear that for my part I certainly do—then NATO as a whole must at least preserve its present military capability until we have achieved agreement to make reductions on both sides which will maintain the present balance of security: and at the present time that balance is, in military terms, distinctly precarious.
I have been talking so far, my Lords, about the East-West relationship. I believe that we also stand at the threshold of a period during which we and our Allies are going to be engaged in intensive rethinking of the defence relations within the Atlantic Alliance itself. It is common knowledge that, with Vietnam no longer blocking the view, President Nixon proposes to concentrate on the complex of issues—trade, monetary and security—which are of common concern to the United States and to Western Europe. This is an opportunity to which we Europeans must respond. For the next four years we shall be dealing with an American Administration which has demonstrated that it places a high value on the Atlantic Alliance. It is also an Administration
which has shown that it has the will, the ability and the imagination to negotiate with the Soviet Union realistically and profitably. It is up to us Europeans to exert ourselves while the going is good and drive forward during these next four years to the achievement of stability both in our defence relationship with our American Allies and in East-West relations here in Europe.
I think there must have been countless times during my time as Defence Secretary that I have emphasised that the Atlantic Alliance is vital and that in the long run there can be no healthy or enduring defence relationship between the United States and Europe except on the basis of fair and equal partnership. But this in turn implies a closer degree of co-operation and cohesion between European nations than anything that we have achieved so far. The Paris Summit, in charting the Community's development over this decade, laid down the aim of working for European union by 1980.
The habit of collaboration between the powers of Western Europe is already growing in all the main areas of governmental interest. There is a new spirit abroad in the Community; and the practice of regular and frequent consultation between Community Foreign Ministers and their officials is now well established and noticeably on the increase.
We also have consultations about C.S.E. and others; and we have the M.B.F.R. consultations in the NATO Council. In the specifically defence field

763
the Eurogroup of Defence Ministers is also extending its activities and provides an excellent example of the practical approach to the task of developing European defence.
Through the Eurogroup we have already been able to respond successfully to President Nixon's challenge that America would improve its support to NATO if Europe did likewise. In 1972, the Eurogroup took a further step in the arrangements it made to improve the development and procurement of common defence equipments. I am quite sure that in 1973 under the Chairmanship of Signor Tanassi, the Deputy Prime Minister of Italy, we shall have another year when we shall go further forward. In short, I am sure that there already exists the will to establish common aims and formulate common policies in many of the areas that are going to come under scrutiny during the next few years. And to some extent the machinery to do this already exists. This fact demonstrates that European Governments see the need, and have the wish to act in concert when the occasion arises.
So far, my Lords, I have talked only about Europe; but of course, although this is our primary concern, our interests and responsibilities do not end there. As a middle-sized military Power, I believe that we have an important part to play not only in those wide-ranging politicomilitary developments in Europe that I have talked about, but also in other parts of the world. In addition to NATO we are members of CENTO and SEATO; and we also contribute to the Five Power defence arrangements in Malaysia and Singapore.
As I have just come back from a visit to the Far East, perhaps I should say a few words about that. I had the opportunity to discuss the situation in that part of the world with the new Labour Governments in Canberra and Wellington, and also with the Governments in Kuala Lumpur and Singapore. As I think your Lordships know, all of them were agreed that in the present situation the defence arrangements
which we agreed upon two years ago serve a useful purpose as an influence for stability in the area, and they should continue. The Australian Government have decided not to replace their infantry battalion and artillery battery in Singapore, but they will retain their naval
764
and air contribution and logistic support elements for the ANZUK brigade. The New Zealanders will maintain their contribution. And while our partners do the same, we are determined to keep British forces in the area as long as they are wanted by the Malaysians and Singaporeans.
My Lords, in presenting the annual White Paper, I feel I should attempt to give some account of the way in which the Government's defence policy is working out against the background of world events which I have sketched. The first point I want to make is that the changes to which I have referred in no way invalidate the policy which we adopted in 1970, which was not tailored to a particular scenario, but which was designed to enable us to resume, within our resources, a proper share of responsibility for the preservation of peace and stability. To-day, I take credit for the fact that I have no dramatic announcement of new policies to make. If I had, I should regard it as a confession of failure. We had enough sudden changes of policy in the 1960s, which did considerable damage to the Services. What we want now, and what we are having, is a period of stability to carry out the policy which we have set for ourselves, and this it is my aim to secure.
My Lords, this policy entails attracting enough able men and women into the Services to undertake our defence commitments. Since my speech, if I went into every facet of defence policy, would be unpardonably long, I will, if I may, save up what I have to say about that until I, unfortunately, have to weary your Lordships again with your Lordships' permission, later this evening. We have to provide these men and women with the necessary high standard of weapons and equipment. Both these cost money, and the Defence Estimates for 1973–74 total £3,365 million. This means that after allowing for pay and price increases over the last 12 months, the Estimates are in real terms a little over 5½ per cent. up on the 1972–73 Estimates. The various elements of this increase are analysed on page 41 of the White Paper. They include a substantial amount—some £28 million—for the extra costs of Northern Ireland. Other items include measures in aid of industry and employment, and the effect of the new accounting arrangements introduced last year. Both of these

765
things will have less impact in the period after 1973–74 covered by the 1972 Public Expenditure White Paper in which the trend of Defence Budget expenditure levels off by comparison with the growth between this year and last.
I should just like to say a word about comparisons of defence costs. It is as true now as it ever was that effective defence cannot be bought on the cheap. Since the middle 1960s the average salary of a private soldier has gone up 2½ times and that of a senior N.C.O. more than doubled. A Jaguar costs six times as much as a Hunter. The Army's Light Air Defence Regiments will, when they have Rapier, cost four times as much as they did when they had radar controlled guns, and the Navy's new frigates will cost about two and half times as much as the "Leander".
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord's very interesting remarks? Are these in money terms or real terms?
LORD CARRINGTON: These are in money terms, my Lords. They of course are less startling if you translate them into real terms. These examples are some measure of what we have had to be prepared to pay, in the last Administration as well as this, to get the right men and to provide them with the right equipment. Future generations, both of Servicemen and of their equipment are going to cost more, in real terms, than they do now. These are, I fear, the facts to be faced if the Government are to continue to meet their objectives.
I should now like to say a few words about each of the Services. I have travelled extensively during the past year and have seen a good deal of all three of them. Whether in Europe or in Hong Kong and Singapore, I found them all in very good heart and was impressed, as anybody who has been round always is, by the evident efficiency and professionalism with which they were going about their varied tasks. In particular, I should like to pay tribute to the way in which the Commander of the ANZUK force in Singapore, Admiral Wells of the Royal Australian Navy, and his staff of three nations and three Services have created an efficient and happy organisation.
766
And now, my Lords, with regard to the Royal Navy. One sometimes hears it said that with the concentration of our defence effort in Europe we could in future manage with a Navy consisting of little more than submarines and antisubmarine vessels. I do not believe this to be the case. As the largest and the leading European Navy we have a variety of commitments and responsibilities in NATO and further afield, and we require a comprehensive range of ships to discharge them. At one end of the scale the Polaris force maintains a continuous and effective contribution to the Western strategic deterrent: at the other our frigates stand ready to protect our fishermen in the disputed waters off Iceland. We have in our amphibious force of commando carriers and assault and logistic ships a capability unique among European powers to reinforce the flanks of NATO. I was fortunate enough to be able to watch it last autumn off North Norway playing a leading part in Exercise Strong Express, the largest NATO maritime exercise ever held.
The "Ark Royal" and her Phantom aircraft will make a major contribution to NATO's naval strength for some years to come and a glance at Annex D of the White Paper will reveal an impressive range of ships from guided missile destroyers to coastal minesweepers, all committed to NATO. We are, my Lords, a trading nation with interests around the world and have a presence in the North Atlantic, the Mediterranean, in the Caribbean, the Indian Ocean and across the world. I do not believe that we would have it otherwise.
For the future we are planning a number of major improvements in the fighting effectiveness of the Fleet. The range of new ships and weapons to be introduced into service during the present decade includes the new through-deck cruisers, with V/STOL, aircraft if the complex series of studies now nearing completion indicate that the Harrier can be satisfactorily adapted to a maritime role, growing numbers of nuclear fleet submarines, the anti-surface-ship missile Exocet, the surface-to-air guided weapons Sea Dart and Sea Wolf, new torpedoes, and the Lynx helicopter. These new equipments will dramatically improve the capability of the Fleet and fully maintain its position.

767
With regard to the Royal Air Force, I should like to highlight the efforts which that Service is making to obtain the best value in terms of fighting capability from the resources available to it. I believe this is one of the most significant developments reported in the White Paper. For some years the proportion of R.A.F. expenditure devoted to manpower has been steadily growing, while the burden of research, development and production of succeeding generations of equipment threatens to become increasingly and progressively heavier as more sophisticated aircraft, weapons and electronics are introduced to keep pace with the growing threat.
In order to help redress the balance and to make the maximum resources available for the front line, a major review of manpower and support costs in the R.A.F. has been under way for some time. Numerous economies have already been identified and the R.A.F expect to make a reduction of about 6,000 posts without detriment to the front line, despite the extra manpower needed —for example, for the additional Jaguars, Buccaneers and Nimrods which we have ordered—and to do so, I am glad to say, with the minimum of compulsory redundancy.
Manpower savings on this scale will make a substantial contribution to the financing of the major front line re-equipment programmes which we have in hand for the longer term. These include, for example, the M.R.C.A., the modernisation of the equipment of the Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft, the development of a replacement for the Shackleton in the Airborne Early Warning role and the development of air-to-air missiles for air defence purposes. I am quite sure that judicious management of resources is essential to the achievement of an adequate and up-to-date defence capability, and the redeployment of resources in the Royal Air Force will undoubtedly pay handsome dividends in terms of air power in the years to come. In a somewhat shorter timescale, I am glad to be able to announce a new purchase of Harriers, sufficient for one extra squadron, which will enable us to maintain the front-line strength while aircraft already in service are withdrawn for improvements, thus prolonging the Harrier's effective life into the 1980s.
768
Finally, I turn to the Army, and I should like to say a word not about its equipment or organisation but about its task in Northern Ireland, which continues to be a major preoccupation. We shall have other opportunities to discuss the constitutional programme for Northern Ireland on which the Government are embarked and this is not the occasion for that.
My Lords, the past year has been a difficult time for the Army in Northern Ireland. It had to cope with variations in what was required of it which would have taxed a less professional force beyond patience and endurance. But it has come through them all, from the intensely emotional atmosphere which followed the tragic events of Bloody Sunday, through the decision to suspend Stormont and impose direct rule and the low profile period which followed, through the ceasefire declared by the Provisional I.R.A. and their quite cynical breaking of it, through Operation Motorman and the breaking down of the so-called "No-go" areas, to the much improved situation at the end of the year. It has come through all these changes with an impressive record of courage, efficiency and integrity of which we can all be very proud. And my Lords, not only that, but I believe it has achieved a very considerable success in its main aim of keeping the peace and in isolating the terrorists from the rest of the communities. And it has done all this despite the constant campaign of propaganda hurled at it, often by people who should have known better.
My Lords, we should be grateful to the Army for the way in which, supported by the other elements of the security forces, it has helped to generate a growing confidence in the Government's determination to afford all sections of the community in Northern Ireland a square deal. This has been amply demonstrated by some of the more recent events in Belfast, in Protestant and Catholic areas alike, which have made it as clear as anything can be that the security forces act with both determination and complete impartiality to curb violence from whatever quarter it comes. They will continue to do so.
My Lords, despite occasional setbacks, I am becoming a little more optimistic. There are hopeful signs that increasing

769
numbers of ordinary people in Northern Ireland are utterly sick of violence and want to assert their wish to live in peace. I believe that we must be determined to make the most of these changes in attitude, and careful to do nothing which would reverse them. Considerable progress was made during 1972 in improving troops' accommodation and it is continuing. We have completed a new barracks in permanent construction for 700 men at Aldergrove, and seven camps in modern temporary construction for about 1,700 men. A further five temporary camps for 1,250 men are nearly ready. A third ship—the "Rame Head"—has been provided by the Royal Navy to accommodate about 500 men in Londonderry. Next year we shall be spending another £4 million on troops' accommodation in Northern Ireland.
A great deal has also been achieved in other directions to improve the welfare of the troops. Since last year's Defence debate we have introduced special leave flights from Northern Ireland to Germany by R.A.F. aircraft; we have provided more facilities for telephoning families. There are now nearly 250 television sets (over 100 of them colour sets, financed from the generous appeal set up by the Daily Telegraph), and we are providing a further 45 colour sets from the Services Kinema Corporation. Live entertainment has also been increased by frequent Combined Services Entertainment shows, and so on. That is not a bad record, all in all.
My Lords, I should like to end what I fear has been a long speech by reporting to you quite simply that I believe the Armed Forces of this country to be in good shape—well trained, well equipped, professionals, whose morale stands high. It is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to maintain this state of affairs. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1973.—(Lord Carrington.)
3.52 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think I can speak on behalf of the whole House not only in expressing appreciation to the noble Lord for the speech that he has made, but also to say,
770
"Welcome back". During the seven years of constructive Labour Government one noticed during the months of January and February your Lordships' House was always poorer because of the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. Somehow or other he found—I think because of his chairmanship of a well-known bank—the necessity to go to the sunny climes of Australia and, I believe, New Zealand. I am quite certain that his recent visit in that part of the world was equally warranted. Those of us who followed his tour, and some of the comments he made, feel he has not only rendered this country great service but, in particular, also the forces for which he has direct responsibility.
I am not in any way being critical of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, or the noble Earl the Chief Whip, in what I am going to say, but I wish to make a plea for some reason. Your Lordships' House has always attached very great importance to a Defence White Paper, and to our debates on it. The degree of importance is very much greater now that we have a Secretary of State in your Lordships' House. We had the White Paper last Wednesday and we are now debating it, some eight days later. Some of us think we are full-time Members of your Lordships' House; but most of us have not only our duties here but also our occupations outside. Some of us feel that we need an opportunity to consult with those who may know better about the subject; but within that short time this has not been possible. I can well appreciate the reason why the debate is held so soon after the emergence of the White Paper. No doubt it is right that the noble Lord, as Secretary of State, should have the opportunity of making the first Parliamentary Statement on it, and there is always the risk that the other place might pre-empt him. We are now sufficiently adult that arrangements can be made between the two Houses so that there is a little longer between the emergence of an important document and this House being called upon to consider it. That is not criticism; it is a plea for a little more reason by both Houses next year.
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I should like to endorse all that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said about our soldiers in Ulster. I agree

771
with the noble Lord that not only are the people in Northern Ireland becoming sick and tired of the bloodshed, but that people throughout the United Kingdom are sick and tired, too. In Northern Ireland there is a growing realisation of what the Services have done for them. A week ago I was in Eire. One can never avoid discussing the problem of the Border with one's Irish friends. While there may be very severe—sometimes violent—criticism over the past political leadership and judgments of this country, on not one single occasion, right through the most heated discussions, did I hear one word of criticism from my friends in Eire regarding the behaviour of the British soldiers. The case for the Forces is now emerging.
Some us are concerned about the question of fatigue. Some of our troops there are now on their third tour; some may shortly be starting their fourth tour. These soldiers operate in most exposed conditions, and this must not only be a strain on their own nerves, but must also be a strain on their families. I doubt whether much can be done about that matter, but I hope the fact will be taken into account when I make my second point. I and a number of my friends have been concerned whether we pay sufficient compensation, through pensions or otherwise, to the widows of our young soldiers who lose their lives in Northern Ireland. We all know that soldiers marry much earlier than they used to, and certainly have families earlier. One cannot help feeling that the present rate of pension to a widow is hardly sufficient to give her a reasonable existence with the long years of widowhood in front of her. I know that my noble friend Lord Winterbottom will want to develop this case, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will bear the problem in mind.
So far as the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is concerned, to me, and to most of my noble friends, it was much more acceptable than the speeches he has made on three previous occasions. I thought to-day—and I recognise the changed circumstances that have occurred in Europe and South-East Asia since we had our last debate—the noble Lord had about the right balance in his speech. I agree that we must maintain not only our support to NATO, but also take full account of all the oppor-
772
tunities that may arise through the three different sets of negotiations that are taking place in Europe to-day.
We accept that in protracted negotiations, particularly the more difficult ones for force reductions, there are risks. I share the view of the noble Lord that these risks are worth taking because so far we have been able to accept the heavy burdens of the defence expenditure. I have a question mark in my own mind as to how long these burdens can be successfully borne within a democratic society and with the new expectations of our people for a better standard of life. So, my Lords, we would press upon the Government to pursue these negotiations with the utmost vigour. We agree with them that in the meantime, certainly from a negotiating point of view, there can be no form of unilateral reductions.
With regard to costs, I think it must be a matter of concern that the cost burden has risen quite dramatically during the last year. The first question I would put to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is this: In December, 1972, we had the White Paper (Cmnd. 1578). Now we have the Defence White Paper in front of us, with an increase, it seems to me, of some £523 million. The White Paper issued in December was a Paper for Parliament to review public expenditure. To me it seems very strange indeed that in a matter of two months we should have such a startling difference in the figures. Perhaps when the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, replies, he could give us an explanation, because there does not seem to be much sense in having a very important White Paper such as the public expenditure White Paper is, and yet to be confronted with other figures so widely out of line.
My Lords, expenditure in the field of research and development again is something that must cause some concern, because there is quite a big increase. I recognise that there is a necessity to plan, design and do research and development, or important equipment will never come into being many years hence, but with these figures one wonders whether perhaps we are not undertaking research and development on too big a scale. Or is it a consequence of having joint European projects? Most of our experience shows that this is not one of the most economical methods of production, and I wonder whether the increase in research

773
and development cost can be attributed to the fact that we are undertaking this work with our European allies. Here again I should like an explanation. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, also spoke about carrying our fair share of the burden in terms of cost. My Lords, I wonder whether in fact we are not carrying too great a share of the burden. When one looks at what our European allies pay, if we make a comparison by gross national product, we are a good 1 per cent. or 2 per cent.—I think in some cases 3 per cent.—ahead of them, and one wonders whether this is right.
Secondly, one needs to take into account our own costs consequent upon entering into the E.E.C. One sees in Annex A, Table 4, that there has been an increase over last year of some £33 million across the exchanges. From this, it seems to me that we spent some £331 million across the exchanges for our defence effort in Europe. When alongside that, one takes the cost of our contribution to entering the E.E.C.—to a certain extent they are all part and parcel —and relates it to the burdens that other European countries bear, one finds that there would be real justification for the British people to say that defence is right for this country and for Europe, but should not the burden be borne more fairly, taking into account the strength of the economies of some of the countries in Europe?
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, spoke of the possible consequence where if one were to reduce the defence effort people might well say, "Why cannot we go one stage further?" My Lords, I am more concerned at the moment about how we continue to justify to our people the cost of defence. We all know there is great dissatisfaction throughout the country in terms of one's personal income and standard of living. It is always said that one cannot expect to see any rise in these until the country can raise it's general economic standards. It is hard to defend the position in this way when we are spending so much, not only in money but in material resources, on defence. The possibilities are being lost. So I think we should pursue the field of disarmament with considerable ruthlessness, because I do not believe that in the long term one can, in a democratic society, sustain these very high defence costs.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for giving way. If one takes 1972 prices, is it not a fact that in 1967–68 the Labour Government were spending £3,367 million —more than the Defence Budget we are discussing to-day? And in the interim, is it not true to say that Russian rearmament has gone ahead at enormous speed? So is not the danger more now even than when the noble Lord had responsibility?
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord will remember that the Labour Government was also under serious attack for its expenditure in the realm of defence. If I may develop this point, may I say that this is not a personal view but is what I believe could emerge. We are to-day moving around as tourists. We visit many countries, some of them behind the Iron Curtain, and many people from Iron Curtain countries come here. We have now a majority of our people who have never seen war, never seen occupation, and see only friends from behind the Iron Curtain as being no different from ourselves. What I am seeking to say is that in my view it is going to be hard to sustain burdens of the present sort. I think the United States Government recognises this.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, touched more briefly on the
subject of recruitment. It has been disappointing that the figures have dropped, though not dramatically, but I agree with the noble Lord. I think he said last year that the problem of recruiting is bound to increase because the area from which one can draw soldiers is becoming a good deal smaller. So, my Lords, in general I myself would not criticise the White Paper as it has been presented to us. I have only the feeling that it does not entirely portray the general defence position of this country and of NATO in particular. I do not think there is any doubt that there are strains in Europe. The forces we have available are very strained, particularly on the perimeters of Europe, and equipment is still short. This is a subject which others of my noble friends might wish to develop.
I would only ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, whether he would be good enough to look into one aspect which is not strictly concerned with defence, though I should regard it as being very much part of it: that is, our

