Sitting of 10 May 1973

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

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
  [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]
  TRENT RIVER AUTHORITY BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
  LERWICK HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Mr. Gordon Campbell presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Lerwick Harbour; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday next and to be printed.[Bill 134.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Employment
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on employment prospects for Northern Ireland in the light of recently announced industrial development.
    The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William van Straubenzee): Recently announced industrial development projects, coupled with the more favourable employment trends throughout the United Kingdom, permit optimism about future employment prospects in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Douglas: I thank the Minister for that reply. Although there is another Question later on the Order Paper, will
    724
    he comment on the present employment situation in the shipbuilding industry in Northern Ireland? Will he give an assurance that individuals in that industry are not relying unduly on a legalistic formulation of employment contractual obligations?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: As the hon. Gentleman said, another hon. Member has tabled a Question on precisely this point. I should be very discourteous to the hon. Member concerned if I were to deal with that point in answer to this question.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Reverting to my hon. Friend's original answer, does not my hon. Friend realise that there is a need throughout my constituency for new industries to match the potential growth of population over the next decade, in an area estimated to be the fastest growing area in the Province? Will he ensure that North Down is not overlooked under the advance factory programme?
    Secondly, will my hon. Friend place in the Library a progress report on the work of the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation—a very useful corporation—with particular reference to recent industrial development?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I naturally join with my hon. Friend in his tribute to the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation, whose work for the whole of Northern Ireland is recognised on both sides of the House.
    On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, he will know that there are advance factories in his constituency and that the programme is designed to help all parts of Northern Ireland.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister make a statement about the position in Antrim where, eight weeks ago, a new Supermatic factory was opened and now, after having the Governor open it and after a great blowing of trumpets, the total adult male labour force have been given their cards and the raw materials supplied to the factory have been lifted by the contractors? It seems that the whole project is about to fall through.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I would rather not comment in too great detail at this stage. I assure my hon. Friend, however, that the Ministry of Commerce is very closely in touch with the situation.

    Security
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the security of Northern Ireland.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): The general level of violence is declining.
    The security forces have had important successes in their operations against terrorists, and in seizing illegal arms, ammunition and explosives, and so far this year 587 people have been charged with security offences. It remains the object of the security forces to end violence and thus maintain the conditions necessary for the success of political reforms.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: I welcome the attitude in Dublin to the problems of law and order and the constructive speeches made in Dail Eireann recently about the North, but does not my right hon. Friend think that despite the improvement the situation on the border is serious? Are we getting nearer to joint security control of the border? Would it not be a welcome gesture of good will if we had full reciprocity in extradition, North and South?
    Mr. Whitelaw: On my hon. Friend's first point, he will have noted the considerable operation mounted by the security forces in the Republic last weekend in the Dundalk area, following the tragic loss of three soldiers as a result of mine explosions. This operation was most helpful. One looks forward to cooperation of this sort in the future. I am grateful for it.
    As to extradition, yes, we have our duties as far as our courts are concerned, and we have no means politically—and quite rightly, as an executive—to interfere in any way with the judgment of the courts in these matters. Equally, the Republic has its reciprocity measures. I accept what my hon. Friend says, that where we make requests for extradition I hobe that they will be granted.
    Mr. Stallard: Does the Secretary of State accept that I, too, welcome any attempts made to reduce tension in the Six Counties? Does not he agree that the case recently exposed by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) in which a
    726
    young fellow was being blackmailed by the security forces—a charge which was admitted by the Secretary of State for Defence—does not help the situation? Furthermore, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the House is entitled to an explanation and a statement about that case?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I believe that my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has spoken to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) about this case. I confine myself to the general point that, bearing in mind all the problems that exist in a situation like Northern Ireland, mistakes are made from time to time on both sides. I, for one, have never been prepared to deny that. Nevertheless, the performance of our security forces is something of which the House can be properly proud.
    Captain Orr: Will my right hon. Friend say whether there has been any change in the political directives given to the Army? Will he confirm that there have not, in view of certain rumours? Has he anything fresh to say about cooperation between the Army and the police?
    Mr. Whitelaw: There has been no change in the directives to the Army. The best evidence of that is that one is accused, on the one hand, of having given directives for greater action of some sort and, on the other, of having directed restricted action. The best answer is clearly that there has been no change, nor should there be. It is the job of the Army on the one hand, to do everything possible to end violence and to keep up the most constant pressure on the terrorist. The other duty, which it understands full well, is not in any way to do wrong to innocent members of the population.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: We all agree that the Army should withdraw from the policing rôle in Northern Ireland as soon as possible. What prerequisite does the Secretary of State have in mind before this can be done?
    Mr. Whitelaw: There must be no doubt in the first instance that co-operation on the part of the whole population with the security forces is a vital feature in the security of any State. Co-operation from the population in Northern Ireland,

    727
    as evidenced by use of the robot telephone, confidential systems and the rest, has been increasing all the time, is still increasing, and is a major factor in the improving successes of the security forces. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, North (Captain Orr) also asked about co-operation between the Army and the police. This co-operation is certainly a major and important factor in the security operation and in the immense successes there have been in bringing people to trial for various offences.
    Mr. Mather: Will my right hon. Friend make a statement about the member of the UDR just reported shot and killed?
    Mr. Whitelaw: It is always a great mistake in this House to make a statement about an incident until one has received a full and detailed report. I can say only that I regret to understand, from a very preliminary report, that a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment was shot off duty at a farm close to the border this morning. It would be wrong for me to go into further details.
    Mr. English: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the number of persons charged. Will he assist the House and particularly the Northern Ireland Committee to obtain statistics of convictions and acquittals regularly? I regret to say this; in the light of the discussions we have had—but may we have the statistics distinguished in terms of the religious belief of the defendant?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I would be trespassing far beyond what I would wish to say in answer to the original Question if I went into the subject of the discussions which have been continuing, in my absence, in the Committee on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill. One of the most important provisions is bringing to trial and bringing forward charges against those whom one believes to be guilty of terrorist offences. That is the first task. The second is to ensure that those persons receive a proper and fair trial. That is encumbent upon any State. Equally, this House must understand the dangers of intimidation of juries from whatever source it may come.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will my right hon. Friend give some information about the automatic fire that was directed against
    728
    the workers of the Sirocco works in Belfast when they left the factory a few days ago and came out into Mount Pottinger Road? Is he aware that the fire was directed from a children's play tower in Seaforde Street, and will he say what action the Army is taking in the matter?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I accept that this is an important matter. My hon. Friend the Minister of State had a meeting with all the people concerned. The Army is taking appropriate action, and it would be wrong for me to go further. However, I recognise the importance of this case.

    Assembly Elections
    Mr. McNamaraasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many political parties are at present seeking to obtain seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
    The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): This information will not be available until after the close of nominations on or about 5th June.
    Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether the Secretary of State has finished his discussions and his contemplations and has come to a decision whether or not the banning of Sinn Fein from standing in the elections will be lifted?
    Mr. Howell: My right hon. Friend has not reached a final decision. He has said that he will listen to all considerations. As for the hon. Member's phrase "the banning of Sinn Fein", of course, there is nothing under electoral law, as has been made clear, to stop Sinn Fein from standing.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister confirm that under electoral law members of the Provisional IRA can stand, under the same reasoning. Is he aware that the statement from the Church of Ireland Synod in Dublin that people from the Provisional IRA should be able to stand in the elections is resented by people in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Howell: Under the electoral law system the practice of standing for elections gives people who are wanted on criminal charges no immunity whatsoever, whatever party they stand for. The