775
information services. I am sure that the noble Lord, when in Singapore and Malaya, must have become aware of the problems of the B.B.C.'s Asian Service that was being broadcast from Tebrau. My understanding is that the B.B.C. have now been required to leave Tebrau and have found themselves another site in the area. I understand that the Treasury require the B.B.C. to provide the entire capital needed, not only for the move but for the new installation. That is clearly going to have a serious effect upon the resources of the B.B.C.'s Overseas Service, to which most of us, I am sure, would pay a great tribute. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will use his best offices to see that the new station is set up and that the B.B.C. is in no way penalised as a result of this move.
In view of the fact that there are many other noble Lords who wish to speak, I will leave my remarks there. As I say, I believe this to be more of a progress report, but I shall listen with interest to those who have perhaps greater everyday contact with the Services, to see what they make of the contents of the White Paper.
4.12 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I should like to begin by saying how much I appreciated the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, at the beginning of his speech regarding the emergence of new forces in the world during the last year and new developments in foreign policy generally which, by themselves, may possibly be forcing us all in the direction of a detente. Nothing that I propose to say this afternoon should be taken as meaning that I am in any way opposed to a detente provided, as the noble Lord said, that we pursue it by means that will not result in our placing ourselves at an even greater disadvantage than at present in relation to the immense and ever-increasing power that faces us in the East.
I propose however, in the few minutes available, to discuss only one aspect of our Defence policy; that is, the defence of Western Europe: for I believe this to be an overriding issue that up to now has not been satisfactorily faced. At the moment the basic assumption, surely, is that the defence of the Western European democracies—and
776
notably those forming the new and extended European Economic Community—is only conceivable if the Americans (in default of some still quite improbable agreement with the Russians on disarmament or M.B.F.R.) maintain considerable forces in Western Germany. An additional, if unexpressed, assumption undoubtedly is that, however outnumbered and out-gunned the Allied Forces in Germany may be, it will be possible for an indefinite period to deter any Soviet assault (however unlikely that may be) or even any Soviet threat to the West, by having recourse in the last resort to tactical nuclear weapons if only, to start off, on a very moderate scale.
Now, I do not want to get into an argument about flexible response to any Soviet agression or provocation, because I must say that I agree with it. The noble Lord once told me that I did not understand it: that may be so, but so far as I do understand it, I agree with the noble Lord. I am not against it. For such time, indeed, as the Americans do have very substantial forces in Europe and are firmly prepared, if need be, to loose off their tactical nuclear missiles and to authorise their use by various allies, it is the only sensible way of organising our defence. For otherwise the Russians would of course be able to attack and be on the Rhine within a few days. However, we should be rash to ignore the constant rumours reaching us from America—I do not say that they come from the Administration but certainly they come from influential sources in Congress and elsewhere—that the Americans may fairly soon' substantially reduce their forces in Germany, even if one day they do not withdraw them altogether, and that in any case their maintenance can only be guaranteed if the European Economic Community countries for their part agree to economic conditions which may be incompatible with the emergence, for instance, of any European monetary union or even with the effective continuance of the European Economic Community itself. It is also constantly suggested that the American military presence in Europe may be endangered if the European members of the North Atlantic Alliance, or at any rate those in NATO, do not contribute more in the way of men, money and

777
material to the common defence than they now contribute.
I am sure that all such dire possibilities are exercising the minds of the Government, but at the moment it looks as if they do not think there is anything that we can do about them, beyond getting together with the 10 other European members of the Alliance (other, of course, than France) in the unofficial Eurogroup with a view to concerting additional contributions to the common defence and this is all to the good. The E.D.I.P. (the European Defence Improvements Programme) of 1,000 million dollars over five years has indeed resulted in much useful work being done on such things as aircraft shelters and other infra-structure operations. It has also, as the Defence White Paper points out, produced a small but welcome increase in the defence budgets of all the European members of NATO. Further, there is very useful agreement on procurement to which the noble Lord referred, and for which we are all very grateful. Generally speaking, all this is a sign that the Eurogroup countries are at least endeavouring to get a move on in the direction of common European defence. Nobody therefore, as I understand it, wants to interfere with or impede the activities of the Eurogroup.
But what we must surely contemplate now is something much more far-reaching; namely, the possibility of building up over the years—if humanly possible, of course, with the Americans, but if absolutely necessary then without them—some system of "conventional" defence of Western Europe which would be deemed sufficiently strong (it is only a question of "deeming") to hold any Soviet armoured thrust without resort to nuclear weapons. The short argument here is that, if a struggle ever occurs for any reason—and I believe it will be highly improbable if Western Europe really sets its house in order—the Soviet Union will not itself use nuclear weapons to attain its military ends, for the simple reason that to do so would invite a response which, however limited, would be quite unacceptable. But if the Russians did not use these weapons it would be quite inconceivable for the Europeans to do so, for the results of such action would be even more unacceptable for them. Indeed —and this is my central point—we are probably approaching the point at which
778
no Power will be prepared to use nuclear weapons on a first strike—I repeat on a first strike—against another nuclear Power, or even against any Power at all. One has only to think of the unwillingness of the Soviet Union to use this weapon over the last few years, or to threaten its use against China, to say nothing of the obvious impossibility of American use of such weapons against that poor miserable little State called North Vietnam.
So it follows logically that no defence which relies, as ours does now, on the use, if necessary, of tactical nuclear weapons on a first strike is basically sound as a long term policy, even though at the moment it may be valid, and may even be valid for the next few years But if it is unsound in the long run, then, again logically, there is no real hope of defending Western Europe, or of avoiding political pressure which could reduce us to a state of vassallage —save by "conventional" means of some sort. I said this effectively in my last speech and I repeat it. From now on we must all concentrate on an entirely new conception of defence and, if we can, we must persuade our European allies to go along with it.
I also said last time—and the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, rather twitted me with this—that I should take this opportunity of describing more in detail the main outlines of such a scheme, and I shall now attempt to do so, although necessarily very briefly. The general idea would be to hold up any Soviet armoured thrust by a concentration in the neighbourhood of the border of a large number of anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons of a new kind, deployed in concealed ground to ground missiles, in specially designed helicopter gun-ships, and in fighter bombers, coupled no doubt with minefields and other devices so as to form a great protective screen. But the main feature would be the creation of a large number of small units of not much more than a company or, at the most, battalion strength, consisting of tough professionals who would be partly stationed near the border but mostly brought up at an instant's notice, and chiefly by helicopter, from the rear. The main duty of these formations would be to concentrate, along with the Air Force, on the adversary's armour in accordance

779
with the directions of an Area Commander reporting directly to SACEUR. Possibly three Area Commanders would suffice, though they might have to have some sub-Area Commanders under them. In other words, it would no longer be a question of opposing armour with armour—our own armour, short of immense extra expenditure, being numerically much inferior to the Soviet armour—but rather to break the initial armoured thrust by diversified and quite novel means.
It would follow that there would no longer be any need to maintain large armoured formations of a World War II pattern, with consequent very considerable saving of funds. Some detachments of the equivalent of the American "air cavalry" might be required for creating havoc among enemy armoured divisions which had been held up in front and were piling up behind. But that would be all. No formations which could be remotely described as offensive would be employed. What would in addition be necessary would be some kind of militia behind the lines which would cope with parachutists and protect strategic points. But that should not be a vastly expensive element. And, naturally, the tactical nuclear weapons—7,000 of which are said to be deployed at present—would, failing mutual and balanced force reduction or disarmament, still be there for use in the most unlikely event of the Soviet armies having recourse to them before we did.
As for the famous Anglo-French strategic nuclear "deterrent" about which so much ink has been spilt and which may or may not have been the subject of an interchange of views between Her Majesty's Government and the French Government, I suggest that that would no longer be the dominant factor, in the sense that it would no longer be immediately relevant at any rate in Western Europe (and I notice in any case that the White Paper does not say anything about the possibility of Polaris becoming obsolete before long and being replaced by Poseidon). For since, on my basic assumption, it would be out of the question for either the French or the British even to threaten the use in the present instance of our strategic forces on a first strike, it follows that in practice such forces can only have a second strike
780
significance. In other words, they might "deter" any Soviet first strike nuclear assault (however unlikely) on French or British territory and to that extent would obviously be useful. And it is, of course, improbable that any French or British Government will actually abolish its own strategic nuclear force, though it is admittedly the declared intention of the united French Left to do so if by any chance they should come into power in the near future, as indeed they may.
This brings me to my final point, and I hope I have not detained your Lordships for too long. Should the French elections result in the formation of a Government depending for its existence on the Centre, which, as we all know, is very European and Atlantic Alliance-minded, and consequently in a lessening of the influence of the extreme Nationalists who, together with the Communists, favour no real co-operation of any kind on defence matters with their allies, it should surely be possible for us to get together with the new administration and to think out some quite new scheme of conventional defence in which France will not only be a willing partner but in which she might actually take the lead. I do not think myself that France, even in such circumstances, will return to NATO. I doubt if she will even be willing to institutionalise the "Eurogroup" (although I wish she would) which could, however, still continue. I repeat, nobody wants to interfere with the progress of the "Eurogroup" as regards infrastructure and so on. But what is essential is the formation of an integrated European defence element within the Alliance itself—that is to say, operating within the broad framework of the North Atlantic Council. Did I say essential? Perhaps I should say possible, and desirable too.
And indeed if, as all our Ministers say, we are about to make rapid progress towards a European monetary union, to say nothing of a political union in only eight years' time, how can we avoid constituting some machinery for co-ordinating specifically Western Union defence—Western European defence—perhaps as an extension of the "Davignon" procedure; perhaps in some close association with the Commission in Brussels; perhaps in liaison with the "Eurogroup"; perhaps, best of all, in some extension or adaptation of

781
the existing machinery of Western European Union? Who knows? All I do know is that if anything of the kind is to be attempted it must be attempted soon, and in co-operation with the French, and based on entirely new thinking. Certainly, if we are going to get the French to go along with us it will have to be based on entirely new thinking.
As it seems to me, time presses. It is no good saying that if only we are reasonable and conciliatory in the coming conferences on European security and M.B.F.R. all will be well. Of course we should be reasonable and conciliatory, hut whether this posture will have the slightest effect on a Soviet Union which —as the White Paper shows—is armed to the teeth and is re-arming even further at the moment, remains to be seen. Our position therefore remains one of very considerable danger.
Of one thing I am quite sure. Since the use of nuclear energy for military purposes by any Power is becoming increasingly absurd and obviously counterproductive, there is a real chance for us here in this corner of Europe to provide for our own defence—that is to say to produce a "credible" defensive system—provided only we are united and make use of the great fund of intelligence and expertise at our disposal. The White Paper announces a 5·6 per cent. increase in our general defence expenditure. I do not object to that. I think the reason for it was well explained by the noble Lord. Lord Carrington. But I am not at all sure that all of this is absolutely productive. For instance, if we are to spend more money under the present system I suggest that more should be devoted to research into anti-tank weapons generally, including of course Swingfire, which is mentioned in the White Paper, and that such research should be co-ordinated, or even pooled, with that of our European allies. Why not?
In conclusion, it is not a question of heavily re-arming or imposing—and this I ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to realise—any impossible burdens on our economies. It is very much the reverse. It is a question of demonstrating that we have both the will and the ability to hold any armoured thrust in the central German plain; the flanks being protected, as now, chiefly by the United States which
782
is apparently reluctant to remain a great land power but is prepared to remain a great sea, air and nuclear power. After all, David was much less heavily armed than Goliath, and there is no inherent reason why we should be more afraid of the giant than he was. It is intelligence that is now required and if we have nothing else, we and the French have that quality to a marked degree. So we must hope, and even expect, that the moment will soon come for us to get together in earnest, and when that happens the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will at least hear one loud cheer from the wings!
4.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I must open with an apology. I heard only about a week ago that this debate was going to take place and I have an appointment this evening which I cannot avoid, and therefore I may have to leave before the end of the debate. Should I have to do so, I shall naturally read up the part that I miss with enormous interest. May I say how grateful I am to the usual channels for giving me such an unusually distinguished place in the batting order. It has been of enormous help to me, but, despite that, much of my speech has
already been made by my noble friend Lord Carrington. I hope, however, that your Lordships will bear with me as I shall be very brief.
To-day I do not wish to comment on the White Paper except to say that it is very much what we all expected, and it is a logical continuation of the Government's policy which they announced soon after they took office in 1970. It is very satisfactory and I think that it is exactly what we want. I want to concentrate to-day on two aspects of Defence which I think are new since we held our debate last year. The first is that we now seem to have entered into an era of detente. Last year we had Chancellor Willy Brandt with his Ostpolitik; we had President Nixon visiting Peking and Moscow; the second phase of SALT which has begun in Geneva; a meeting of 34 nations has been convened in Helsinki to consider whether the time is ripe for a Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe; and multilateral exploratory talks are starting in Vienna on mutual and balanced force reductions. All that is excellent, and the more talking we can do the better, but it would be very

783
dangerous to expect quick results. We must not be lulled into a sense of false security on account of the talking. We must not for a moment drop our guard. When I say, "we" I mean NATO in general and ourselves in particular.
I myself spent a year of the last war in Russia and by a curious coincidence my father before me spent the last year of his naval career as Senior British Naval Officer, Vladivostok. So before he died he and I had a considerable number of occasions to discuss the Russians, about whom we were curiously enough in agreement. We both learnt a little Russian, most of which we forgot almost as quickly as we learnt it; we were both full of admiration and affection for the Russian people, but we were also equally agreed that the "push"—and by that I mean the Party, the Government, the Secret Police and much of the bureaucracy—was a very different kettle of fish. Perhaps the personal flag of Admiral Grechko, who is the Soviet Minister of Defence, illustrates the Soviet aims perfectly: the hammer and sickle across the world. Those aims have not changed. Russia has not ceased for a moment, despite all this talk of détente, to expand and modernise her armed forces.
With a détente in the West, ice to the North and China in the East, Russia can only expand southwards and out into the oceans. With a powerful and modern fleet Russia, for the first time in her history, is deploying a worldwide maritime strategy with great skill and subtlety. She is doing that in the Middle East, Africa, South-East Asia and in South America. Your Lordships, I know, are familiar with the pattern: a number of friendly visits to a foreign port by warships or fishing vessels; these become more numerous and more normal; then comes a little bit of economic pressure; and then last of all political infiltration. The Free World can only counter these manœuvres by itself adopting a maritime strategy and doing the job better. In 1962, the Russian naval Commander-in-Chief gave this directive to his Fleet: "Go to sea and stay there". Times have changed and my message is: By all means go on talking, but let not the talking obscure the facts or encourage us to relax.
784
Now that I have gone to sea again, may I bring up my second problem? For much of our lives the ocean has meant to most of us a means of communication and it is a force for unity in peace but its trade routes have to be defended in war. In the last year something has happened which is quite different; a large section of the ocean round our coasts has become an extremely expensive piece of real estate. Are we able at the moment to defend our gas rigs, our oil rigs and our pipe-lines? I do not know. If we are not, then presumably in the event of war we must have contingency plans to replace the gas and the oil upon which, by that time, we will have become so dependent. But perhaps it can be defended. Various possibilities spring to mind—minefields, static defences, patrols of surface ships and submarines, and, of course, air cover. I am sure that the Minister will have thought of that and I do not know how much he can tell us about it. I have no wish to press him, but if he can give us any line on Government thinking or on any action that it is proposed to take, I am sure that your Lordships will be very grateful.
Finally, and back to my earlier point, I should like to say this. Every time a plan is put forward to solve our social or economic problems, and particularly when it emanates from the Party represented by noble Lords opposite, it is always accompanied by a massive reduction in Defence spending. That must be wrong. To begin with, these reductions cause the most appalling administrative problems within the three Services and considerable hardship to sailors, soldiers and airmen. But more important still, the policy itself is wrong. The Navy is still too small and so is the Air Force. The Army is stretched to its limit trying to preserve law and order in one little corner of this Kingdom. Five and three-quarters per cent. of our gross national product is not much to spend on defence of an island nation. We must retain sufficient modern Armed Forces to be able to speak from strength in the councils of the world. Finally, the Armed Forces provide an insurance for our own security and the most hopeful instrument for peace in the world.
4.40 p.m.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, does two