    729
    position is, as has been said before, that anyone may stand, but men of violence and criminals who are wanted by the police and sought by the courts are given no immunity by reason of standing.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: When the figures are presented will the Unionists be counted as one party or more than one party?
    Mr. Howell: That is not a matter for me to decide. The parties will put their candidates forward under their appropriate labels. It is for them to choose.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: We agree that men of proven violence should be dealt with by the law. However, there is very strong feeling across the political boundaries that a way must be found for Sinn Fein to stand in the elections, or it will be able to play a major political part in arguing that it was not allowed to stand and that the elections were unfair. We must use 28th June to get a political view in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Howell: The strong feelings on this issue are recognised and my right hon. Friend has said that he will consider all aspects before reaching a decision. But in the present situation the fact must be faced that the Republican clubs are allowed to put forward candidates. Those who hold Republican views can stand and must choose the label of the party for which they wish to stand. It must be realised, as stated in the White Paper, that it cannot be right to accept that people can stand who at one moment decide to play politics and at the next will use means of violence. That kind of candidacy cannot be tolerated. All these factors have to be considered in these circumstances.
    Mr. Deedesasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements are being made to ensure that polling agents at the Northern Ireland local government and Assembly elections are not confused with the polling staff.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Presiding officers will be instructed that polling agents are to be seated so that they are not confused with polling staff, and do not communicate with voters. Polling staff and counting staff will wear identifying badges.
    Mr. Deedes: Is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State aware that that arose only as a result of the informal, friendly and—in the view of most of us—quite proper arrangements which occurred during the border poll—arrangements which, however, could be misconstrued in the course of polling on a political election?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. During the passage of the Bill dealing with the elections, considerable anxiety was expressed in the House. I discussed this matter with the chief electoral officer and decided that it must be made clear beyond doubt that it was being conducted properly. I believe that this arrangement will provide for that. I am certain that the parties concerned will recognise the Tightness of this and wish to see it this way.
    Mr. McNamara: As one of those who expressed concern about this matter, may I say how happy I am about the statement that the right hon. Gentleman has made? May I take it a stage further? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that in any rooms and schools which are used as polling stations no symbol which may be associated with any political party or philosophy will be on display?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I must be careful about my powers in relation to these matters, but I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's point and make representations to those concerned.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Reverting to the subject matter of the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say whether anything was done to infringe the electoral law in the course of the border poll?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I have no evidence of that. I do not think so. But doubts were expressed, and the point was made, in this House, that there may or could have been. I have taken the view that all parties in Northern Ireland and everyone taking part in the election would wish to ensure that it was conducted on a fair and proper basis as well as being seen to be so by everyone.
    Mr. Kilfedderasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will

    731
    extend the time for polling in the forthcoming election to the Northern Ireland Assembly and ensure that the electors are provided with the same number of polling places which they had in the last parliamentary election in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Following representations, my right hon. Friend has decided, in consultation with the chief electoral officer, that polling hours will be from 8 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. I understand that the chief electoral officer intends to provide about 500 polling places.
    Mr. Kilfedder: I welcome that reply, which goes some way towards meeting the plea that I made during our debate on the Northern Ireland Assembly Bill, but does my hon. Friend agree that it would be much better to allow people to vote during the hours of daylight, which, I believe, at the moment extend to 9.30? Does my hon. Friend realise that people in country areas, in North Down and other parts of the Province, have great difficulty in travelling to polling stations far beyond the area where they have voted in previous elections? Will he try to provide as many polling stations as possible?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: My hon. Friend overlooks two important considerations. The first is the security of a very large number of polling stations—more, and rightly more, than were used in the border poll. The second consideration is most important, namely, the unrestricted availability of postal voting facilities. This distinguishes the situation considerably from what would be the case on this side of the water.
    Mr. Leonard: I recognise the serious security considerations involved, but does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, in general, it would be unfortunate if polling hours in Northern Ireland differed from those in Great Britain? I wonder, for example, whether terminating the hours on the half hour rather than on the full hour will be readily understood by voters. Might not that lead to confusion? Will not the hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: No, Sir. This decision has been taken after careful consultation with the many interests
    732
    involved. It is unfortunate that there should be different hours in different parts of the United Kingdom. It is also very unfortunate that the general background and conditions against which this election will be held are also different.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister say when applications for postal votes for the Assembly elections must be in?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The closure date for applications for postal voting is on or before 17th May, for local government elections. If granted, those applications are also applicable to the Assembly elections. The date for everyone to bear in mind is 17th May. An extensive campaign is being conducted to make this widely known in Northern Ireland.

    Belfast Shipyard
    Rev. Ian Paisleyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the position in the Belfast shipyard.
    Mr. David Howell: The dispute in Harland and Wolff's yard is about a bonus scheme for steelworkers entered into in September 1971. The steelworkers, dissatisfied with the operation of the scheme, embarked some three months ago on a programme of non-co-operation. The steelworkers have been discharged, after due notice, but the company is anxious to avoid, or postpone as long as possible, laying off other workers.
    The proposals for settlement of the dispute rejected by the steelworkers last week had the support of the management of the yard and the executive of the Boilermakers' Society. The channels of communication between the management and the union remain open; and it is to be hoped that an early return to normal working can be achieved.
    My right hon. Friend, who fully appreciates the seriousness of the situation, is being kept closely in touch.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Does not the Minister of State agree that the management has an obligation in this case to keep the promise that it made to the steelworkers? Does not he agree also that for the managing director of the yard to appear on local television, as he did last night, and to say that the Secretary of State is in full agreement with him is not likely to lead to

    733
    conciliation? Will the Minister confirm whether the Secretary of State agrees with the management in this dispute? Will he also tell us about the position of 600 dilutee workers who are not part of the strike but who have been dismissed as a result of it? They have been refused unemployment benefit. When they wanted to find other employment they were also refused their cards and money due to them for holiday pay. Will the Minister also say when the first test case before the tribunal for the payment of social benefits to those workers will be heard so that they and their families may be justly treated?
    Mr. Howell: In a dispute of this kind there are strong feelings on each side about the nature of views held by the other side. We are in a situation in which the union—the executive of the Boilermakers' Society—is in agreement with the management about the proper way to reach a settlement. If that proper way can be followed a settlement can be reached. That must be the position.
    As for the dilutees and unemployment benefit, the matter has been put to the insurance officer, who has decided that it is an industrial dispute and, therefore, that claims for unemployment benefits are disallowed.
    The question of a test case coming up really arises in the context of appeals. Appeals can be made and will shortly be heard. I am sure that all possible steps will be taken to see that appeals are heard as soon as possible.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister of State assure the House that the two sides, or either of them, are not adopting an unduly legalistic view of their rights in this case? May we have an indication how the Department of Employment is having an oversight of the dispute, which is likely to be extremely damaging to the propect of this very important shipyard?
    Mr. Howell: As I said earlier, either side tends to get a somewhat oversharp view of the position held by the other. That is inevitable. However, the industrial relations division of the Department of Health and Social Security—not the Department of Employment—is watching the situation closely. The normal conciliation services are available. The position remains that both the management and the union—the executive of the
    734
    Boilermakers Society—are in agreement about the proper basis for a settlement. If that path is followed a settlement can be achieved.
    Mr. McMaster: Is the Minister of State aware of the great tragedy that would befall Northern Ireland if there were any loss of production or a complete close down of Harland and Wolff? Is he aware, further, of the considerable competition which the yard faces from other yards in Europe and, especially, in Japan? Until recently the yard had a fine reputation for high productivity. In view of that, will the Minister do all he can to see that there is a reconciliation and a sensible settlement to the dispute, so that the future prospects of the yard will not be damaged?
    Mr. Howell: I am acutely aware of the sad blot that this incident places on the excellent industrial relations record in Northern Ireland. I undertake that everything possible will be done to encourage ways in which the dispute can be brought to a sensible conclusion.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    EEC Food Stocks
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the foods and the quantity thereof at present stockpiled in the EEC.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Joseph Godber): I will, with permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Cox: I shall look with interest at the figures when they are published. Is the right hon. Gentleman fully aware that the British housewife is already completely disillusioned by the effect of the Community's agricultural policy on her and her family? Is he aware that prices go up month by month, that the housewife is able to buy less, and yet the stockpiling continues month by month? In view of today's announcement in one of the London papers about the £50 million food scandal in Europe, how much longer will British taxpayers be forced to contribute to this policy? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the responsibility for change rests not with