785
jobs: he is Minister of Defence and Chairman of the Conservative Party. I think he must have been spending more time on the second job than the first, judging by the White Paper and by his speech this afternoon. For the first half hour he read from a brief, which I assume had its origin in the Foreign Office, then he rose to really dizzy heights for he told us how many television sets there are in Northern Ireland. It shows what progress we have made, for a decade ago it would have been bedside lamps; so time marches on.
One would have thought that in a deliberative Chamber of this kind, faced with a bill for £3,300 million, at least we should have had restated the principles upon which Her Majesty's Government are organising the defence of this country. But nary a word! It is about the principles that I first want to speak. I do not share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that money spent on defence should be begrudged. If this country needs defence, it ought to have adequate defence which should be related to the needs of our time expressed as strategic long-term needs of Great Britain. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, whom I knew in another place, characteristically tried to make a Party point by seeking to establish that the defence bills in the last years of the Labour Government were greater than now. He ought to know—but of course he does not know, and therefore, of course, one forgives him—that in defence expenditure, it takes at least a decade from the time the idea is conceived until it is put into practical effect. For my part, I certainly would not hurl a brick at the Minister of Defence about the size of the bill. We must accept the size of the bill, whether we like it or not, for it had its origin long before the present Administration came into power.
By the same token when the Labour Government came to power in 1964 it was faced with four Polaris submarines which were in course of building. I was a party to cancelling the fifth, and I would have cancelled the other four, but I will come to that point in a moment. I would ask Lord Shepherd to contemplate for a moment what the cost has been to this country of our weak, shilly-shallying policy in the Middle East, or, if noble Lords wish, our policy since Suez. In
786
my view it goes back much further than that, but it is an indisputable fact that ever since the Israelis reached the banks of the Suez Canal it has been costing us, in the earlier years £25 million a month and now £30 million a month. So "No Defence" can be noble conception; but if you take the cost of Defence and give it away, by way of housing or whatever other advantages you wish to give, in the long run the bill you may have to pay may turn out to be much greater than the cost of the Defence bill.
Coming back to the points in the Defence White Paper, I think the policy on which the Government are working is perfectly clear. It was laid down by the Prime Minister in his Godkin
lectures in 1967. He restated the principle when he republished the lectures in 1970. Let me read an extract:
"It is proposed that the British and French nuclear forces should be pooled to form a joint deterrent which would be held in trust for Europe."
Recently the Prime Minister was in the United States, and some of his American questioners raised the point of the extent to which Britain had got the nuclear itch. Mr. Heath made it perfectly clear that the policy as far as the nuclear deterrent is concerned remains now what it always was: we are to have an independent nuclear deterrent. Of course, we have never had an independent nuclear deterrent. Blue Streak was not independent; it was Atlas without the central engine. When Blue Streak "went for a Burton" we fell back on Skybolt, and in its turn that went and then we had Polaris. Only a year before the Government anchored their hopes to Polaris the then Minister for Defence, Mr. Duncan Sandys, was saying that Polaris was not a runner.
Let us have a look at the Polaris conception, which is the core of our defence policy. We have four of them. They are armed with the A.3 which has a range of 2,500 nautical miles. The Americans have 41. They have converted the 31 they could convert, to Poseidon. Poseidon, which is an immeasurably more expensive but more powerful weapon than the A.3, is in its turn being superseded, first by U.M.L.S.1 and then by U.M.L.S.2. Polaris has a limited range. It has a warhead
which can break up into three parts on a single target. Now let us have a

787
look at the concept of our independent deterrent. On October 1, 1963, the then Prime Minister, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, announced to the House of Commons that our Polaris submarines would be targeted in accordance with the NATO target plan, but he made it clear that should the necessity ever arise when British interests were involved it could be retargeted in accordance with British interests.
This means to say in plain English that the time might come when there would be a difference between the Americans and ourselves, and that we would pull out of the NATO targeting and target it as we wished. At that moment the Russians would be given very valuable information, because they would be told that we had changed the targeting and from now on we were targeting in accordance with our interests; so they would know that there was a major political difference between the United States and ourselves. We should be opposing them with four submarines, with 16 tubes; that is 64 missiles, armed with a weapon which is now three generations out of date. What would the Russians do? They would say, or it is possible they would say: "Right; if within 24 hours you do not surface and declare your position we will take out Lincoln".
Is there any Member of your Lordships' House who would seriously suggest that, at a moment of such acute difference with the United States that we have altered our targeting plan, the President of the United States would put at risk New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles because the Russians were using the deterrent in a blackmailing form to take out a British city just to demonstrate that they mean what they say? I hold the view that a nuclear deterrent of that kind is not a source of strength, but indeed a source of weakness.
There is another reason for being cautious on this policy, and I am astonished that the Secretary of State for Defence, when he gave a catalogue of the changes which had taken place during the year, did not give an account of the dialogue which took place in the White House on June 16, 1972, when Mr. Kissinger was being interrogated on the question of the British and French deterrent. A Congressman put it to Mr. Kissinger that the United States had 41
788
nuclear submarines. He said to that must be added three Titans; the Russians insisted that the three Titans must be added in, making 44. Britain has four, which makes 48; France has one and will have three more, making 52. The Russians, he said, had declared that if that happens they will insist on Britain's and France's nuclear weapons being included in the figure that is agreed in the SALT Agreement. Mr. Kissinger in his reply said that he thought his questioner had gone a little far. He said that first of all the Soviet Union had not said that they would consider the agreement breached; the Soviet Union had said they would reserve the right to ask for additional compensation.
Yet the story is told by the Government and by countless Government spokesmen up and down the country, that we have a deterrent—which from a military point of view is worthless, and which is becoming increasingly worthless every day that passes as the Americans move from Polaris to A.3, to Poseidon, then to U.M.L.S.1. and 2—whereas the truth is the possession of our obsolescent weapons will count in diminution of the ultra-sophisticated American weapons. I will be charitable. I think that the Secretary of State for Defence did not tell the House because I do not think he knew. I do not think his Department has understood the significance of the Russian demand, because I cannot believe so honourable a man would have failed to inform the House about this very important limitation in the SALT Agreement: that the Soviet Union were insisting on parity of our obsolescent Polaris A3s in diminution of the sophisticated weapons which the Americans now possess and which will be increased in number in the near future.
So much for the deterrent. I do not think that it exists. It never did exist except for political reasons, and I think it is nearer and dearer to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, as Chairman of the Tory Party, than it is to him as Secretary of State for Defence. When I say that, I am paying him a compliment. I will now turn to the forces as a whole. I was astonished, but not surprised, at the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. His was a typical Liberal speech with high-sounding principles but without the guts to face up

789
to the logic of his own policies. What does he propose? He put forward the concept of the Maginot Line.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I did not quite hear the noble Lord.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, the idea that the noble Lord put forward, of having a central area in North Germany of tank traps and minefields to contain a Russian thrust while the flanks are unguarded, is exactly the same as the Maginot Line. There the flanks were not guarded.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, the Maginot Line would have been a perfectly good concept if only it had extended to the Dutch frontier. Unfortunately it did not, and therefore it was turned. The Maginot Line itself was practically impregnable.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, the Maginot Line was no more impregnable than the Siegfried Line, or any other fixed position. I am now going back to a very old subject. The Conservative Administration undertook to maintain four divisions on the European land mass to keep General de Gaulle quiet. The General who was a professional soldier, could do his sums and never fell for that one. We have never had four divisions; the best we have been able to accomplish is about 50,000 men. Our forward atomic tactical weapons are completely obsolescent—I refer to Honest John and the 8-inch howitzer. Some years ago, not a Labour Administration hut a Conservative Administration cancelled Blue Water, and by doing so they took the guts out of the Army. Of course the Americans went on with their version of Blue Water (which is their Lance). The range of the 8-inch howitzer and Honest John is 12 miles and of Lance something like 20 miles. May I ask the Secretary of State (because the information is not in the White Paper) whether the Government intend to buy Poseidon, the successor to the Polaris? Do they intend to buy Lance? If they do not intend to buy Lance then, as of now, the British Army on the Rhine is really a tethered goat, just waiting against the day (which, please God! never happens), when they can be swept up and put in a prison camp.
The B.A.O.R. is not a balanced fighting force. Only last week the late Army Commander of the British Army of the
790
Rhine complained about the lack of equipment, and the lack of ability to fight, of the forces on the European land mass. He complained bitterly about having no heavy helicopters. Where are they? Do they exist? What steps are being taken to provide the Army with heavy helicopters?—because they exist. For example, there is the Sea King. That has a weight capacity of about 20,000 1b. Where have they gone? They have gone to the apple of Lord Carrington's eye, the Navy. The Navy has the Sea King, but the Army has not. So I assert that the Rhine Army at the present moment is without modern atomic tactical weapons, without an effective substitute, and deficient in equipment. The recent Commander-in-Chief has said they lack these things. I should like to know what is going to be done about that.
Now I come to the dreadful position in which I find myself. It is nearly thirty years since, in this House, then the House of Commons, I made my maiden speech on Defence. I have attended practically every Defence debate of any kind since that time, and I repeat that I have never seen a Defence White Paper quite like this one. If the late Mr. Emrys Hughes were still alive I am not at all sure that I would not go to him and say, "Emrys, I am a convert". If you are going to have defence, it must be effective when the chips are down. We must have the right amount of firepower at the right place at the right time. That is an old concept, but it is as true to-day as ever it was. If we have not got it, then the day will come —as happened with the Maginot Line—when our bluff will be called. War is a time of testing reality; all the high phrases, all the slogans, are all forgotten. I have never disguised the fact that the Labour Party in the 'thirties had something to explain away, because it was always passing resolutions telling somebody else to go somewhere and do something. I was not; I was still serving, so at least I can be exempted from blame for that.
I do not share the views expressed by the Secretary of State about the high state of morale of our troops in Ulster. Our troops there are pretty fed up. The word "morale" is not used in the British Army, but they are a bit "browned off" in the circumstances in which they live.

791
They will not be very cheered to-night to learn that they have a hundred television sets. I am quite sure that some of them would tell the Secretary of State what he could do with the television sets. I want to read a letter I received from an old American friend, a very high-ranking general with whom I kept in touch since the time when he was serving. Let me say in advance that I do not suggest that what he says about America is necessarily applicable to Great Britain. However, I think that we have to look at American defence and see what is happening there, because sometimes it is looking into a mirror. He says:
"A complete re-examination of United States defence policy is absolutely essential, for suddenly we find ourselves with forces specifically trained and equiped basically to fight in Vietnam, with discipline, in the Army at least, gone to hell, with the personnel of all three Services now essentially mercenaries in viewpoint, and with pay and perquisites on a scale that prohibits the simultaneous procurement of the kinds of expensive weaponry required in this age."
I do not say that that has any relationship to what has happened in the British Army, and that discipline has "gone to hell" or that morale in any of the three Services is at the level described by my American friend, but the point is that our Army at the present time, in its training and in its outlook, is conditioned by its continuous service in Northern Ireland. What happens when that liability is liquidated? What do we have an Army for? What is it supposed to do? Take away Northern Ireland and examine the position of the Rhine Army as it is and not according to the airy-fairy stories put out by the Ministry of Defence. We are spending £3,300 million a year for the Trooping the Colour. It is a wonderful display. I have not got the heart to go and look at it because it is a very large sum of money to pay for a morning out.
If we have reached the position where all we can afford is what the public are prepared to spend, taking into account what the Defence necessities of this country are, the Navy should follow H.M.S. "Belfast" and become a series of exhibits, because it has no role to play, except fishery protection and as a means of conveying and protecting the Army when
792
the Army is called upon—if ever it is called upon—to fulfil an overseas role. What is the role of the Air Force? The role of the Air Force is again, to convey and protect the Army. For that purpose it will need large-scale transport, it will probably need the Harrier, and it will need a close support weapon. What it certainly will not need is this expensive M.R.C.A., which is costing a lot of money. I shall not weary your Lordships by going into the various roles and the purposes for which it is designed. But it is of no weight—only 20,000 lb.— and it is essentially a close support weapon. But it has a purpose, because it is teaching the lesson of liaison between ourselves and the Germans and, to a lesser extent, the Italians. But it is a very expensive lesson.
The role of the Army now really centres upon becoming a corps of military police. What it needs are forces to carry out the kind of role that the Army is carrying out in Northern Ireland—highly trained, well-disciplined forces, with a high degree of mobility and armed with effective weapons. Here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, because we may have reached a position in the world where the use of atomic weapons by anyone has become so utterly unthinkable that it is not really a starter, and if you try to spend money for the purpose of safeguarding against it you may bankrupt yourself trying to ward off a risk which does not exist. Whereas what does exist is an island of 50 million people, living by its trade in the imports of essential raw materials and the exports of finished products, which does not have the economic strength to provide a Navy to safeguard the sea routes. For example, a lot of nonsense is talked about Simonstown, but when I went down there a few months ago it was labelled Rhodesia-by-the-Sea and its military value is just about "nixes". What is wanted is a highly trained mobile force, that can carry out a gendarmerie role in support of its obligations under SEATO and CENTO, in association with our allies and our Commonwealth partners who see Defence problems in the realistic terms that we do, and for the very same reason that we have to—because they cannot afford any other policy. So far as I am concerned, the hunt was up when we gave up in 1956 any idea of conscription.

793
I had hoped that this afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn—and I caught the tail end of his speech when he spoke the other night on European security—would talk about the expense of providing conventional forces. The White Paper gives away the fact that half of the budget goes in pay and allowances. But if you want a cheap Army, if you want cheap Defence forces, and if you want conventional forces on the ground armed with weapons they ought to have, you cannot do it if you have enormous rates of pay and the welfare policy which we have at the present time. This is not contained in the White Paper, but the total number of wives and children born on the strength of the three Services is 534,240. They do not all have to be paid for, because some of them are over the age of 18, but the vast majority of over half a million dependants have to be conveyed and educated, and their parents given financial allowances, all of which is borne by this Defence budget. So that practically 50 per
cent. of the Defence budget goes on pay and allowances.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—this does not appear in any headlines—has to admit that recruiting is falling off, we are not getting the officers we want and we are short of a few categories. Probably, if you press him, you will be told that they are categories which we can do without; for example, ammunition examiners, pharmaceutists or cooks—the humble jobs. But noble Lords should know, when they drive their Rolls-Royces down the M.1 on a night when it is freezing and raining, that if the windscreen wiper does not work the car will not go. It is the same in the Army. An Army is a balanced force. The sparking plugs and the brakes are as important as the engine, and if you do not have a balanced force then an Army cannot fight when the chips are down. Therefore we have this country, of its own volition—this is perhaps part of the price of democracy—and through inflation, choosing to bribe, which is the right word, by increasing rates of pay and providing softer conditions, in order to try to build up the Armed Forces. But it cannot be done, and at the end of the day, when some future Gibbon writes the Decline and Fall of the British Empire, he might even start off with Correlli Barnett's Collapse of British Power, which was recently pub-
794
lished. He might find the explanation of our fall in the following words:
"The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars but in ourselves."
5.7 p.m.
LORD CACCIA: My Lords, may I begin by welcoming this Paper and, in particular, the policy of not running down our Forces merely in the hope of a successful détente. As the Minister himself said, and as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, emphasised, of course we should do everything in the various conferences taking place this year to achieve as wide an area of détente as may be possible. But to run down Forces merely in the hope of such success would be not only dangerous in itself, it would be a very bad basis for negotiation with anyone—most of all with the heirs of a materialist philosophy, where there is no sign of their forgetting Stalin's lapidary words, "The proper basis of international policy is the calculation of forces." The fact that, despite ever-increasing levels of Russian forces, the Russian Press and radio have had the gall to complain of the White Paper and of the Minister, is an indication that they have got the message that Her Majesty's Government, at least, are not going to be fooled.
My excuse for speaking in this debate is that I am an ex-Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee of the Chiefs of Staff, dating back to the concluding period of the last war. So "ex" am I, that I belong to a period even before the time when the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, was a distinguished Secretary of State for War. But there are certain practices which time does not dim, and one of these is that "I" should come before "O"—or an Intelligent appreciation before an Operational plan. It is here that the limitations of an annual White Paper, even so cogent a one as this, becomes evident; for it inevitably concentrates—as this rightly does—on the "Challenge of 1973". All the same plans and weapons systems to go with them inescapably affect the rest of the decade. What then, we should ask, is already visible among the outstanding features of the remaining seven years of this decade on a world-wide basis? Here I would restrict myself to two dominant features for the rest of this decade: first, Russian naval strength and, secondly, the energy gap and oil.

795
On the first, the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, has already spoken, but perhaps I may remind the House of an article which appeared on January 17 in The Times entitled, "Russia takes her threat to sea". There, evidence was set out to show that Russia, not content with being one of the world's greatest military Powers, was rapidly becoming the world's greatest maritime Power. She already has, it was pointed out, a larger nuclear submarine force than the NATO Allies together; her surface navy is more modern and is equipped with surface-to-surface missiles which can outrange any NATO weapon other than aircraft. In the same vein, the American Chief of Naval Operations is on record as stating that, no matter who does the analysis, he would conclude that on present trends
"it is inevitable that the day will come when the result will go against the United States Navy."
What, then, is this Russian build-up for? Not, we may be sure, for show only; nor to take over the role of the Royal Navy in earlier times of protecting the free flow of trade across the Atlantic and on the seven seas; nor to prevent such satellites as Czechoslovakia and Hungary from making any further attempt to achieve Socialism with a human face; nor for China alone. So why should not the simple explanation be the right one: that it is to complement what Stalin himself called, "The proper basis of international policy, the calculation of forces"?
How, exactly? I do not suppose that the Russians themselves have—and I certainly hope they do not have—a precise military plan of action such as Herr Hitler was good enough to provide in Mein Kampf. But, I repeat, this increased Russian naval capacity is not there for show business; and in winding-up the debate I should hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, would be able to tell us that this threat is as clearly seen by our partners as by himself. On this, of course, I welcome the passage on European defence co-operation in the White Paper and, like the Minister, hope that this will at long last go from discussion to action in weapons procurement and otherwise. But this naval threat far outstrips European co-operation, and plans to meet it
796
are almost meaningless without bringing in the United States; so when I say "our partners" in this context I mean co-operation on the widest basis with the United States.
This brings me to the second of the already clearly visible features of the decade—the energy gap and oil. Elements in this gap were debated yesterday; but I shall here concentrate on oil, for however flexible we should be in developing other sources of energy this will take time, and in 1973 what this means is a programme for the 1980s rather than for the 1970s. Hence the importance of oil in this
decade. The outlook is ominous. In a seminar last summer by the Centre for Mediterranean Studies attended by various international experts, oil and other, the figure for actual oil consumption in 1970 outside the Soviet bloc was given as 40 million barrels a day, of which 15 million went to the United States and 12 million to Europe. The estimate for 1980 was between 80 and 100 million barrels a day, of which the need for the United States was put at between 24 and 26 million, and for Europe between 24 and 30 million barrels a day. Such statistics are of course notoriously open to error, but as often as not, in the past, this has been due to under rather than to over estimating. What is more, these statistics of between 80 and 100 million barrels a day already allow for a wide margin of error; but to take the lower estimate, the total for the non-Soviet bloc doubles from 40 to 80 million barrels a day from 1970 to 1980.
To turn to the sources of oil, of the actual amount produced of 40 million barrels a day in 1970 the United States produced 12 million and the Arab world 12 million, the balance coming from Iran and other non-Communist sources. Of the minimum 80 million barrels a day estimated for 1980, it is not calculated that the U.S. can produce more than the 12 million barrels a day they did in 1970; nor the remaining non-Arab States, including the North Sea, more than, at most, 33 million barrels between them. The shortfall on the minimum estimate of 80 million barrels a day required is thus 35 million barrels a day in this decade. This can come only from the Arab world, and it is about three times their 1970 production. Worse still, if the minimum figure turns out to be too low