    735
    the housewife but solely with the Minister?
    Mr. Godber: If there is any disillusionment it will be with the words that the hon. Gentleman has used. His words show his total misunderstanding of the situation regarding the Community. In fact, food prices have not risen as a result of our entering Europe. As I explained in the House last week, the actions and decisions which we took in Luxembourg have safeguarded the British housewife this year. As I told the House last week, the best estimate which we can make about the effect on the housewife, this year, of our entry into the EEC is 1½ per cent. The increases that have occurred, of which we are very conscious and which I know disturb the housewife very much, are not the result of Britain's joining the Community.
    Mr. Charles Morrison: Should not my right hon. Friend ensure that there is a marginal surplus of foods to take account of increasing demand? Is it not the case that the review of the agricultural policy, which he has announced, will be aimed at reducing surpluses in certain commodities whilst encouraging the production of those that are in short supply?
    Mr. Godber: Yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the dangers that exist from having a shortage of a particular commodity. We have seen the effects of that on beef, over the last 12 months. It is far better to have a slight surplus than a shortage, which immediately hits the housewife very hard.
    I attach great importance to the discussions that we shall be having later in the year about the future of the CAP. I hope that we shall be able to make progress in providing directions in which we can help to improve the CAP in a way more helpful in general to both the housewife and the taxpayer.
    Mr. Shore: I return to the right hon. Gentleman's answer about the stocks of food which now exist in Europe. We have not seen the table, but I have a feeling that the stock figures will not tell us the quantities of certain grains that have been denatured rather than put into stock or destroyed. In view of the reports that we have had of very serious food shortages in certain countries in Asia, or parts of countries in Asia, will
    736
    the right hon. Gentleman raise with the EEC, this year, the possibility of not denaturing or destroying certain grains that might be used for human consumption this year? Will he urge the EEC to consider some other and much more acceptable way of disposing of them?
    Mr. Godber: I have sympathy with the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman about helping the under-nourished countries. The Community has a good record for helping them. I must take up with the right hon. Gentleman the point that he used about "destroying". There seems to be a genuine misunderstanding about what happens. There is no question of destroying the food. Denaturing is not destroying. Anybody who pretends that it is destroying is grossly misleading the House and the country. I would have hoped that Opposition hon. Members, whatever their prejudices, would at least be honest about that. Denaturing does not destroy food; it produces food in such a form that enables it to be used for animal feed. If hon. Members call that destroying they are showing an incredible ignorance.
    Under successive Governments food has been rendered unfit for human consumption and used for animal feed in this country. The animals produced with that food are then used for human consumption. There is no question of destroying. That is a gross distortion of the facts.
    Mr. Shore: Surely the point is that it is not animals but human beings in Asia and parts of India and Bangladesh who are now short of food.
    Mr. Godber: I agreed with the hon. Gentleman about that, but I took up the use of the phrase about destroying food. It is important to use words that mean what they say. In this regard it is not destruction but diverting to animal feed. Cereals, and wheat in particular, have been used for animal feed for many years. It does not matter which Government are in power, animals still eat wheat in this country.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that he has been saying from time to time that the British consumer would be protected, that we would not have ill-effects from the common agricultural policy, and that in due course

    737
    Common Market farmers would be getting to grips with agricultural prices? None of those things has happened, yet he goes on putting out bromides one after another. When will the Government do something to ensure that the housewife is protected from the results of the common agricultural policy? How can he say that the price increases which the housewife has had to meet—in products such as meat, eggs, butter and cheese—are not the result of the common agricultural policy?
    Mr. Godber: None of the things which the hon. Lady attributes to me have I ever said.
    Mrs. Short: You have.
    Mr. Godber: What I have repeatedly said—if the hon. Lady will control herself—is that the increases in price which we have suffered during the last six months have not been related to joining the Community. I have also said that there will be rises in price resulting from joining the Community, but that they will be limited and spread over a long time. The price increases of the various commodities to which she referred are not the effect of Common Market entry. If the Government which the hon. Lady supported when they were in office had encourage a little more production in this country we would not have had the problem which has faced housewives over the last six months.
    Following is the information:—
    Stocks of food held under intervention arrangements in the EEC at the latest available date are as follows:

    Thousands long tons

    Durum Wheat

    Mid-April 1973

    5

    Common Wheat

    Mid-April 1973

    1,295

    Barley

    Mid-April 1973

    332

    Rye

    Mid-April 1973

    324

    Paddy Rice

    Mid-April 1973

    3

    Butter

    Mid-April 1973

    279*

    Skimmed Milk Powder

    Mid-April 1973

    55

    Sugar

    Early-May 1973

    136

    * Stocks will be reduced by the sale of 200,000 tons of butter to the Soviet Union.

    Food Prices
    Mr. Ewingasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage increase in food prices during stage 1 of the Government's anti-inflation policy.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): Between 14th November 1972 and 20th March 1973, the latest date for which information is available, the food index rose by 7·3 per cent., but the sub-group of the index measuring the movement of prices of food items mainly manufactured in the United Kingdom rose by only 1·4 per cent. during the same period.
    Mr. Ewing: In view of that answer, which indicates that food prices increased by nearly 8 per cent. during phase 1 of the Government's incomes policy, I congratulate the hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend on their outstanding courage in coming to the House today at all. In view of the campaign presently being waged by the Conservative Party to convince the housewife that the only reason she cannot pay the prices in the shops is that her husband does not give her a sufficient proportion of his wage increase, how much of his wage increase during phase 1 would he have had to give her to meet that 8 per cent. increase?
    Mrs. Fenner: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has not missed the fact that her husband's wage increase, up to the period of the freeze, measured 35·4 per cent., which left him a good deal of room in which to contribute to his wife's household expenditure.
    Mr. John Wells: What further steps is my hon. Friend's Department taking to improve the production of food at home? That is the finest way in which her Department can combat the inflationary spiral. If we can achieve greater home production of food, her Department will be tackling the problem root and branch.
    Mrs. Fenner: My right hon. Friend has already referred to the marked increase in beef production. There has also been an increase in other production. My hon. Friend will know that we have just been over the highest seasonal peak period of prices.
    Mr. Jay: If all these rises in food prices have nothing whatever to do with Government policy, why did the Minister make a speech to farmers at Kettering last weekend saying that the Government were engaged in raising food prices to EEC levels?
    Mrs. Fenner: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have always said that our commitment on joining the EEC would involve us in increases of an average of 2p per pound over the six-year transitional period—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) must learn to understand what proportion of food price increases is related to world market increases and what proportion is consequent on our joining the EEC.
    Mr. Evelyn King: In the context of increased food prices, does my hon. Friend agree that agricultural workers in my constituency in Dorset and elsewhere are still drawing a wage little more than half the wage drawn in urban centres? Does she know whether the policy of the Labour Party is that the wages of agricultural workers should be screwed down to the lowest level possible, or whether the Labour Party takes the more humane view that agricultural wages should find their own socially acceptable level and that civilised people will bear the consequences?
    Mrs. Fenner: I trust that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches will have noted that question. In a recent debate the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said when the Labour Government came to office agricultural wages were very low and when they left they were still low.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the annual percentage rate of increase in the food price index from November 1972 to the latest date for which figures are available.
    Mrs. Fenner: As short-term movements in the index are significantly affected by seasonal factors, it would be inappropriate to make this calculation.
    Mr. Hamilton: If it is inappropriate for the Minister to do it, let me do it. The increase was more than 12 per cent. in the six months from November to the end of April. That means an annual increase of 24 per cent. Which does the Minister think will come first, in old money terms, the one-bob egg or the three-bob loaf? Last week I paid over a bob for one banana.
    Mrs. Fenner: The hon. Gentleman would have found it extremely embarrassing if the seasonal factor increase during the last two winters when the Labour Government were in power had been extrapolated over the full year.
    Mr. McLaren: Will my hon. Friend confirm that since the Labour Government went out of office earnings and pensions have risen at a higher rate than has the cost of living, leaving people materially better off?
    Mrs. Fenner: Yes, there can be absolutely no doubt that there has been an increase in the real standard of living of the people of this country.
    Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Lady accept that that is not true of the period of the freeze? There has been a dramatic fall in the standard of living since the beginning of the freeze in November. Does she agree that she is, regretfully, beginning to join in the conspiracy of Ministers to conceal the real facts? Are we not running at an annual rate of increase of between 24 per cent. and 25 per cent.? Does she also agree that that is not due to seasonal factors, because during the freeze prices have been increasing at nine times the rate at which they increased during the same six months last year? Will the Government resign if they cannot do something about it?
    Mrs. Fenner: Those are not correct figures. As I explained to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), the seasonal increases which occurred during the last two winters in which the Labour Government were in power, if extrapolated over 12 months, would have shown a ridiculous increase in prices.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: Is my hon. Friend aware that since 1970 spending on food has risen by 16·5 per cent., on alcohol by 27 per cent., on gambling by 28 per cent., on the purchase of electrical goods —[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Howell: —on the purchase of electrical goods—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must be allowed to ask his question— comparatively briefly, I hope.
    Mr. Howell: —on the purchase of electrical goods by 44 per cent. and on the purchase of cars and motor cycles by 81 per cent.?
    Mrs. Fenner: I know that all those figures are absolutely accurate. We should remember that expenditure on food represents less than one-quarter of an average family's income, although I am well aware that it represents a high proportion of the average housewife's income, which is a different thing.