797
the Arab world remains the only residual supplier in this time-scale.
In effect, the industrial future of Europe and the United States (including, of course, ourselves) is to an uncomfortable degree in the hands of the Arab world. I have heard some noble Lords and others argue that "As they can't drink it, they must produce it and sell it". That argument was used in favour of the decision to withdraw from the Persian Gulf in 1968. That never struck me at the time as anything but risky, and the risks inherent in it are now becoming more glaringly obvious. Why should the Arab States agree to increase their production by at least three times during this decade? Apart from a size-able country like Iraq, with around 10 million inhabitants and a capacity for industrial and agricultural development, there is no "must" about it. The remaining Arab countries have just as strong reasons—and more—for conservation of resources as are put forward by some for the North Sea. They can indeed continue with the present level of production to get all the annual cash flow they need, and more when consideration is given to the strong position they are in to demand ever-increasing prices. Just in case anyone is still prepared to cap "They can't drink it" with the assertion that we would have had to get out by 1971 anyhow, let me seek to nail that one, too. We were actually asked to stay; and if money were the difficulty, certain rulers offered to pay. "No, we are not mercenaries", it was then argued—and even, I believe, by the then Secretary of State for Defence himself. Can this really be claimed when he and his predecessors had so rightly done their best to get the Germans to pay for British Forces in Germany? "Never mind", the argument went, "we should have had to get out in the long run".
Maybe, but we are not considering the long run; we should be considering the vital requirements for us, for Europe and for the United States in the 'seventies. With this now in view, the decision to announce in 1968 that we should be out by 1971 may turn out to be one of the most expensive ever taken by any British Government; and I can only hope not. What is more, it was taken without any apparent attempt, such as in the case of our withdrawal from Greece and Turkey
798
in 1947, to ensure that some other arrangement was made with our European and American partners to protect our common future. Once a Government have made an announcement such as we did in 1968. I accept, as the Government have accepted, that there is no going back on it. I also recognise that the Government have done what they can on our own account to pick up the bits left by the 1968 announcement. But since the hazard to western oil requirements is of concern not only to this country but to Europe as a whole, and to the United States, may I ask whether in winding-up the Minister will be able to say if, over and above our single efforts, there is consultation between us and Europe and between Europe and the United States to see what, if anything, can still be done by concerting our policies to ensure supply and means of delivery from the Arab lands? In case either the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, or the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, should misunderstand me, this is not a proposal for sharing our North Sea oil resources; it is to obtain Middle East supplies which in the 1970s we shall need whatever happens in the North Sea. Seeing that Japan's industry has given even greater hostages to fortune in Arab oil, may I ask whether they too are being brought in?
For what is Defence about in this modern industrial age if it does not among its primary targets seek to provide some protection for essential energy requirements; and that not for the 1980s or 1990s or to whatever timescale Lord Rothschild and Mr. Herman Kahn are now properly applying their "think-tanks", but for the 1970s in which we are well embarked and in which elements are already visible and to hand. Therefore while I warmly welcome this Defence Paper, on the questions of the vast and continuing increase in Russian naval strength and the pressing urgency of our requirements for oil from Arab lands, I hope for some further enlightenment from the Minister. Like him, and others no doubt, I trust that as a result of the co-ordination of our policies, defence and others, on an Atlantic basis we may find our way through these visible threats to our way of life. For other threats that are less plainly observable, I hope that the right reverend Prelates who are not here at present will forgive my straying in

799
their preserves and finding encouragement from the Collect for this week which is extraordinarily apposite and might have been specially chosen for any debate on Defence:
"O Lord God, who seest that we put not our trust in any thing that we do; Mercifully grant that by Thy power we may be defended against all adversity …".
5.22 p.m.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I must start with an apology. The Cholmondeley Room is so popular a room in which to entertain people to dinner that when my constituency asked a year ago if I would be host for a dinner in the Cholmondelcy Room, the only date that I could get was March 1, 1973. I am sorry to say, therefore, that I may not be able to be here at the final stages of this debate. There is a horrible and, I think, slightly uncivilised rule that if the host does not arrive in time no one can get a drink. You can understand that in these circumstances I must be there punctually or 150 people will stand first on one leg and then on the other but with no glass in their hand for the first half-hour. I hope that your Lordships will excuse me on that score.
My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend on this While Paper. For the first time for many years we have had a turn up in real terms in the expenditure on Defence. I welcome this fact warmly, but I recognise that if you look in real terms at the Defence budgets of the last decade you see a steady but inexorable reduction at a time when the Warsaw Pact, and Russia who backs them, increases, in real terms again, their expenditure on arms by 5 per cent. every single year. I was listening carefully to the line taken from Labour's Front Bench. In this House, they speak with great responsibility. We may learn more when this same Defence debate occurs in another place. I know that the Left Wing are pressing very strongly for a reduction of £600 million on the present Defence budget. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was much more careful. He said, "I wonder" if we ought not to reduce—"I wonder" whether we can afford to carry this responsibility. Always the argument from the Left Wing is that we are doing more than our share; ought we not to come down to the expenditure
800
in percentage terms of the French and the Germans? I wish that they would concentrate their minds not on what our friends are doing but on what our potential opponents are doing.
Russia must also be under pressure to spend money on consumer goods. I realise that if you do not have a vote then you are not at risk as a Government, but they obviously wish to be popular in the Kremlin and they have denied consumer goods, motor cars and all the things that civilisation can give for so many years that they must wish to release some of this buying power to that area. But they do not! They are spending not the 5·6 per cent. of the gross national product that we are spending but 8 per cent. and it is going up steadily every year. I have been studying the Labour Programme for Britain as discussed at Blackpool in 1972, and it says:
"The key to progress on European security lies in the mutual and balanced reduction of our forces."
It goes on:
"The objective must be substantial cuts in the Defence programme of both NATO and Warsaw Pacts."
I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, say, "No unilateral reduction!" I am delighted to hear that and I hope that it will be reiterated from the Front Bench in another place. I have been looking up the speeches of Mr. Denis Healey. He is now the Shadow Foreign Secretary and was the Minister of Defence for six years. In a television programme, "Money at Work", in December, 1972, he took the same line. He felt that we ought to come down to the reduced percentage that some of our Allies were spending. When we look at that, we should remember that because of the growth in their wealth on the Continent, they are in money terms spending (in the case of Germany) substantially more than us every year, and in that of France the same as us. So, despite the smaller proportion—
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in the case of Germany it does not affect their balance of payments.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, that is true; but they have a very strong balance of payments as a result of their successful industrial policy and as a result of the successful organisation of their

801
trade unions, a matter for which Mr. Ernest Bevin must accept some responsibility as he had a lot to do with it in the early years after the War.
My Lords, I turn now to the alarming thing which is emerging over successive years in Defence White Papers; namely, the percentage of our Defence expenditure which is going on men and on their support and the percentage which is going on hardware. I think the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, touched on this matter. It is a fact that in 1967–68, 31 per cent. of the Defence budget went on hardware. In the current Estimates the figure has fallen to 26·4 per cent.—nearly 5 per cent. down. The rest of this enormous budget is being spent broadly, if I leave R. and D. out of it, since that is mainly for equipment seven to 10 years ahead, on actual hardware for delivery to the Forces, £887 million. This is only 26 per cent. of the total budget.
This is a most alarming tendency and I will suggest to my noble friend what might be done. Of course in a short debate like this one cannot solve these problems. I know that my noble friend is anxious for any ideas. The U.S.A. is now going to switch, so we understand, from a conscript Army to a professional Army. It may be under the same pressures. Canada, which has a professional Army and not a conscript one, already spends 80 per cent. on manpower and only 20 per cent. on hardware. This seems to be a tendency which is going to spread throughout the democracies. What can we do about it? If we do not do anything about it, we shall finish with very well-trained, well-fed, well-housed, beautifully dressed soldiers, with lovely children, lovely hospitals, lovely schools and lovely wives, but they will be armed with pikes. We need to take action in order to avoid that ridiculous result. There is no easy solution. I would say to my noble friend that of course we need to find ways of economising in respect of this very expensive uniformed manpower. I was glad to learn from the White Paper and the speech that the R.A.F. are "combing their tail". I think it is high time, and if we look to see the number of men behind each aircraft it will be found to be greatly in excess of what is needed in Switzerland or Sweden. There they have almost the same size of frontline airforce but with a very small pro-
802
portion of our manpower figure. The same thing must go on throughout all the Services; we have got to "comb the tail".
Secondly, I wonder whether we are spending too much on training. It is always popular. We are now spending something like 10 per cent. of our total Defence budget on training. Men arriving in the Services now are infinitely better equipped intellectually and better educated than ever before. I wonder whether we should not train them more to the job, and then if necessary retrain them, rather than give them the whole spectrum of training over all the likely jobs they may do during their Service career. I wonder, equally, whether we could not bring in industrial firms to carry out maintenance. It has been proved cheaper in respect of aircraft, and particularly now that we are mainly a home-based or Western European-based Force I suggest that at least half the third line maintenance could be done more economically by industrial firms, with the consequent use of less uniformed manpower. All these tasks may ameliorate the situation, but I hope that the Minister will explore every conceivable new and novel idea, and perhaps set up a committee of civilians to give him some ideas, about how this problem might be tackled. If it is not tackled we shall not get the essential equipment for the future.
Before I leave the personnel side and recruiting, which has been going well but is now declining a little, I wish to make one suggestion. In the debate last year many speakers asked whether, when one year of extra compulsory education is to be introduced, those people who wished to do so could take that extra year in Service schools rather than in the State system—provided of course that the parents agreed. Some 600,000 girls and boys come forward each year, and of those 200.000 stay on longer anyhow, so that the change will bring only another 400,000 forward each year. Half of them will be girls, so that leaves a pool of 200,000 extra young men. Suppose only two in 100 were allowed to opt for this solution, we should not destroy the system or breach the principle of the extra year, and it would still give us 4,000 young people. I suggest that they would be 4,000 maturer people who want the adventure of Service life. I should like my noble friend to consider whether after

803
their year in our Service schools they might not undertake training in summer camps up to the age of 21. This is probably something which they would enjoy, and it would enable them to meet the challenge with understanding and success. Perhaps at the end they might be given a bonus or honorarium, if they honoured their training obligations. So my first idea is to economise in manpower.
Now I come to the much more difficult question, how are we to economise, and yet with the small section of the Defence budget left for hardware get better hardware more cheaply? I think that my noble friend is absolutely right to encourage international co-operation. I cannot see any other solution. I know that it takes longer when you are developing, say, the M.R.C.A. with two other countries. I know that it costs more, but if you do not get co-operation you will not get an aircraft developed at all, and you will not get the various countries to agree to take it. So one has, I think to work towards international co-operation. Something else to which I am always attracted is what I call "horse dealing"—saying to our allies in Europe, "We will buy your helicopters if you will buy our tanks." Unless we do this I cannot see how we are to get the new weapons, or see the research and development, in which we are investing a lot of money this year, producing the results we all desire.
My Lords, finally I turn to the theme which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Caccia; and what I am going to say is, I think, complementary to what he said in his admirable and well-informed speech. Everyone in this country should be worried at our tremendous dependence on overseas oil supplies. This dependence will continue throughout the 1970s—and that goes for Western Europe every bit as much as for the United Kingdom. My Lords, 57 per cent. of Western Europe's oil comes from the Middle East. In the early
1980s, ten years from now, 60 per cent. of all U.S.A. oil will be coming from the Middle East because their own resources are being worked out. What will happen? We therefore have 24,000 ships every year carrying oil, other raw materials, and food round the Cape. Of these 12,000
804
stop and revictual and refit and do maintenance in South African ports, but only a tiny percentage, about 1·2 per cent., are South African ships.
Other people have asked, "Why are the Russians expanding their nuclear submarine programme at its present rate?" There are 104 nuclear submarines in operation already in the Russian fleet, that is hunter-killer, and missile firing submarines. They are currently building at the rate of over twelve a year and launching a new nuclear submarine every month. It is all very well to come forward with the olive branch of peace, and to talk about détente, yet drive ahead with producting a weapon which cannot possibly be used or contemplated, with the numbers now being built, for their own defence purposes.
So I come to the question: Why cannot we, as members of NATO, play a bigger part in the defence of these vital shipping lanes? The North Atlantic Assembly has woken up to this fact, and the Military Committee has submitted a recommendation to the Council which says:
"The Assembly, considering in particular the naval threat to NATO'S vital sea lines of communication now come largely from outside the limit of the North Atlantic Treaty area, recommends … to give SACLANT authority to plan for the protection NATO—Europe's vital shipping lines in the Indian Ocean and the South Atlantic including surveillance and communications."
In view of the threat to our "jugular vein" in that area which is so desperately exposed, that seems to me admirably sensible.
In South Africa we have the Simonstown Agreement. There they have expanded Simonstown and its capabilities. They have built an up-to-date maritime headquarters which, I am sorry to say, is largely equipped with Telefunken equipment and not British, although we are in the forefront in this respect. They are anxious to buy Nimrods. Not by any stretch of the imagination could this very sophisticated maritime aircraft with most sophisticated electronic equipment in it (I went on a Parliamentary visit with other noble Lords to look at the working of this admirable aircraft) be thought to be used against anti-guerilla forces in the north part of South Africa. So what is against our saying to the South Africans, "We

805
can offer you some of these, or loan you some, provided you can undertake that it is not going to be used for internal security purposes." We could supply some Nimrods. If we do not do that, the French will. Already they have supplied vast numbers of Alouette and other helicopters. They have supplied armoured cars and all sorts of equipment. They have demonstrated there the Atlantique, a competitive aircraft not nearly so good or so sophisticated. I should like to ask my noble friend: could we not, in the interests of NATO and of our own security, give a demonstration of the Nimrod in South Africa, and consider ways, which should be acceptable to both sides of the House, in which this aircraft could be used to secure the safety of our vital oil supply lines? I should like to add one other thing about South Africa. Although maritime headquarters is there, equipped, to be shortly opened and made operational, there are not satisfactory communications between ship and shore. I would ask my noble friend, in the interests of our supply lines, that this deficiency should be cured.
My Lords, perhaps I may summarise what I have tried to say in, I think, the 23rd Defence debate in which I have spoken in 23 years. First, I congratulated my noble friend that he had for the first time secured the spending of more money. I would say, too, in this context that I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when he says that it will be more and more difficult to persuade the up-and-coming generation, not just in the country, but in the House, and perhaps even in the Cabinet, that we have to spend an increasing sum on Defence. Therefore I congratulate my noble friend on having achieved this end. I hope, by the way, since we are agreed on this, that this is one area where we need not divide the House, but both sides can agree that we must have a reasonable proportion of our G.N.P. spent on Defence.
My second point was that I was alarmed at the rising cost of manpower and the falling money available for hardware. This is a most alarming tendency, and I hope that my noble friend will try to do something about it. Thirdly, I urged the exploration of novel methods to stop this tendency continuing as it has for the last ten years. Lastly, I
806
urged the Government, in conformation with the NATO view, to do what they can to strengthen the defence of the supply lines so vital to this country and to the freedom of Western Europe, and particularly the supply lines round the Cape.
5.42 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, if we believe that Defence is necessary in order to ensure our survival, then it should be adequate and efficient. If it is to be adequate and efficient, we have to find the money to pay for it. That is inescapable, whether we like it or not. The White Paper indicates that we are going to spend rather more than £3,000 million in the next twelve months. Of course we may not spend the whole of it; it often happens that some of the funds that have been allocated are unspent. But that is by the way. This is a substantial sum of money. What depresses me about this debate—I say this with respect to noble Lords—is that when we are about to spend a vast sum of money, which the nation in existing circumstances does not appear to be able to afford, I would expect much more interest to be exhibited by noble Lords. It may well be that noble Lords having heard the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, make his speech (and, by the way, if he will allow me to say so, it was an excellent speech, delivered with his usual lucidity) came to the conclusion that no other noble Lord mattered in the least I can understand that. After all, this is not a matter that concerns exclusively your Lordships' House; it is a matter for the whole nation. But Members of your Lordships' House should take advantage of a debate of this kind to indulge in penetration in order to ensure that, if a vast sum of money is to be spent, it is going to be spent with value to the nation, and to ensure, as I have said, that our Defence is adequate and efficient.
My Lords, this White Paper is by no means exceptional or original. It is similar to almost every White Paper in the last fifteen years, ever since Mr. Duncan Sandys decided on a reorientation of our Defence strategy by switching over from conventional forces to the nuclear strategy—and he made that clear in the Defence White Paper of about 1957. Ever since that happened, we have done two things—and this must have been

807
noticed by noble Lords who have attended previous debates and perused the contents of previous White Papers. We start off by saying that we want peace; we want to be on good terms with our neighbours; we want a détente; we are ready to go on talking even if talks do not seem to be of value—and already two noble Lords who have spoken in the debate have pleaded that we should go on talking. Then we become realistic, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has done in this White Paper, because having pleaded for a continuation of talks in order to promote security (if that is possible in existing circumstances, or in the foreseeable future) he then makes it clear that we have to exercise the utmost caution. When the phrase "the utmost caution" is used, I would regard that, in the existing international situation, and with the vast range of manpower and equipment at the disposal of the Soviet Union, as perhaps the most remarkable understatement of the year.
What is the situation? In May of last year there was an agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States of America on the strategic arms limitation. What did they decide? They came to what might be regarded as a gentleman's agreement: "We will not attack your capital with our missiles, and you on the other hand will agree—because we know how gentlemanly you are, and how conciliatory you want to be—that you will not attack our sites; and we also agree that we will run down some of our missiles". It ought to be noted that they forgot to mention the warheads. It is all very well talking about suspending the manufacture, or even the use, of missiles, but it is not the missiles that cause the danger; it is the warheads. There is no mention of warheads in the agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union. The situation is not so bad as regards warheads, because the United States have far more warheads than the Soviet Union—I say that because I do not know how many the Soviet Union have. Incidentally, in this matter of the SALT Agreement, there is no question of verification, by which it might be assumed that the Soviet Union, in their customary fashion, will come to an agreement about the reduction of arms and then proceed to build them up to the highest peak in order to make them
808
available in the event of an emergency. That is the situation. Now there is talk about the mutual balanced force reduction, which is going to promote security. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, believes a word of it; I do not believe anybody does.
In any event, let us assume that we meet the Soviet Union along with some of our allies in Europe and we begin to talk, and we talk, as the noble Lord has indicated in the White Paper, from strength. What nonsense! Talks from strength! How can we compare our strength with the strength at the disposal of the Soviet Union? The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, mentioned it in the course of his speech. He told us that the Warsaw Pact, which includes the Soviet Union, has twice the number of divisions that we have, and far more tanks and far more of everything in the way of equipment and hardware than we have got. What do we mean "from strength"? There is no question of strength. We have not got it and I deplore it.
Here I want to digress to say that there are many people on my side of the House, in the Party to which I belong, and many people outside, who are anxious to promote peace and who are not concerned about defence. Some are not concerned about it because they do not like to spend the money. Others would prefer to spend the money on something else. In the existing situation, I say to my friends who have pacifist views, who revolt at the idea of spending vast sums of money on defence, that if we do not spend what is necessary on defence, even if we are not up to strength but merely as a gesture to a potential enemy, in association with our allies, we are taking a risk that nobody in this country dare do. That is my opinion. We have to be realistic.
I should prefer, naturally, that the Soviet Union would display a more conciliatory attitude; I should prefer that it should be unnecessary to spend a penny on defence; I should prefer that the world at large came to the conclusion that war was a disaster, a calamity, a catastrophe that should be prevented—and what I am saying would, I believe, be accepted by every noble Lord in the House and everybody outside. But let us not indulge in self-deception in a matter of this sort.