    SCOTLAND (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
    Mr. Douglasasked the Prime Minister if he will visit at least one of the seven crofting counties during his official visit to Scotland.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I visited Ross and Cromarty and Inverness last September, but I have no plans to make further visits to the crofting counties at present.
    Mr. Douglas: Are we correct in understanding that during his visit to Scotland the Prime Minister is likely to make a speech about devolution? Instead of making speeches, will he take action on decentralisation and set up a petroleum supply industry board in Scotland? In view of the complacency expressed in the Scottish Economic Bulletin, will the Prime Minister take steps to ensure that the planning mechanism in Scotland is sufficiently stringent to secure that land, particularly in the crofting counties, is used for its proper purposes and not exploited for private gain on oil developments?
    The Prime Minister: There is absolutely no complacency in the document to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It is an admirable production, which gives the most up-to-date information about the rapid development of oil and associated products in Scotland. I say, again, that that is something of which hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies can indeed be proud.
    Obviously, with a rapid development such as this a great deal more land will be used for this purpose. The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind. Does he or does he not want rapid develop-
    742
    ment, in Scotland, of oil resources? If he does, it is right that it should be carried through.
    Mr. Grimond: Why does not the Prime Minister bring that splendid new yacht of his to Shetland? He would be able to sail in waters that sort out the men from the boys, hear our problems, and visit the oil rigs by sea.
    The Prime Minister: I am always prepared to do what the right hon. Gentleman asks. I have had many invitations to sail in Scotland but it has never been possible for me to afford the time to do so. I have visited rigs. It is easier to do so by helicopter.
    Mr. Maclennan: Why does the Prime Minister—unlike his predecessor—not visit and, apparently, have no intention of visiting Caithness and Sutherland? He would be given an extremely warm welcome and would be able to see the potential for industrial and other development in that most progressive part of the crofting counties. If he came by way of the A9 he would be able to understand some of our communications difficulties and make representations to his right hon. Friend about the importance of bridging the Dornoch Firth.
    The Prime Minister: On two occasions when I was Leader of the Opposition, before I became Prime Minister, I visited Caithness and Sutherland. I am well acquainted with the A9 and its problems. That is one reason why I have always supported the improvement of road communications in Scotland.

    GREATER LONDON COUNCIL
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Prime Minister what request for an official meeting he has received from the leader of the Greater London Council.
    The Prime Minister: None, Sir.
    Mr. Cox: Is the Prime Minister aware that the newly-elected Labour GLC inherited far more than traffic jams? It also inherited the land and housing scandals that abound throughout London. Decent, honest, hard-working people are being hounded out of their homes by the activities of spiv property developers, who have been aided and abetted by this

    743
    Government's deplorable housing policies. What financial help will the Prime Minister offer to the GLC or the London boroughs to enable them to put compulsory purchase orders on the 100,000 empty properties in London so that they can be made available for Londoners to live in? Will he help or hinder London in this object?
    The Prime Minister: I thoroughly reject the hon. Gentleman's accusations.
    On the second part of his question, if the leader of the GLC wishes to have discussions with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, no doubt he will consider it.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be wholly inappropriate for the Labour-controlled GLC to push forward with its absurd idea for free or artificially very cheap public transport in London, the cost of which the ratepayers would have to bear rather than the many millions of visitors to London?
    The Prime Minister: This is a matter for the GLC, as transport authority, to decide. I should think that everybody realises that there is no such thing as free transport.
    Mr. William Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman has got it.
    The Prime Minister: Somebody has to pay for it. In this case the GLC's ratepayers would pay for it.
    When I use the car for my private purposes I pay for it.
    Mr. Molloy: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that the continued exodus of industry from London is having a serious effect in terms of the increased unemployment of trained men who have served apprenticeships and are having to do work which they find humiliating, and a serious social effect throughout London as a whole? Only this week another large firm in my constituency closed. Will the right hon. Gentleman urge the two Ministers responsible to treat London with special consideration because of the movement of industrial organisations?
    The Prime Minister: I know that change of this kind produces particular
    744
    problems for parts of London where the occurrences take place. After all, I am a London Member of Parliament. But I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's generalisation at the beginning of his question. The plain fact is that unemployment in London has fallen considerably. Indeed, some firms are now finding difficulty in getting skilled and specialised manpower.
    Later—
    Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister, in answer to a supplementary question on Question No. Q3, said that he paid for his transport. I wonder whether, in the interests of accuracy, the Prime Minister could be invited to correct that answer.
    Mr. Speaker: The content of an answer is not a matter for the Chair.
    The Prime Minister: Further to that point of order. Since I have been challenged, perhaps I may say that what I said quite clearly—it will be in the memory of the House—is that when I use it for private purposes I pay for it.

    ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
    Mr. Wyn Robertsasked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the Primrose League on 11th April on future environmental planning represents Government policy.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Roberts: In that speech the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry referred to Disraeli's Artisans and Labourers Dwellings Act, which was the first attempt by Disraeli to eliminate slums in this country. Does my right hon. Friend realise that when he, as Prime Minister, comes to mark the centenary of Disraeli's death in 1981, there will be hardly any slums left in this country, because of the Housing Finance Act, which is so much maligned by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. That is the objective of the Government's policy, and it is the positive side of the Housing Finance Act.
    Mr. Spearing: Concerning environmental planning, does the right hon. Gentleman recall that he could not give me an undertaking that any major Bill would be accompanied by a White Paper? Is he aware that Members of the Committee on the Maplin Development Bill are in great difficulties because they cannot talk about the Government's intentions for planning in south-east Essex? Will he now ensure that some sort of publication on those lines is made available to the House and the general public?
    The Prime Minister: I am always prepared to consider this matter, but I could not give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that this would happen in every case. There is no point in doing it where the information has already been made available.

    AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER (TALKS)
    Miss Joan Hallasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement concerning his recent official talks with the Prime Minister of Australia.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) on 1st May.
    Miss Hall: Has my right hon. Friend discussed with Mr. Whitlam the five-Power defence agreement on the Far East, particularly with regard to Singapore and Malaysia? Do the Australians intend to stay there or pull out?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that the Australian Minister of Defence will be visiting the countries concerned with the five-Power defence agreement in the comparatively near future and that he will have discussions with his opposite numbers on this matter.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: We know that the right hon. Gentleman usually fends off
    746
    questions with reference to the test ban agreement, but will he tell us whether, following discussions with the Australian Prime Minister, he approves of or deplores the French test?
    The Prime Minister: I take exactly the same view as the right hon. Gentleman did when he was Prime Minister.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman reject or support the test?
    The Prime Minister: I repeat my reply.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Australia and New Zealand having come to our aid—and to the aid of other countries which are now in the Common Market—during our time of trouble a decade ago, we ought to put the greatest possible pressure on the French Government to stop them holding further nuclear tests in the Pacific?
    The Prime Minister: The French Government are and have long been well aware of our views. We told the Australian Prime Minister that we would convey to the French Government the resolution passed by the South Pacific Forum at which he had been present and at which the British dependencies were represented, which he specifically asked us to do.
    Mr. Driberg: In addition to conveying that resolution, will the right hon. Gentleman give his positive support to it not only in view of Australian and New Zealand views, but in view of the number of British subjects in that area who may be affected harmfully?
    The Prime Minister: We have always monitored these tests, and we have not found that British subjects have suffered.

    P70 INVALID VEHICLE
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Prime Minister what was the outcome of his meeting on 16th April 1973 with the deputation led by Mr. Graham Hill on the inadequacy of the new three-wheel invalid carriage, the P70; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: The main purpose of the deputation was to express its appreciation for the improvements made last year in the invalid vehicle service following the Government's review.
    Dr. Mabon: Nevertheless, is it not the case that even Mr. Graham Hill, with his admitted political tendencies to drive on the right, has to be respected for his view that this invalid carriage is not easy to drive? Given the kind of occupants, by definition, of these carriages, is it not high time that we adopted a four-wheeled carriage for these persons not only to give them the ability to drive as competently as the majority of drivers in this country but so that