809
We did so before the last war. I remember well those debates in Parliament in which Winston Churchill, the honourable exception, took part and said the right things and issued the right warnings. But he gained little support even from his own side—in fact, less from his own side than from my side of the House. I can recall how Neville Chamberlain—and I say this with no disrespect to that gentleman who has passed away—when he thought it was possible to come to a conclusion over the Czechoslovakia affair, even went to the length of believing that Hitler was an honourable man. It is all on record. And as a result we failed to build up our defences. I say to noble Lords that whether it was in the course of two world wars or whether it be in a future war—though I hope that never happens—unless we have allies on our side, as we had in the last two wars, it is the end of us.
That brings me to what I think is the most fundamental point in this matter of defence. We can talk about hardware. I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, talk in this strain in the other place, and often to advantage. My noble friend Lord Wigg, whose speech appeared to be somewhat abrasive, was challenging, and rightly challenging. It is very important to challenge, not out of malice, or because one is ill favoured, or because one does not agree politically with the views of the other side, but in the interests of the nation. There ought to be challenging and more penetration in matters of this kind in order to get to the facts. These things, in my opinion, are not irrelevant—the matter of hardware or whether you have helicopters here or helicopters there, or the matter which one noble Lord, speaking from the Cross-Benches, brought forward of the need for protecting the oil rigs and ensuring that we get an adequate supply of oil in the future. These are all very important. But the fundamental issue is whether, in the event of emergency, we have an ally on our side.
Who is to be the ally? If we are to have allies we want allies who are strong. What are the possibilities? There is the European ally. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has indicated in the White Paper that as a result of submissions made by the United States of America, not for the first time, on the strengthening
810
of defence in Europe and the West, or possibly on his own volition, Government decided to spend some £500 million as an increased contribution to defence. It sounds all right, but what is the total contribution which is being made by the rest of our allies in NATO? We are to spend over £500 million; all of them together are going to spend £625 million. I do not think it is good enough. I know that Belgium, perhaps, has not the financial capability and the Netherlands may be in a similar plight; and possibly West Germany feels now, because of Ostpolitik, and a manœuvre which may be valuable, though mere speculation, she is not prepared to weigh in as she ought to. As for France, she is out of NATO. We have to recognise the facts. Their total contribution—Greece, Turkey, Portugal, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, old Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all, is £625 million, and we are contributing £500 million. I know the argument against me. It has been used by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in a previous debate. He would say in reply to me, "If our allies are unable to pay or are unwilling to pay there is no reason why we should not contribute something in our defence." I do not think it is a valid argument. They ought to make their contribution to a much greater extent than they have hitherto been disposed to do.
The question of manpower cannot be dismissed, and I will come to it in a moment. In this respect, Denmark decided to reduce the period of national service from 12 months to 9 months and there is a demand that it should be reduced to 6 months. The period of national service in those countries is very low indeed. Therefore, from the point of view of manpower they are not puling their weight. Manpower is a subject which was partly dealt with by my noble friend Lord Wigg. He has been an expert on this subject. He has advocated compulsory service in circumstances where it appeared to be essential. I do not suggest that we should introduce compulsory service; it would be anathema to many people in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, said that the United States is turning to a voluntary army and abandoning compulsory service. I would not be quite so sure I about that. It may be just a temporary

811
decision arising out of what has happened in Vietnam. We shall see. So far as we are concerned there is a possible alternative to the present situation.
Now a word about recruitment, because it bears on this
matter. I notice, by the way, that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in the course of his speech never said a word about recruitment for the Army. Why not? It is not an easy subject to deal with, and he has not a very good answer if he has to reply to the question: why is there a decline in recruitment in the Army? That fact is in the White Paper, but the noble Lord did not mention it in his speech.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord does me an injustice. I went out of my way to say that I would deal with that point in my winding-up speech.
LORD SHINWELL: I see. My Lords, there will be some other questions put to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, so he will be fully occupied when he comes to wind up. What ought to be done about this situation? I want to repeat what I have said in previous Defence debates that I have taken part in since I came to your Lordships' House. On every occasion I have pleaded for more reserve forces. What have we got? We have about 55,000 in the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve. In this Paper we do not distinguish between the Territorials and the A.V.R. Can we have some information about how many are associated with the Territorials, and how many are associated with the A.V.R.? I ask that question because I understand that the A.V.R. units can be sent overseas without proclamation. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will tell me whether I am correct. It is most important because in an emergency it is very desirable if we are short of regular manpower to be able to switch men who have been, not highly trained but partially trained, to supplement the manpower in the Regular Forces.
Regarding NATO, why not something in the White Paper about Nam? I remember putting down a Question to the noble Lord some time ago. I asked about NATO and I was told that it had nothing to do with us. We could ask questions about the British Army, the British Air Force, the British Navy or British De-
812
fence in general, but one must not ask questions about NATO, because we have no control over NATO. But we are affiliated to NATO; we are closely associated with NATO, we are integrated with NATO. We should have more information about the strength of NATO. Could we have a little information in the winding-up speech about how many men are at the disposal of the Federal Government of West Germany? That would be very useful information in contrast to the knowledge that some of us have of the manpower at the disposal of East Germany. That is a very formidable number indeed. Could we have a little information about the manpower at the disposal of some of the other countries associated with NATO? Could we have more information about their equipment, and their training? Regarding headquarters staff, I noticed the other day that General Walker said that some headquarters were overstaffed—and in fact I am not quite sure whether he said understuffed or overstuffed—and in fact I am not quite age for a General to use. I do not go so far as that. He may be telling the truth, I do not know. I used to know something about it, but not now. We ought to get the information from the noble Lord. I put it to him: should we not have more information about NATO'S contribution in manpower, hardware, and all the rest, and what it is doing in the way of strategy in order to satisfy ourselves that our association with it is worth while? That is a fair question.
Having said that, I have a few more questions, and then I will sit down. For the purpose of accuracy I have written down the questions. I think this is the first time since I came into your Lordships' House that I have written anything down. I have done so because I want to save time. Some of the questions may overlap some other questions that have already been asked. What about research and development? In the White Paper there is an item of £485 million for research and development. May I ask the noble Lord whether that includes research and development on nuclear weapons and materials? My understanding is that from 1965 to 1971 we spent over £900 million on research and development in the nuclear field. I could give the noble Lord the figures: I have them somewhere. We spent about £160 million on fissionable material, and about

813
£390 million on Polaris submarines, to which my noble friend, Lord Wigg, referred—
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether I might save the noble Lord time and say, "Yes, it does".
LORD SHINWELL: The £485 million refers also to research and development associated with the nuclear field. I am satisfied about that. I wanted to make sure that we were spending the money at the right place and on the right things.
The next question is important in relation to manpower. Could we have some idea of the number of teeth as compared with tails in the Army? It is all very well to say that we have 150,000 Regular men in the Army, only to discover that probably about half of them are the tail. We want less tail and more teeth. Perhaps the noble Lord would furnish not only myself but other noble Lords with that very useful information.
I want to put this final question: what does the statement on page 2, at the end of paragraph 5 mean? I quote:
"Only negotiation from strength is likely to produce equitable agreements. There must, therefore, be no unilateral reduction in defence capabilities in the West."
Does that mean that we are not going to yield? To that question I should like an answer that will satisfy me. The kind of answer that would satisfy me would be an assurance that we have no intention of yielding to Soviet blandishments. I hope that what I have said is not offensive to anybody, in particular to some of my noble friends who dislike the idea of defence or arms, or the use of anything of that sort. I want to be realistic in this matter. I should like to dispose of the whole thing, but it is impossible in existing circumstances, and it is impossible if we look ahead in the foreseeable and remote future. I want to ensure that we have the capabilities in our possession now and in the future, and with our allies—particularly the United States of America—in order to ensure our survival.
6.9 p.m.
LORD BOURNE: My Lords, the great thing about this White Paper is that it continues the policy under which the Services maintain their stability and their professionalism. I live near the big Army headquarters on Salisbury Plain
814
and I have never heard of an officer, or a man, who is not really proud of his job and who is not entirely satisfied with his pay and conditions of service, and that is very good indeed. Finance has been mentioned by previous speakers. My only remark is this: if we could reduce the 5·5 per cent. or 5·6 per cent. of G.N.P. (or this awful figure of £3,300 million) to the average for NATO, it would save £600 million. But I fail to understand how you can produce a White Paper of this kind. I simply do not believe it is possible. I think exactly the opposite, that the NATO countries ought to average 5·5 per cent. of their G.N.P.
Having said that, the White Paper to my mind gives a lot of useful information and is very good. I should like to deal with two points of policy and make one mechanical suggestion. The first point is about the strategic deterrent mentioned by my noble friend Lord Wigg, and the second is about the difficulties in the Far East if conditions there should worsen. With regard to the strategic deterrent, we have heard a great deal in recent years of the theory that our policy is a flexible response, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and various others. We are inclined to forget that the foundation of this policy is in fact the deterrent nuclear strategy behind it, especially the strategic forces of the U.S.A. The British contribution is only four Polaris submarines and is very small indeed.
Referring back to the United States, what seems to have been forgotten is that they really have two strategic nuclear forces, one to deter nuclear attack on the United States itself, and the other to prevent the same sort of attack on Western Europe. These are the I.C.B.M.s and the old-fashioned long-range bombers—which fly continually, by the way, and if you had ever been to Nebraska you would find out about that—but the force which interests us chiefly in NATO is the very strong strategic nuclear forces in the U.S. Army, Europe, the U.S. Air Force, Europe, and the Sixth Fleet because they each have deterrent nuclear capabilities. So I read paragraph 4, about the non-slackening of the Soviets on this subject with some interest. They are building 90 new silos—it says here that they are under construction for their inter-continental ballistic

815
missiles. This country, by the way, has been under the threat of 700 or 800 medium-range ballistic missiles for many years past, so I am entirely against the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. Come what may, we ought to have a strategic nuclear deterrent of our own, however small. It was once the Royal Air Force bombers, and now it is four Polaris submarines, and they are able to inflict unacceptable damage on the Soviet Union. It is a good thing we have that up our sleeve—and, incidentally, it costs only £39 million.
My Lords, to my mind, therefore, of the three conferences mentioned on page 1 of this White Paper, SALT, C.S.C.E. and M.B.F.R., all of which bristle with their own difficulties, the first is the fundamental and important one. That must go right or the others have not got a hope. Now that the Soviet Union and the United States realise they can destroy each other and therefore have a responsible attitude with that knowledge, I am very happy with the nuclear trigger at present being in the hands of the President of the United States. The French Minister of Defence, M. Debré, said in April, 1971, in the Foreign Affairs Magazine that
"the decision to employ nuclear weapons can only be made by a single nation."
I think he was absolutely right and that therefore any move which puts the decision into the hands of two nations—for example, this suggested nuclear arrangement with France—would be fundamentally wrong from that point of view. I will not repeat what I said during the debate on European security because that would be rather tedious.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, mentioned the Gulf, and some feel strongly about that, the fact remains that the threat is, in my opinion. in Asia, and in this affair we ought to keep a sense of proportion and remember that the British Army is rather smaller than the United States Marine Corps. If we remembered that more often, it would be a help. I have said this before, but it bears repeating: that whereas in Europe not a shot has been fired for the past 28 years, in Asia we have had a series of wars for the past 28 years—the Malayan emergency, Korea, confrontation with Indonesia, invasion of East India by the
816
Chinese, the two Indo-Pakistan wars, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, not to mention the shelling of Taiwan and the skirmishes between Russia and the Chinese on a river whose name I cannot find out. Thus, although peace has been signed in Indo-China, the outlook is one of more troubles and more wars ahead in that part of the world.
My Lords, although the leaders in Singapore will tell you—as they have no doubt told the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—that there is no outside threat at this moment, the outlook is not at all good. I fail to see why the Hanoi Communists should give up their original objective, which was to get a foot in the door of the Saigon Government, and although they will use political pressure to that end as soon as the Americans have evacuated—and they are allies, by the way—if necessary they will use the ten Northern Communist divisions which they have always pretended are not there. When I raised this subject in Bangkok two years ago and also a few months ago, the officials there always changed the subject when I said that the war in Indo-China could go wrong. Incidentally, my Lords, it is only 300 miles away, which is the distance from here to Edinburgh. But they always changed the subject; I got nothing out of them at all.
The situation is much better than it was because of the Five-Power defence arrangements which the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Defence had a lot to do with. I will not repeat what is in that force, but the fact remains that it is an agreement not to fight, but only to consult. Therefore, although we have very strong moral obligations to go to that part of the world if they are really in trouble, we obviously could not do so at this moment. To-day is not the occasion to discuss the dangers of the situation in Asia, but there it is.
That brings me back to Northern Ireland. This seems a sudden reversal, but it is basically because the British Army has not got enough battalions. I think it has only 48. Two years ago, in the Defence debate, I referred to the great difficulty in finding the 14,000 men in Northern Ireland; now it is 17,000. We have to use seven major units from B.A.O.R. of which five are infantry. Their time out of action, away from B.A.O.R., is six months by the time you

817
have added time for leave and retraining. This situation means that one-third of our corps of infantry are occupied by Northern Ireland. This requirement colours every decision, however small. I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigg—I am sorry he is not here at the moment—about the morale of our troops. I have visited them twice in Northern Ireland in the last couple of years and their morale is extremely good and very professional. I could tell anecdote after anecdote to prove that, but I do not think it is necessary on an occasion such as this. The question is, to my mind (and it is an impossible one to answer): how can we reinforce the Far East troops to the strength of a brigade group? This is the least we could do, with this trouble in Northern Ireland going on—and, incidentally, we are extremely lucky not to have a confrontation with Indonesia, if the situation is as bad as I have heard portrayed.
That brings me to the final mechanical suggestion, which is connected to what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said about the teeth preferably being stronger than the tail. In B.A.O.R. the R.A.F. have given us a lesson on this, because they are manning three extra squadrons of Jaguars, two extra squadrons of Buccaneers and eight Nimrods, which is quite an appreciable force, by streamlining their personnel. I know it is more difficult in the Army; but the fact remains that it can be done. We have done it in England. We have knocked out Western Command, Northern Command and others, and we have got our headquarters in one place. So it can be done. B.A.O.R. is a force of something over 50,000. There are five armoured brigades and one mechanised brigade, so that means six unavoidable H.Q.s. But for this Force, which contains only thirteen infantry battalions, there are 11 H.Q.s. I think that is too many. Admittedly, it is very difficult, but I well remember commanding an H.Q. of a similar size and strongly recommending that it be reduced. I left before this occurred, but I cannot help feeling that in B.A.O.R. we ought to do the same as we have done in England, and that in spite of the great distances involved in West Germany, which is a very big country, they ought
818
to be reduced. The prize is great. Supposing we saved 15,000 men, that would be equal to two infantry battalions. I know which I would rather have.
6.23 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, I am presuming to take part in this debate as one of the pacifists referred to by my noble friend Lord Shinwell, and I realise I am playing a fairly egregious role. I have no lively anticipation that I shall procure any large number of conversions; indeed, it would be a miracle if that happened. But who am I to complain about miracles? What I believe to be necessary is that the pacifist colour should be included in the spectrum of reaction to this particular set of proposals in the Defence Estimates. For that reason I am taking part in this debate, because I speak from the pacifist position, which is in brief that the whole arbitrament of violence is unjustifiable and immoral and therefore ultimately impracticable in fact. I was, naturally enough, alerted when the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, referred to the collect for the day. I must agree with him, of course, that this Chamber will not place any confidence in what it is doing to-day, for indeed the ultimate question that seems to arise is not so much whether certain proposals should be accepted or disregarded, but whether the basic principles upon which those propositions are raised are justifiable. I have to say out of an experience that I hope is sincere that certainly I would seek in some measure to argue that I do not believe that to be true.
I should like to begin on a rather emollient note and say that it is within the recollection, I am sure, of your Lordships how things have changed—and many of them to advantage. It is not so long ago that Clausewitz said that war was a continuation of policy. There will be very few of your Lordships who would believe that still to be so, though many of us, of course, would have to admit that war can often be a consequence of policy. To my comfort, there has to-day been an entire lack of anything that could possibly be called the glorification of war. For that I am profoundly thankful too. But I recall that on Monday we were invited during prayers to pay attention to a particular psalm which asked the rhetorical question: "Who is

819
this King of glory?"—to which the psalm provided the answer—
"The Lord of hosts …"
That is of armies—
"… strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle …
he is the King of glory."
I do not know whether this was a Freudian slip or a Homeric nod on the part of the Bishop who selected this psalm, but certainly the noble Lord who introduced the debate was far more Christian in his outlook than was that particular psalmist.
There are other changes which are equally to be welcomed though they may not be so immediately recognised as the two to which I have just referred. I have the uncomfortable feeling as I listen to debates about Defence that we are moving in a Cloud Cuckoo-land and at the end of our coruscations and discussions are even more remote than we were at the beginning from any realistic appreciation of the life we are trying to live. For instance, I find it impossible to regard the superstructure of defence mechanisms as having any validity unless they are built upon a foundation which is itself sound. It is my conviction that the foundation is not sound, for a number of reasons which are becoming increasingly obvious to me. The first of them is that we now live in a situation where I believe almost every noble Lord who has taken part in this debate has referred to the imprecision, and the necessary imprecision, of our preparations for Defence in conditions where it is impossible for us to foresee a future or to view the situation very realistically—as my noble friend Lord Shinwell said, "When you cannot be as strong as the other man, make a gesture which will more or less compensate for your lack of strength." That does not seem to me very sensible.
I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who referred to the disparity between David and Goliath. I take it he was on the side of David, but my sympathies were entirely with Goliath. There was a man, loaded down with about half a ton of armour and only able to move about three miles per hour; and a nasty little boy standing well out of range was throwing stones at him, and having knocked him unconscious, then proceeded to chop his head off. I do
820
not find that an edifying story, but it is illustrative of the truth that we are talking in the dark about conditions which may change overnight. Many of the weapons to which we are addicted are obsolete, and many of the provisions we make for to-morrow may be completely hamstrung by events that we can neither foresee nor prevent. It is the increasing unpredictability of the whole apparatus of violence which is an increasing argument to take more seriously the pacifist case that violence in itself is no longer permissible and in fact does not produce results. That is the other side of the coin.
There is an inefficiency in this vast expenditure of money and risk of life which I do not believe to be permissible. I am bound to say that various arguments to which I have listened to-day do not persuade me that things are better in Ireland because troops are there. It is a very dangerous statement to add that I would prefer to see them withdrawn. It is, I should have thought, a very pugnacious and inaccurate thing to say that within the last 20 years the effectiveness of armed intervention has been proved. Nothing seems to me more obvious than the fact that the greatest, most sophisticated and powerful military machine the world has ever known has been bogged down in the morasses of South Vietnam and has had to crawl out defeated, or at least unvictorious. I believe these are evidences of a change of outlook to which people should give increased attention. Therefore, although before sitting down, I would make a final submission for total disarmament, I would recognise and respect the purpose and intention of the first pages of this particular document. I believe that a process of disarmament is in fact a more practical approach to the very problems which, quite honestly and sincerely, are being faced.
I cannot but believe that there is about as much violence in the world now as there was in the Dickensian era, but probably not much more. The difference is that to-day those who are violent can extend their violence beyond the end of their fist or the flight of an arrow, and by the pressing of a button the impact and influence of that violence can be lethal and widespread as never before. I should think that one of the most

821
practical things that could be done in a society which is beset with the opportunites and incentives to violence would be to evolve a way in which we could reduce the power of the actual instruments and apparatus of that violence. That is one of the things which I would advocate as being the corollary of an understanding of the situation now in a world which is besotted with violence and in which 60 million people are wasting their time getting ready to kill one another or at least getting ready to use the weapons by which they could kill one another.
I believe that there is a greater threat to life and liberty in the shortage of housing in London than there is in the proximity of a general invasion under certain conditions on the part of, let us say, a Soviet Power. I believe there is a greater need for housing in London than there is at this precise moment for more sophisticated weapons in Bonn. If it is argued that this is the cloud cuckoo-land that I suggested the Opposition are living in, I would make two observations. One is this: a man who has a gun in his pocket is conditioned by the very possession of that gun and is not likely to seek other methods of defence. May I give an illustration of this? During the First World War I was a bayonet fighting instructor (I saw the light later on) and I was educated in that somewhat sordid exercise by a veteran from the trenches. One day when he was instructing us in unarmed attack I asked him how many people he had ever seen use unarmed defence. His answer was that no man who had a shot in his gun would think of any other method of defending himself than the exercise of that gun. I believe that is true, and I believe that to-day if we cannot—and it is my aspiration that we might make a stronger effort to do so—improve the morals of people, we can at least take out of their pockets the very instruments which, in their lack of moral fervour, are an incentive to violence; and in the international sphere I cannot but believe that this would be a salutary process.
I now wish to speak of the number of friends of mine who, in past days, supported the programme of unilateral disarmament. Perhaps they are somewhat thin on the ground to-day, but certainly I can count on the spiritual presence of
822
some of the Bishops, who would support that proposition. I still hold to the belief that multilateralism is the fruit of disarmament and not its seed and that unilateralism is the seed of disarmament. Sooner or later the various projects and programmes and conventions and conferences in which I rejoice and which I hope to see fructify are energised only when somebody is prepared to take the initiative—to take the risks which belong to that initiative. I think it is high time for that to be done, particularly with the non-success of the anti-proliferation movement, with the proximity of the French nuclear tests and with what I firmly believe are strenuous efforts on the part of some countries, such as Israel, to provide their own nuclear weapons. I should think that to change the direction it is much more necessary for some country unilaterally to make an adventure in peace-making than for it to listen to the siren tones in which it is invited to become stronger, to find stronger allies, and, by that process, to produce the deterrence of fear.
I have made a plea for something which I cannot logically defend as I would logically defend a proposition in Euclid, if I could. I am making a plea for something which, for me, belongs to the faith I hold. Therefore I will presume to finish by saying this. We have, over the centuries, made tremendous, lethal, world-wide risks in the use of weapons and we are now on the threshold of a society which is in many respects more violent and in most respects more dangerous. To ask merely that we should make a like and comparable experiment and take a comparable risk in having no arms might appear to those who have been indoctrinated and conditioned by the exercise of violence to be a ridiculous, and in fact a dangerous and stupid suggestion. But suppose we were suddenly confronted with the conditions to which we have been acclimatised. Would it not appear as a reasonable redemptive process, particularly to those who believe that this is essentially a good world, that instead of embarking upon further programmes of insanity in which reason and common sense recede even more definitely into limbo, some country should, even at the height of its difficulty and in the presence of its dangers, make such an experiment?

823
In this country we have made experiments of like risk with tremendous and beneficent consequences in the past. You will allow me, my Lords, to make a similar plea in the name of the faith I hold and in the interests of the country I love.
6.36. p.m.
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: My Lords, once before I had to speak immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and I was faced with the same difficulty as I am in to-night. I have been a soldier all my life but I am no less Christian (I hope) than the noble Lord, Lord Soper. Christ himself had a lot of time for soldiers—and particularly that centurion, the company commander. It has been said that we are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land, but we are living, and I would propose to your Lordships that we are living because of the protection of our Armed Forces. Mention has been made of those who are without discipline and using a knife; they ought to be in the Forces, where they could hold the knife with safety and with discipline. But to-night, my Lords, I speak with some sadness. This very morning I gave up the Colonelcy of my Regiment, the 9th/12th Lancers, after six years, but with some pleasure as I handed it over at the same time to my noble friend Lord Grimthorpe, so at least it is in the House. I have just come back after a week in Germany, partly with the British Forces and partly with the German forces, so I have seen at first hand what is happening there on the ground, and it is about the more practical problems on the ground that I wish to speak.
I missed the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, but I read with interest what he said about the power of the Russian forces, and I listened with interest to the end of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, for the same reason, because our safety depends on the credibility of the nuclear deterrent, which I believe is there, and that of the ordinary conventional deterrent, and of that I fear there is some doubt. The very fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, mentioned, of our Forces having to be deployed in Ireland means that, however hard the Forces in Germany work, they are not operating as
824
efficiently as they were before the Irish problem came up. We would therefore have to rely more on that power which provides most of the land forces in Germany, that is the German Army, and unfortunately we cannot rely on their being entirely operationally efficient. I was horrified to meet some Germans who told me that in one regiment recently there was a 69 per cent. absentee rate on the morning of Monday, and it was never less than 50 per cent. on any Monday. There is almost—I will not say a total lack of discipline but a grave lack of discipline, because of the over-political control on the German Army. No one is asking to see a German Army such as there was in the last War but most soldiers are longing to see a return of a German Army with some form of territorial and regimental positions which would give them a chance to be efficient, which they long to be. They know what is wrong but they have not yet been able to put it right, and now I am free to speak, one speaks as an ally to a friend when one has to say this.
There is another problem in Germany which is also a practical one. The fact that so many soldiers are in Ireland, some going to Cyprus, some going to Canada, means that their wives are left behind in great numbers and with not many to look after them. They would have loved to see T.V. in Germany, for the British. This subject has been raised before. I asked a Question last year and I was told that it would be examined, but that there were difficulties. I accept that there are difficulties; those difficulties may have been great then, but they should be overcome now. It is a real problem for those enormous number of families where the wives are left, and happy to be left, by their husbands. They know it is the duty of the husbands; they marry soldiers and accept that they have to split from them. But how much easier it would be if a form of British television was available for them. Perhaps video-tape cassette would help. I know that the Royal Air Force have been looking into this in Germany and the Army perhaps has been rather slow trying to help on it. Some
things could be given up by the Army in return for having television. I know that there are problems about wave lengths when using the national network. This is not necessary. It wants to be done on a garrison basis

825
with a video tape. The "Colditz Story" could go to one garrison for eight weeks and then move out to another one. It cannot be beyond the bounds of possibility, and I do hope that we can get some help.
It was good to see that all parts of the Army there were training to fight, and that includes those troops who are on a perhaps unfair turn today, those headquarters troops. With a moving battle that might come in Germany a great many mobile headquarters are needed. They are all fighting headquarters for the most part. Some cavalry bands I saw training as stretcher bearers, and some I saw were training as rifle patrols and were very shortly going out in that capacity to Cyprus. They are ordinary bandsmen but are now training as soldiers and that must be to the good. So when you add that, a bit of that tail is coming on to the teeth, which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, mentioned. Some soldiers, and I among them, are worried about what has recently happened in Ireland. We thought that we were trying to restore peace in Ireland, and that being democrats the majority of people in Ulster wished to live allied to this country and to the Crown and to be part of Britain. People are wondering now whether there are more people in Ulster supporting Mr. Craig's view—loyalism which means anti-this country, anti-the British Army, and anti-the Queen—than there are who are going to support the others. If there is a silent majority which really wants to be loyal to this country, let them speak because there are doubts growing in a lot of people's minds. It is a pity that in those regiments (particularly cavalry regiments where squadrons go out at a time to Ireland) the Colonels are not allowed to visit, and in fact are apt to be discouraged from visiting. Again, it would have been helpful to be able to come back to talk to the wives of the members of that regiment and tell them What their husbands were doing, particularly as a civilian who can have more effect in talking to the wives of the regiment than can a serving officer. They feel that the serving officer is probably saying it to keep up the morale, whereas a retired officer going out could have done some good in that way, I believe.
As to the T.A. of this country, I agree so much with the noble Lord, Lord
826
Shinwell, that the strength has been built up but for the most part they are all committed to roles, and I believe that we want a reserve force which is not committed to any specific role. It is always the unexpected that occurs and if one has a reserve, however small, it would be extremely useful for any circumstances that may arise. Another point in the T.A.&V.R. is that recently I chose a young officer who is at Cambridge University. He is already a lawyer and has just taken a degree in international law at Cambridge. He had been in an Armoured Squadron for the whole of his time at Cambridge. He had been attached to an infantry battalion and had got his territorial commission. He wanted to become a T.A. & V.R. officer in a Regular regiment. I arranged it. He went to my regiment for a two-weeks' detachment and liked it so much that he wanted to sign on as a Regular. I then wrote the necessary papers and asked the necessary questions, only to be told that it would be necessary for him to do an academic training course at Sandhurst. I can hardly believe that to be true. It may be that an academic course means a military course for academic officers, but it was not put to me like that. I do hope that this matter can be sorted out. But at the moment I have lost a very good Regular officer who could not be more academically trained.
Another point on the academic side of the Army is that the junior leaders' regiments in all the corps are doing a power of good. They are going to suffer when the change in the school-leaving age comes about. I believe there is more academic training done in the junior leaders' regiments than in many schools, and it is a matter for consideration whether a boy should not have the right to opt to go to a junior leaders' regiment instead of doing his last year at school—knowing that he will get almost the equivalent of academic training there. It will be good for the Services and good for the boy, and also good for the schools who would not have to keep a chap who does not want to be there. There is something else we are going to need in this country still, although it is unpopular at the moment. If we are going to do our duty and have the proper deterrent we must have training areas. There is a lot of attack going on on the training

827
areas we have. The tanks particularly must have a training area of reasonable size. It may not always be possible to send everybody over to Canada to be trained in the wastes and vast spaces there. We must have some space to train all units regularly in this country. The pressure on the training areas in Germany is immense and it is like a queue going in and out. We must, I fear, have some there.
One last point—and this, I suppose, is slightly personal. Although I have been successful, there has been too much attack from politicians on all three sides (I have already lost favour with the other two Parties) on senior officers taking directorships and executive positions in industry. Heaven knows why! Who are the politicians to criticise senior officers going into executive positions in industry? Have we not had a fortune spent on our training—and not only military training but economic training at defence colleges, and that type of thing? Have we not had some experience in economy? We perhaps might be even more successful than some of the political Parties have been in the economy, and perhaps even more so in getting on with fellow human beings. I do hope that we can be allowed to prove that we can do our part for this country as well.
6.47 p.m.
LORD MACLEOD OF FUINARY: My Lords, everyone must sympathise with those whose responsibility it is to organise the defence of our country. We can talk but it is their responsibility to act. Yet without relaxing in sympathy one cannot forbear uttering a restraining word. Because it is my sincere belief that their honest act may only further embroil the very problem that they seek to solve. The reason I am on my feet is on behalf of the youth of our country, and therefore on behalf of our future, because I foresee the gravest danger of a real generation gap. It is an age gap that, unless closed, will play havoc with the very purpose for which defence is designed. We of our generation think in terms of country, it is our lifeblood so to think. But more and more our youth think in terms of humanity, all humanity. We in our generation think in terms of
828
Western alliances. It has been our habit through decades. But our youth strain forward to think in terms of world community. We think of politics—Party politics, international politics—but our youth spend much more time on pollution and population. They have a growing conviction that pollution and population must have precedence of decision if ever international politics are to have meaning two decades ahead from now. We want to be sure of friendship with our allies, but youth want much more to be friends of the earth.
Because such an analysis by me will have little effect on your Lordships, and rightly so, may I dare to give two short quotations? One is from the Prior of Taize, that modern monastic movement in the South of France that is a product of the Reformed Church. In the 'sixties it was a quiet, pioneering, churchy experiment, but last Easter weekend it was invaded by 16,000 young people to join its worship and to hear its word—not registered, not convened, but coming spontaneously together suddenly, in tents and bivouacs, living in holes in the ground. Here is its leader, Prior Roger Schultz. He wrote in Le Monde last year:
"The youth of the 'seventies are quite different from the youth of the 'sixties. They cannot be said to be hostile to the Church. Rather they refuse to take it into account. They are not interested in reforms. They are awaiting the birth of something new. They cannot stand diplomacy and cleverness. Aware of being intensely integrated into a human community on a planetary scale betrays in them a new awareness of the universal. They look for their fulfilment in terms of a political society socialised at a universal level. This has taken the place of the Church. This means political involvement and often a revoluntary option."
That is the end of the quotation.
My other quotation is more strictly a "happening" to relate our country to that mood. The Student Christian Movement, known to all your Lordships, was hesitant of direction in the 1960s, but it came to vibrant life again a few weeks ago at Huddersfield: 350 young people clamoured to confer; 100 extra at least sought to join them but could not find room. The subject was "Seeds of liberation." The speakers were Bishop Winters, recently hurled out of South-West Africa, and Father Berrigan, the Jesuit, from the U.S.A., recently released after a long

829
prison sentence for burning draft cards. There was the cream of our universities seeking the nature of non-violent revolution.
So far I have simply sought to glimpse the danger of the generation gap, a rapidly growing chasm which we will disregard at our peril, if we simply go on to arm, and arm, and arm, with whatever sincere intent. For instance, we are now in the Common Market. With the exception of Ireland, every other member of the Common Market has conscription. If we just go on to arm, and arm, and arm, shall we read in two years' time that conscription is on the way in the United Kingdom? If so, I dare prophesy that the troubles of this present time—I mean railway strikes and teachers' strikes and civil servants' strikes—are not worthy to be compared to the commotion that will be revealed in our streets led by some of the bravest of our students. Because we seek to shrug off now the ultimate issues we shall find ourselves, for all our vast expenditure and our sincerity, bereft not only of physical power but of spiritual power.
It happens, by the luck of the cards, that in the last eight days I have been speaking to students at Glasgow University and at Trinity College, Dublin and at Oxford. In no case was I speaking of armaments or indeed of pacifism, but in every case the issues before us today came up in their questions. It is only a few weeks since Father Berrigan was speaking to them in Dublin, and nowhere in the whole town could they get a hall large enough to accommodate all who wanted and thirsted to hear him.
What is it that bemuses them in such places as I have mentioned, Huddersfield and all? They are bemused by present vast expenditures. To talk in money terms of 1913 and of now is of course quite meaningless, but juxtapose the value of the pound now and the value of the pound in 1913. Students are bemused that to-day we are spending four times as much preparing for war as we were then in similar money terms. Students are bemused that across our potentially united earth no fewer than 40 million men are engaged in armies or arms making, though for the passing moment there is no war being waged. And they are bemused by our pompous talk of Security Councils with their
830
strictures, when they know the reality of South Africa. Since Sharpeville, 12 years ago, South African military expenditure has gone up eight times. In 1963 the Security Council placed an embargo on military equipment going to South Africa. Yet the most sophisticated weapons continue to ooze into South Africa from Governments and companies who, when it comes to a matter of profit, do not care one dottle for the Security Council. This is what bemuses them.
True, there was elation, again, when Willy Brandt, despite a tiny majority, persisted in his détente with Russia, knowing full well that such would threaten his success in the coming election. They were elated when in fact he amazingly won and gave hope at last of alleviating the tension; only to be dashed down, as it seems to us, when on the very eve of new possibilities in Geneva, Vienna and Helsinki we seem, at any rate, to be almost intentionally throwing a spanner in the works by increasing our armaments lest by any means these conferences might succeed. That is what it seems like to youth, dashed down indeed. Yes, and further dashed down when every three weeks or every two months snippets appear in the all-too-obedient mass media, just a vague muttering about the coming of yet another nuclear force, inevitably shared with Germany, and it seems inspired by Britain, to set fire again, surely, to all Russia's suspicions. It is this, and this, and this, that bemuse our young people as to the ultimate integrity of politics.
Again it is hard for us old ones to see it as they see it. For us old ones there still lingers the possibility of the doctrine of a just war, in our being, if not still in our minds. We still think that the end justifies the means. There still lingers the conviction that the tiny pacifist witness through the centuries is always to be respected but is eccentric and always has been eccentric in the colloquial as in the strict meaning of the word, off centre. After all, with us older ones there still lingers the idea of chivalry as possible in war. Even I can just remember Mafeking when Baden Powell was surrounded. They did not fight on Sundays because that was hardly a nice thing to do, and so the beleaguered British officers played polo because they were so bored. Yes!

831
—polo on a Sunday. You may remember that the Sabbatarian Boers, strictly Dutch Reformed, sent in a white flag to Baden Powell condemning this desecration of the sabbath. The letter is extant of Baden Powell's apology to the Boers and his promise that sabbath polo would cease. Can we say that that was the end of chivalry in our lifetime?
And oh! the rapidity of the declension. Came the bloodbath that was the 1914 war; came the madness that was Versailles. In the 1930s even the Church of Scotland set up a commission to see whether there still could be a just war. It reported that there could be, but said:
"If there was ever a deliberate attack on the civilian population, on men, women and children, then in effect the Church of Scotland must withdraw from the war even at the cost of defeat".
That was 1938. Came Dresden, before the atomic bomb, when we obliterated 100,000 men, women and children in an undefended town—the only soldiers present were on leave—and this to demoralise the civilian population; and not a cheep from the Church of Scotland. Came Hiroshima when we took the ultimate of being, we took the atom, we took light energy—and Christ said that He in His body was the light and the life of the world—we took the body of Christ and used it for bloody Hell. I am trying to keep my language as accurate as possible. There is nadir. It was Pope John who said, "It is impossible to conceive of a just war in a nuclear age". We all know that he was right. It is the use of that violence that is now eccentric, off centre. What youth, therefore, are now striving for is the power of non-violence as the only centric way now and at our peril do we seek to write them off.
President Truman gave his reason for dropping the bomb, and I respect his sincerity absolutely. He said that he allowed it because it was bound to teach the nations of the earth other ways of settling international disputes. It has not happened that way, has it? The U.S.A. have now got locked up in cupboards nuclear power for warlike purposes equal to the Hiroshima bomb dropped every day for the next 600 years—and youth know it. Said Prior Roger Schultz in Taizé:
"They are not interested in reforms, they are waiting the birth of something new. They
832
cannot stand diplomacy and cleverness. They look for their fulfilment in terms of a political society at a universal level."
He added:
"This means political involvement and often revolutionary option."
Are we just to write them off and build our navy up to what they said they would build theirs up to? Please do not dismiss it all as sentimental claptrap. At least listen to Sir Basil Liddell Hart, the greatest of war correspondents. Before he died he wrote an article in a book called Strategy for Political Defence, published by Faber, a book about non-violence. Liddell Hart says:
"Nuclear war is not war at all as it defeats its own disciplined object".
I again quote him:
"To make non-violent resistance a national affair will be an extremely difficult task. Probably the most important thing is to educate people and convince them it is a workable policy."
He went on:
"Of course there is a very long way to go before any Governments begin to see the relevance of the idea of civilian defence. The more Governments realise their incapacity for military defence the more they will begin to take non-violent civilian defence seriously."
He ends:
"There is great value in making civilian defence a serious subject for study."
This is the kind of book that these young people are reading. Dare we regret it in the light of the nuclear bankruptcy?
But there is another word that I must say, and it is my last and most important word. I am trying to close this generation gap, because it is the young people who will have to live with the decisions that "we old ones" make now. It must be said, because Britain cannot stand alone, and it is about the United States, the youth in the United States. Again by the luck of the cards I was lecturing in Princeton University less than a year ago, and by the luck of the cards I will be lecturing there again in the course of the next month. I was not talking pacifism or non-violence then, and I am not going to in a month's time; but I am saying all that because I am a little in touch with American youth, and they are further ahead than we are in all I have said—yes, even in prestigious Presbyterian Princeton. Less than a year ago I hit the campus at a certain point of the Vietnamese crisis. The very day I

833
arrived 68 students had been arrested for a "sit-in" at the Pentagon "think tank" on the campus. This was not a riot, just a disciplined sit-in. Each student was had up in the court and put on bail for 100 dollars—£40—a high bail for just sitting down. But within 12 hours on Princeton campus alone they raised £3,000 (not 3,000 dollars), to pay the fines. Sixty-eight may be a minority, but they had the backing of the whole campus. They had the backing of the President of Princeton; and they had the backing of the Chaplain, who wrote the story of the River Kwai. He is a Scotsman who was in Malaya, a prisoner of the Japanese.
The point I am making is that it is an accumulating mass of youth that is thinking this way. It is partly because they doubt our credentials in being really honest about the opposition to Russia and China. I have an American paperback here costing a dollar. It came out in the U.S.A. three months before what I have just described. It has not been out yet a year. No doubt some of your Lordships may feel impatient that I advertise a paperback from America But wait a minute! It is about politics, and its circulation is 3¼ million copies I got that information yesterday from the printers. Therefore, may we assume that something like seven million young Americans have read it? It is by Garry Allen. It is called, None Dare Call It Conspiracy. It is obtainable here. I say this merely to get it into Hansard so you can look up the address to-morrow and conceivably one or two of you might get it from K.R.P. Publications, 245 Cann Hall Road, London, E.11. When I say "it is obtainable here," you may have to wait. Such copies as they get are snapped up in an hour.
Now that I have given the source there is no need for chapter and verse. There is no need for me to say "I quote" and "end of quotes", because you can get all the chapter and verse you want in the book. It is the most shocking book I have read in twenty years. What is its drift? Essentially that Russia and China are more and more financially indebted to a vast "world-wide network" of persons and companies of great wealth in the West. Not to get money, but to hold power. So that if ever communism should win they could tell the Com-
834
munist leadership where to get off: and take control themselves. It starts long before Russia or China were the objectives. Coming into this century it refers to Cecil Rhodes, with his incredible dreams stemming from his earlier days in Africa, sufficiently summed up in a single sentence by his biographer, Sara Millin, "The government of the world was Rhodes' simple desire". It continues with the first foundations of the Round Table: the move of the Round Table to America: gradually the emergence of the "Institute of Pacific Relations" and "The Council of Foreign Relations", and the later emergence of the Bilderberg Conferences in Europe, and their increasing influence in the States. All as fronts (can we say) for this "network of international monopoly capitalism."
It goes back to the well-known story of the start of the Russian experiment; how international bankers first financed Lenin, and the vast sums he later paid back into a well-known American banking house (all names and details are in the book); of how Trotsky decided to join Lenin and go from America, but was promptly arrested when his ship called at Nova Scotia, the British Ambassador within days ordering his release that he might go to join Lenin, which Trotsky proceeded to do. As symbol of its stories (all documented) there is the brilliant young man who, in the 'sixties, was a top adviser to the President, and tried to turn the state of things in the Dominican Republic in favour of the Communists. This became so notorious that he was soon out of Government service, only to become (in no time) the new president of the Ford Foundation.
There is the unbelievable (but carefully documented) story of how the great foundations—the Ford, the Carnegie, the Rockefeller, the Pugwash and many others—set up tax free consortia to further good causes. There is chapter and verse of how another Foundation gave thousands to Black Power. Chapter and verse of how another Foundation gave large sums to finance student unrest. There is the terrifying story (all names supplied) on lend-lease to Russia, of the major who discovered his boss in 1943 had shipped to Russia the latest know-how on the atomic bomb. When the major flew to Washington to reveal all he was threatened with severe disciplinary action. He was later ordered to approve,

835
as lend-lease, several shipments of refined uranium, more than sufficient to produce an atomic explosion, and not to put them down in his book.
Enough. It goes on and on, and when you finish the book—with the other seven million—you cannot believe it. You read it again to wonder why there has been no case of criminal libel from half a hundred names and firms and Trusts. You end by becoming aware that there is not really a Democratic Party and a Republican Party in the United States. But there is a "Property Party" with world-wide ramifications, of whom (in the States) the Democratic Party and the Republic Party are simply the Right Wing and the Left Wing. You realise then why nearly half the American electorate did not go to the polls to vote at all at the election of the President; only 56 per cent. voted at all. The young people stood back.
At last you begin to understand the extraordinary reply of the Secretary of the United States Treasury in an interview in May, 1969. He, the Secretary of the Treasury, was asked, "Do you approve of the latest credit tightening moves?" He replied, "It's not my job to approve or disapprove. It is the action of the Federal Reserve Bank". This is what the Secretary to the Treasury said about a bank whose accounts have never been made available to Congress.
At last one begins to understand the remark of Congressman Charles Lindberg, the father of the airman, when he said, "From now on, depressions will be scientifically created". At last one begins to understand the well-known words of Reginald McKenna (lest you imagine I simply speak of America) when President of the Midland Bank. He said:
"Those that create and issue the money and credit direct the policies and hold in their hands the destiny of the people."
Of course I know what some of your Lordships are saying about the present speaker: you are saying, "What simpleton is this? Does he not know that all that he has been saying (and the like of it) has been the history of our perfidious world since the beginning of time?"
Does he not know how right was the chairman of Barclays Bank D.C.O. at their annual meeting in 1970, when some students protested at Barclays Bank put-
836
ting up large sums of money for the Caborro Bassa Dam in Mozambique? The chairman said to the young people,
"You young men must understand that the trade of this world is so intertwined that if you bring principle into it there will be no international trade."
In other words, he confirmed the whole burden of my song: "Where profit is concerned, to hell with principle!" Of course I am aware that it has been so since the beginning of time. But, with great respect, are these noble Lords who have been asking that question aware that, for the first time in history, the people are aware of it? The students are aware of the nature of our society and they are prepared to face it, but they are not going to die for it. Die for Queen and country when they did not know—O.K. But they are not going to die for I.C.I. and Royal Dutch Shell and Westinghouse Electric, whose G.N.P. next year will be greater than the G.N.P. of Belgium.
However many bands are playing, they are waiting for the birth of something new. They cannot stand diplomacy or cleverness. They look for their fulfilment in terms of a political society socialised at universal level. As a whole world seems like to die of fear and debt and doubt, would it not be wonderful if Britain gave the lead to the advanced nations, if Britain were the first of the nations to say, "All right we will take the risk. Right!, we trust you. We begin to disarm. Do what you like."? Might we not hear at last the gathering sigh of relief, if only gradually, from the Urals to the Himalayas, from the Rockies to Mount Etna? If not, Martin Luther King had the words:
"It is either non-violence or non-existence."
7.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod, of Fuinary, for a most interesting paper, very beautifully read. I think I detected, certainly at the very end and near the beginning, an echo of the message which we also received from the noble Lord, Lord Soper, which we have heard before and I venture to hope we may hear again, because it is salutary that we should hear it from time to time. It is a good message and a true one, also, alas! a very sad

837
one, but I hope that the noble Lord, in particular, will not cease to deliver it.
The idea of unilateral disarmament cannot be any thing but a good one in theory. In practice, I doubt it and for two reasons. The first is that I do not think it works. It has worked once. The only case that I can think of is that of Tibet, which some centuries ago gave up its conquests in the North of India, renounced the use of force, beat its swords into ploughshares and sat down, dedicated to the way of peace. For several centuries nobody was interested in Tibet, until the Chinese decided to move in; so the end of the matter was not a very pretty one after all. Also, I do not think unilateral disarmament can work for this reason. A country may adopt a pacifist attitude, may decide, as the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod, hopes it will, that it will disarm and not fight. That depends on a total shift of public opinion, of public intelligence—public evolution, if you like. There are signs that that may come. Perhaps it will; but no Government, no Parliament, no Secretary of State for Defence can conceivably introduce a policy requiring any nation to do that, because we are here as representatives, and in another place they are there as elected representatives, of people who trust Government and Parliament to do what they can to keep them safe. So long as that is so, this argument for pacifism and unilateral disarmament is a non-starter. Nor, I am afraid, has it very much to do with the White Paper.
There is one thing only that I wish to put a finger on in the White Paper, and that is a little matter which I think carries with it the seeds of danger; that is, the possibility of complacency coming in, not in the Government and not in Parliament but possibly in the Opposition and certainly elsewhere. Paragraph 5 in Chapter I states:
"Her Majesty's Government continues to make a constructive contribution to current efforts to bring about a further relaxation of tension and a more lasting peace in Europe".
I should be happier about that if the word "further" had been left out, so that the White Paper spoke of "current efforts to bring about a relaxation of tension", not suggesting, as it does, that tension is already relaxed and that efforts to ease it are not something new.
838
Here we have the first echo in the White Paper of the word "détente", which is a word which has probably been heard more in this debate than in any other. I have not counted, but I know that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, used it three or four times in a few sentences—and why not? But there is a danger in this word. It means, roughly, an easing of conditions of international relations. If it comes
about, well and good. Then, by all means, tension is relaxed. But has it come about? Certainly there have been a great many changes and they were most ably set out in his speech by my
noble friend Lord Carrington. But have the Russians changed in any way in their attitude to what they propose to do to the rest of the world? The position is spelled out in paragraph 4 on page 1, which states:
"There is no sign that the Soviet Union is anticipating the outcome of negotiations"—
that is, on M.B.F.R.—
"by a slackening of its defence efforts."
We have heard over and over again in this debate, and it is indicated in the White Paper, that their efforts military-wise, so far from relaxing, are increasing. Therefore I am rather sorry to hear mention of relaxation of tension as though it were something that was going on. I should like to know that the tension in the Ministry of Defence, of all places, is just as high as it was, and I suspect that it probably is, too.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I may have used the word "détente" two or three times, but I fundamentally agree with what the noble Earl has said.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, there was no suggestion of criticism of the noble Lord in what I said. I merely meant it as a statistical fact that I happened to note at the time. I may be thought to be making a mountain out of a molehill, but the fact is that people do not make mountains out of molehills. That is the speciality of the mole, and it might be just as well to look at what kind of a mole it is that is likely to make a mountain out of the molehill to which I have referred.
I would draw attention to a document which has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing—Labour's

839
Programme for Defence, published in 1972. In that, we read:
"The key to progress on European Security lies in the mutual and balanced reduction of forces for which the West called in 1968."
I do not think that M.B.F.R. is the key to progress and security. I think it is the key to progress in economy; it is an economic matter. I believe my noble friend the Secretary of State himself said that in different words. The paper went on:
"If M.B.F.R. is achieved, we shall have the same balance of armaments as we have now Only the quantities will be reduced and consequently the cost."
There is no increase in security and it is a mistake to think that there is.
I have here another quotation from the same paper. It reads:
"The objective must be substantial cuts in the defence programmes of both NATO and the Warsaw Pact, so organised as to guarantee the people of Europe at least as much security as they have enjoyed until now."
That is a rather more moderate and realistic approach—"at least as much". It is quite unrealistic to suppose that we shall get more. The future is full of dangerous possibilities for woolly-minded optimists, whom I think we hear.
My Lords, again I should like to refer to something on which my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing touched. Mr. Healey, speaking at a television interview, said:
"… at the moment we are spending about 5 per cent. of our gross national product (that is our national wealth) on defence. Germany is spending about 4 per cent.; France rather less. I think it is quite intolerable that we should join the Common Market carrying an additional handicap there when we are not the country most directly concerned".
Where our own defence is concerned, and we have defence commitments and responsibilities outside NATO, we most certainly are the country most concerned, and the percentage of our gross national product which we choose to spend on defence has nothing whatever to do with Germany or with France, or even with the Common Market, which itself has nothing to do with defence. Mr. Healey went on to say:
"… if you ask me where we should make the cuts in order to get down to their level"—
that is, to the level of the other NATO countries—
"I would say we should discuss this with our allies and work it out with them".
840
I repeat, my Lords—" order to get down to their level". Was it through inadvertence, do your Lordships think, as I should like to believe, that the right honourable Gentleman said that? I think not, because in answer to another question he said:
"… I believe myself that we could get down to the level of our major partners in Europe without any jeopardy to the security of the Continent as a whole".
Is it really possible to believe this? Is it possible for Mr. Healey himself to believe it? If it comes to that, does he really believe that the average defence expenditure of NATO countries represents a field in which we can talk simply of levelling down? Should it not, as various speakers have suggested, be more a question of levelling up to our standards, rather than down to those who are acknowledged to be paying too little?
All I can tell your Lordships, in answer to the question as to whether Mr. Healey himself can believe this, is what he himself said in 1969, when he was Minister of Defence. He was resisting an Amendment trying to cut defence expenditure by about £650 million, which I believe is about the amount that we would save if we cut down to the NATO average. This is what he said:
"… I warn my honourable Friends who agree with the Amendment … that once we cut defence expenditure to the extent where our security is imperilled, we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools. We have a heap of cinders.
"I believe that the contribution we are making to the defence of Western Europe through NATO is an indispensable condition for achieving all our social and economic aims".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; 5/3/69, col. 551.]
I think I have said enough—I am sure your Lordships will think so, too—to indicate a little why I believe that there are forces at work that will strengthen and fortify complacency. They are at work here. I have given one example of a man of great distinction in the Opposition, who was presumably talking like this within the Opposition, and he and others within the country. He was not merely indicating that everything is all right, or is more all right than it was and we can sit back and relax, but also that we ought to, for reasons that have nothing whatever to do with defence. This is the only point I wish to make. I think there is no détente. Déetente in

841
any general sense is improbable; I think M.B.F.R. is almost totally unrealisable; and am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, when he says he thinks that the Secretary of State does not believe it himself. That is my personal opinion, like his. I do not believe it. I think we ought to go on trying for it, but it would be quite wrong for the country, as a country, to withdraw. I admit there is a tiny possibility, but it is no more than that. I wish strength to the Secretary of State for Defence, and I congratulate him on what I believe to be an extremely satisfactory White Paper.
7.25 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Secretary of State and the White Paper have indicated that we are moving into a period of change, that negotiations are starting in a number of areas and that the opportunities of improving our safety in the world of defence are greater; and there is a vaguely optimistic tone in the White Paper that is before your Lordships' House. We are travelling hopefully. But I know your Lordships will not imagine that all change is beneficial. It may well be that the Russians are laying a trap for us. My noble friend Lord Shinwell seems to believe so. The Chinese certainly think so. Here, perhaps I may say that the White Paper issued by the Secretary of State has received an extremely good Press in China. There is one factor which nobody has touched on except en passant in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and that is the results of the French elections, which will be made clear on May 12, when the count has taken place. Quite frankly, I am worried by this situation because, although we have not discussed it, nevertheless the risk exists, first, that the union of the Left might win a substantial victory, which would not in itself be damaging, but that then the Communist Party within the union of the Left might take over that Party. There is already public disagreement between the Socialist and Communist wings of the union of the Left, and it is very well possible that France would not only as now, refuse to take her part within the defence structure of the West would but withdraw from it completely. This would be a situation which could be extremely damaging to us. We ourselves know from the situation in Northern Ireland that we can inflict
842
very grievous wounds upon ourselves, and I shall be much happier when I see what happens after the French elections.
The White Paper notes the growth of Communist power. All your Lordships will remember its recent use in Czechoslovakia, but it needed the Czechoslovakian Government themselves to remind us of something which many of us have forgotten; namely, that in 1948 a democratic Government in Czechoslovakia was overthrown by a Communist Party which claimed only 38 per cent. of the votes of the electorate. That led to the death of President Masaryk through an unexplained fall from a window in Prague, in the Czech tradition. I believe that the situation in any country where Communists hold as much as 20 per cent. of the popular vote is one of inbuilt instability, and that is why I hope most profoundly that it will not be too long before Social Democrats in this country move into Europe and become involved with the politics of the Left in Europe. Indeed, this would be one of the cheapest ways of aiding the defence of Western Europe. My Lords, I do not trust the Russians. We all know their capacity to indulge in the crudest form of power politics. And may I say that I support fully the last two sentences of paragraph 5 of the White Paper, in which it is said that we must negotiate from strength and must not indulge in any unilateral reduction in the defence capabilities of the West.
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, asked: "What strength?" One of the troubles when we debate a Defence White Paper is that we tend to think purely of the British components within NATO. In fact, we have the whole strength of the NATO Alliance behind us; and that is very great. It is not really a matter of pessimism, but there must be no unilateral reduction by any individual nation in NATO while the present negotiations are going on. This Russian threat, as any other threat, can be countered if we will pay the price. This is the fundamental problem that we and all our NATO allies have to face.
My noble friend Lord Shepherd, who opened from this side of the House, was misunderstood. He was not saying that we were spending too much on defence. What he said was that there was a new

843
generation coming along who might believe that we were spending too much on defence, and that this was the real risk. It behoves us all to spend the resources available as effectively as we can. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to make one or two suggestions in this field, because while I believe that we are striking a fairly proper balance of forces and that we are getting reasonably good value for money, by improving the techniques and developing on lines which have already been started, we may get a larger return from our expenditure than at present. The case of the Royal Air Force has been mentioned and welcomed on all sides. I myself have welcomed the steps that were taken last year in creating the control ships, in moving responsibility for expenditure further down the ladder of the Ministry of Defence. After one year, I understand, this system is working as well as can be hoped and expected. But further steps can be taken.
I have always advocated decentralisation of responsibility over expenditure. In this connection I should like to ask the Secretary of State for Defence if my interpretation of Chapter 5, paragraphs 21 and 23, of the White Paper is correct. These paragraphs refer to the dockyards and to the Royal Ordnance Factories. The wording in both cases is the same. As regards the dockyards we read:
"Improvements to management systems in clude the extended application of operating accounts … with the objective of introducing a trading fund system in due course."
As regards the Royal Ordnance factories, we read:
"A trading fund will be brought into operation on a notional basis from the beginning of 1973–74."
Am I right in thinking that it is the intention of the Minister of Defence and the Government to run these great enterprises on business lines? In my understanding, a trading fund means an independent banking account. In a sense you can regard the efficiency of a dockyard or of a Royal Ordnance Factory as being judged by the return on capital invested in strictly commercial terms. There is no reason why this should not be so. We repair warships at private yards; we repair them in Royal dockyards. The guidelines of cost must be
844
the same in each case. I would welcome this. It was an idea that came to me when I was an Under-Secretary at the Navy many years ago and responsible for dockyards. If what I believe is true of the policy, I welcome it.
My Lords, we then turn to collaborative projects with our allies. These are important and we all welcome the M.R.C.A. project. We must not deceive ourselves into thinking that this is the cheapest way of building an aeroplane. It certainly covers research and development and spreads it over a wider field: but production costs of harmonising three conflicting needs tend to raise the cost of the aeroplane. However, the great benefit that we get from this operation is a common logistic basis. As we ail know, one of the strengths of the Warsaw Pact countries is that they have a common logistic basis; they have interchangeability of weapons their ammunition is interchangeable. We are only slowly moving towards a comparable interchangeability in our weapon systems.
Finally, I welcome strongly the fact that we are moving steadily towards a common tactical approach to our common defence problems. The fact that we have joined the organisation called FINABEL, and the fact that the Eurogroup is growing in strength, must in due course mean that we shall have a common defence policy and shall be able to harmonise our tactics and weapon systems with our allies. This is something which will increase the strength of the alliance disproportionately and at the same time reduce our total costs.
Having made that point, I should like to move on to a question which is related to it. I noticed that within the Euro-group, a sub-group on communications is put forward as an important element of the work within the Group. It is quite clear that nations can collaborate and operate together only if they can communicate. I believe that one of the problems faced by the fleets of European NATO members is that we have no common communication system. May I ask this question in relation to the through-deck cruiser which was
first ordered this year and which has a command control function? What can this particular ship command and control? Would it be capable of controlling a European fleet?

845
Could it bring under its general communications network the ships of Germany, Belgium, Holland, France (if she is willing to collaborate) and Italy? I believe that we shall not really achieve a genuine European defence entity until we have a completely common communications system throughout.
While we are talking about the financing of defence, may I make my contribution about the danger of talking about the proportion of the gross national product as applied to defence in a comparative sense between nations; for this is an argument that might turn very sour on us. Noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, have pointed out the problems that we are facing, in that as both the cost of equipment and manpower rises, more and more is spent on manpower and less on equipment. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the Mawmer Report which was made to the Defence Minister of Germany. Herr Mawmer is a Social Democrat and headed a commission to study this problem. He came to the depressing conclusion that unless Germany spent more on defence, a larger proportion of its gross national product, by 1980 only 7 per cent. of the German defence budget would be available for weapons. I am reasonably certain that the Germans will not accept this situation and that they will raise their proportion of gross national product expended on defence.
If we try to tie ourselves to defence on a purely numerical figure of the proportion of our product that we spend on defence we may run into serious trouble.
Finally, my Lords, I have one point to make before commenting on one or two of the speeches made in the debate. Very rightly, the dilemma of our troops in Northern Ireland has been commented on and their conduct has been praised, but I believe there is one specific problem we ought to look at rather more carefully. My noble friend Lord Shepherd indicated that I proposed to raise this point. The individual who suffers most from the death of a young soldier in Northern Ireland is probably his wife, and there may be one or more young children. I understand that the position of these young widows is a very unhappy one. They are having to struggle very hard to retain a reasonable standard of living. I consider that we must treat the events
846
in Northern Ireland as something different from a military operation. In fact, it is a police operation and the Army is there because the police forces that were there when the trouble broke out were unacceptable to one element of the population and the Army had to be interposed between two elements in Northern Ireland.
The point I wish to make to your Lordships is that since this is a police rather than a military operation, would not some system of insurance for young soldiers against being killed or wounded in Northern Ireland be possible? There is a group insurance policy run by the Police Federation which covers members of the Federation if they are killed or seriously injured while on duty. There are policies which enable young pilots to insure against being killed in the course of their duties. Would it not be possible to use existing machinery to cover the type of risk experienced in Northern Ireland, which is quite different from anything else that we are doing? We note that recruiting for the Army has slipped rather badly. Although I do not know the exact causes, I am fairly certain that the tensions created by continuing service in Northern Ireland must play a part in it.
My Lords, the evening is drawing on and I have made the various points that occurred to me as I read the White Paper. I thought that a number of excellent speeches were made during the debate and I was particularly sympathetic to the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, who made a point so obvious that we all overlooked it. He said that if we reduce our forces in a balanced way, so that after mutual reductions the same balance remains, we are in fact not very much safer as a result. The balance of terror is smaller but it remains. Nevertheless, progress is being made. A number of noble Lords pointed out that in the West we have lived in peace since 1945, and in my view this indicates that our policies in the West have been, on the whole, correct, and I believe that they should be continued. Next year's White Paper will appear when a number of factors at present unknown will have been clarified; and perhaps next year we may hear something new from the Secretary of State.
7.45 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think that I could possibly complain about the reception that this White Paper has had or about the speeches that have been made this afternoon, though not all of them, by any means, have been in agreement with what is proposed in the White Paper. But I think there were valuable contributions, and if I do not refer, for example, to the speeches of my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery or the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, or the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, it does not mean that I do not think they were excellent contributions. May I start by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, if there was any inconvenience in having the debate so soon after the publication of the White Paper. It is a question of the timetable of the House, and next year we will certainly look into it and meet the convenience of the House. I would only hazard the observation that some noble Lords do not seem to have been unduly put out by the shortness of time, judging by the length of some of the speeches I heard this afternoon. I will try to deal with some of the points made in the debate and not to make another speech; in other words, I will try to answer some of the questions which were put to me.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, raised a number of financial points. He did not think that on the whole the other NATO allies, other than the Americans, were bearing a fair share of the burden in Europe. As has been said by a number of speakers, we are spending something like 5·8 per cent. of our G.N.P. on defence, compared with the European average of about 4·2 per cent. on NATO definitions. But that is only one part of the index of the effort. For example, of our European partners, France has, in cash terms, been spending about as much as we have. For some time Germany has been spending rather more than we have, so I think that one has to look at this subject in the round.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, expressed concern about the adequacy of pensions paid in certain circumstances as a result of service in Northern Ireland. This is something I have been worried
848
about and I have been looking into it. There are, of course, various types of benefits available to Servicemen who are injured, or the widows or dependants of those killed, as a result of terrorist violence in Ireland. There are "attributable" or war widows' pensions and allowances paid by the Department of Health and Social Security, regardless of the rank or length of service of the man. There are invalid and family pensions paid by my own Department for those who have completed certain periods of service, and there are awards by the courts of compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation (Northern Ireland) Act 1968, some of which have been pretty substantial. Nevertheless, I think that there are cases, especially of young men without much service, where injury or death can leave a man's family hard up. I am engaged, as perhaps noble Lords may know, in a review of our arrangements in this respect. Though I am not ready to make a statement this evening, I have very nearly reached finality and it will not be very long before I shall be able to make a statement.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, also asked about the £523 million variation between the Public Expenditure White Paper and the Defence White Paper. There is, of course, one year difference in the price base between the two documents, but in any case the figure quoted by the noble Lord is the difference between that in the Public Expenditure White Paper of 1972–73 and the published 1973–74 Defence Estimates. At 1972 prices the Defence Estimates would be £3,015 million compared with £3,009 million in the Public Expenditure White Paper. If the noble Lord wishes to know why there is that small variation, he will find it explained in Table 1 of Annex A of the White Paper.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, made what I thought was a very interesting speech, in which he analysed the problems we find facing us in the context of defence in Western Europe and the Western world generally. I agree with a great deal of his analysis but I am sceptical about his solution. It seems to me that by adopting a formula by which, in effect, you deprive yourself of your most effective weapons, including nuclear

849
weapons and tanks, while at the same time you are facing exactly the same military capabilities in the Warsaw Pact, you are unlikely to achieve a satisfactory and credible deterrent to aggression from the East. Certainly I am as conscious of the difficulties about conventional armaments as he is, and my advisers and I have been looking at this matter for some considerable time. I must confess that I have not yet found a solution to the problem of increasing our conventional capability.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I do not intend to pursue this, but I do not think the noble Lord is right in saying that my proposal would deprive us of these weapons. I am in favour of our retaining any of our tactical weapons and our deterrent, as such, but only on the assumption that we would not use them on first strike.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if you retain everything, it means that everything else you do has to be additional, and that means more manpower and more money. This is the great difficulty of increasing one's conventional armaments. I will search, as no doubt will the noble Lord, for a solution to this problem and I hope that from time to time he and I will have many conversations about the subject.
Whatever your Lordships may have thought about Lord Wigg's speech—and I did not think much of it—he seems to be interested in Defence. At the end of his speech I was as confused as I was at the beginning about what he wanted. At one point—and I hope that I misunderstood him—he appeared to me to be asking for a British Army which consisted of young men who were badly paid, who were single, widowers or divorced, and who were equipped with armaments not on a greater scale than the police force use in Northern Ireland. But I may have completely misunderstood what he was saying, and I will look with great interest at his speech to-morrow and read it with great care. He took me to task for not having stated to-day the objectives of the Government in Defence. This Government do not change their objectives in Defence from year to year. If the noble Lord will look at the White Paper which the Government published
just after we came into
850
office in 1970, he will find the objectives of the Government's Defence policy set out very clearly: and they have not changed.
But the noble Lord asked me two questions which I want to answer. I am absolutely convinced that the Polaris force to-day is a deterrent which is effective and credible; and it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that it should remain so. Obviously, we have to look ahead and consider possible developments in defensive systems which might make it necessary to improve our own weapons. That is something
which we keep under careful review, having regard, among other things, to the progress of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks. In that connection, I want to make one thing abundantly plain to the noble Lord, and it is this: that as Britain is not a party to the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, we reject absolutely any suggestion that our nuclear deterrent force is in any way subject to the SALT Agreement. The Americans understand and agree with this point of view. We are of course always looking at possible options for the future—the House will understand clearly if I do not go into details. When we need to do so, we shall decide whether any improvements in the Polaris force should be made, and if so, what they shoud be.
The noble Lord also asked me, in the same context, about Honest John, and whether we were going to do anything about that. The position is that, with our European allies, we are carefully considering the purchase of Lance as a successor to Honest John; and I hope that I shall be able to make a Statement about that in the fairly near future.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, there is one thing about which the noble Lord and I agree: he does not think much of my speech, and I do not think much of his; that is common ground. But he might at least answer the question which I put to him, which was this: Do the Government intend to replace Polaris by Poseidon? Secondly, if the noble Lord intends to purchase Lance, why did he not say so in the White Paper?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, first of all, I did answer the first question by saying that when and if we need to improve the capability of the Polaris we

851
will do so. But we have not made a decision. Secondly, I did not put in the White Paper that we are going to replace Honest John with Lance because we have not decided to do it. I have just told the noble Lord that.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, the answer in both cases is, No.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, no. The answer in both cases is that we have not made up our minds.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, it is the same thing.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I thought I had now said that twice. Possibly if I say it three times, the noble Lord may understand.
My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing drew attention, as did the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, and a number of other noble Lords, to what I think is the most disturbing trend in Defence budgets, not only in this country, but everywhere; namely, the tendency for rising manpower costs to limit the proportion of the Defence budget which we are able to devote to equipment. There was undoubtedly a decline—I am not making a Party point about this—in the proportion of expenditure on equipment in the period 1967–68 to 1971–72. However, it can be seen from Table 3 of Annex A to the White Paper that the proportion has risen from 34 per cent. last year to 37 per cent. this year. I am very much aware of this trend, and if I were to be asked what was the trend that disturbed me most, I would say that it is this particular tendency for personnel costs to go up every year more and more and to take a bigger proportion of the Defence budget. I do not at the moment see any way in which I can reduce this. My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing suggested one or two ways in which it might be done, but I think that these are palliatives. I think we shall have to examine this matter with increasing energy as time goes on to see what we can do about this particular trend. Perhaps while I am talking about that I may tell the noble Lord. Lord Shackleton, that not only did I mislead him, but I misled myself: because the figures I mentioned in my opening speech were at constant prices and not at cash prices, and that makes the comparison even more striking. I apologise to the noble Lord.
852
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, I thought, made two very good points in his speech. He first of all drew attention to the enormous growth—and the growth is still with us—of Soviet naval power, and reflected on its purposes. I can tell the noble Lord that he is not alone in reflecting on that. Our NATO allies are well aware of it. He made, perhaps even more cogently, the point about the energy problem which is going to face us all, and which has come very much to the fore in these last few months. He did not mention Japan, but Japan of course is even more reliant on Middle East oil than either Western Europe or the United States.
LORD CACCIA: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt. If he looks at my speech, he will see that I did raise the question of Japan, for the reason that he gave. That is why I asked in particular whether they had been brought in.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. If I heard that, then I forgot it. This is of course a problem which we are discussing with our allies, and with our American friends as well. I think one of the encouraging factors is the paragraph which my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing read out about the NATO capability now of planning for something outside the NATO area in the areas of the Indian Ocean and round the South Atlantic. This of course is the reason why I would not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, who appears to think that the Royal Navy only needs a few frigates to protect fishing vessels off Iceland. I think when one has all one's lifeline at risk around the world there is a need for navies to protect them, otherwise one will be in the position of being blackmailed, in exactly the same way that the noble Lord was talking about being blackmailed in the nuclear context.
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing asked about Nimrod aircraft being available to South Africa, and also about a loan, which is an interesting suggestion. I think that perhaps I should repeat what has been said before. The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has made the Government's position clear on several occasions in another place. We are prepared to consider, within the context of the defence of the sea routes, applications

853
for the export of limited categories of arms for maritime defence only. The question of supplying Nimrod aircraft on sale or lease has not been raised with us by the South African Government; but we should carefully consider any such application within the context of that statement.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, asked me a number of questions. He also was interested in the "teeth and tail" problem. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, reflected rather adversely on the Royal Air Force and said that, compared with the Swedish Air Force and the Swiss Air Force, the Royal Air Force was not doing so well. But these are not valid comparisons. Neither the Swedish Air Force nor the Swiss Air Force have a world-wide role and the Royal Air Force has a large air support element, now part of Strike Command, which supplies our troops in Hong Kong, Singapore, British Honduras, Cyprus, and other parts of the world. Having this air force and deploying it around the world means that there has to be much more back-up than there is in an air force such as Switzerland's or Sweden's.
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, asked me whether I could give him some figures about what is available to the NATO Commanders in Europe and what sort of training these other countries do. All these statistics are published and they are freely available. If the noble Lord will tell me exactly what he wants to know I will arrange for the figures to be sent to him, because there is no difficulty about it and I would certainly like him to have them. If it would not embarrass him very much I should like to thank him for his speech. He speaks with such emphasis and makes a pretence some of the time of disagreeing with what the Government are doing. But when he sits down I always get the comfortable feeling that not only does he agree with what we are doing but that he would be rather happy if we did a little more, and that I find very agreeable.
The noble Lord, Lord Soper, made a speech which I think must have impressed any of your Lordships who listened to it, because the noble Lord always makes a speech which is so well constructed in the first place. Secondly, he is so reasonable; and, thirdly, he is so patently a sincere
854
and good man and therefore one would very much like to agree with him, but alas! my Lords, on this particular subject, as he knows, I cannot agree with him, not because he hates violence more than I do, but because I believe that keeping up the sort of defence forces we have stops violence. If I thought for one moment that all the power at the disposal of the NATO alliance was going to be used, I would know that our defence policy had failed; and the purpose of this paraphernalia is precisely to deter what all of us seek to avoid. I believe that if unilaterally we disposed of our armaments and said, "None of this is of any more use" we should be more likely to find ourselves in a situation which the noble Lord as well as I would deplore rather than the reverse. This is a genuine difference of opinion, and I hope he thinks no worse of me for not being able to agree with him in the speech that he made this evening.
My Lords, my noble and gallant friend Lord Monckton talked about the effects of Northern Ireland on the force levels in Germany. We have two fewer units deployed from B.A.O.R. to Northern Ireland than we had in August, 1972, when force levels there reached a peak, and of course we tried to keep these temporary redeployments to a minimum. Although there are 5,200 men in Northern Ireland who should be in B.A.O.R., it should be borne in mind that there are in fact 4,500 more men in Germany today than there were two or three years ago. Consequently the total disruption is not as great as one might suppose.
The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, asked two questions;
first, about the dockyards and the Royal Ordnance Factories and trading funds. He is quite right in supposing that they should trade on a commercial basis. And on the question of communications for the through-deck cruiser, certainly I agree with what he said. I do not know the answer, but I will let him know whether or not it is possible for these through-deck cruisers to command other NATO navies.
I promised the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that I would say something about manpower in my closing remarks. Your Lordships will recall that we had really bad difficulties in manpower in 1970 and it is true that overall recruiting

855
has fallen from the record level of 46,500 servicemen in 1971–72 to an expected 39,000 in 1972–73. I do not think that this implies that the outlook is necessarily going gloomy again. For one thing, 39,000 recruits is not all that bad; in fact it is rather good. It is certainly as good as, or better than, four out of the last five years, and generally speaking we are meeting our needs, though I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, that if you are missing the really important man it is no good saying you are generally speaking meeting your needs. This is not the situation at the moment.
LORD WIGG: The noble Lord keeps turning to me, my Lords. This is an embarrassment because it leads the Government to think that on the rest of it we are agreed. He knows perfectly well that to make the kind of speech he is making about recruiting is completely disregarding the weight in terms of man years he is getting. It is a complete falsification of the problem.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I shall endeavour never again to turn to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, if it embarrasses him, but of course I have not in any sense finished what I was going to say. But perhaps I may go on without turning to the noble Lord. It is also worth pointing out that there are differences between the Services. In the Royal Navy recruiting has gone up, not down. In the Army, recruitment of juniors has reached a record level and because of our past successes and continued improvement in re-engagement rate the strength of the Army has increased. The R.A.F. has no problem; in fact, rather the reverse because there is a restricted intake as a result of the economy measures.
I doubt whether there is much point, because I do not think anybody can ever know, in speculating about the reasons for changes up or down from year to year or about future prospects. In the latter respect we shall, of course, face some problems as a result of the raising of the school-leaving age, which will put 120,000 fewer boys into the recruiting pool compared with last year and we have to adjust to that change; but there is no reason to think that 16-year-old boys leaving school will be any less willing to join the forces than the 15-year-olds and
856
a service career will continue to have the same attractions. However, in order to maintain these levels of recruitment we shall need to make a career in the Services attractive to intelligent, responsible young people and to do this I hark back to another theme of my 1970 policy Statement, enhancing the role of the Armed Services in the community. This means realistic pay and an acceptance of the uncomfortable truth that the proportion of the total manpower budget taken up by the personnel cost must be greater with a volunteer force than at the high point of conscription twenty years ago. Improvements in the Services' pay and conditions of service are of course subject to the second stage of the Government's incomes policy as with everyone else in the community, but improvements in pensions can be negotiated outside the pay limit and we are pressing on with the second stage of the review of Service pensions.
My Lords, I do not think I have answered all the questions I have been asked—
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord about the decline in recruitment. Anything can happen and I would not make heavy weather of this point. I raised the matter because I am back to my hobbyhorse—the need for building up the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces. I do not think that 55,000 is enough. If we cannot indulge in compulsion—and I said during the course of my remarks that at the present time compulsion is anathema to the general public, and is probably not practicable—we have nevertheless to bring a large number of younger people into the Forces. The only way to do it is to build up the reserves.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I know that that is the noble Lord's point of view. There are difficulties about it; in the first place the present T.A.V.R. is not up to strength and therefore we cannot at the moment increase it, even if there was the money to do it. This is a question of to which of the demands on your resources you give priority. At the moment, when the T.A.V.R. is not up to full strength, probably we are putting our resources in the right direction. At the moment I do not feel unduly unhappy about recruiting.

857
My Lords, if I have not answered any of your Lordships' questions, I will write to your Lordships and give you the information. May I, in conclusion, once again—
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord for his support on the case of the B.B.C.? I do not expect him to reply this evening, but if he uses his undoubted influence within the Government he will do a great deal of good for the B.B.C. and our overseas services.
LORD CARRINGTON: I meant to refer to that. My Lords, I will not swear that I will support the noble Lord; but what I swear I will do is look into the position and see whether anything could or should be done. May I in conclusion thank your Lordships for the way in which you have received this White Paper.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DERBY FRIAR GATE CHAPEL BILL [H.L.]
Examiners Certificate that the further Standing Order applicable has been complied with, received; Ordered to lie on the Table, and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
  PAROLE BOARD: REJECTIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS
  PAROLE BOARD: REJECTIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS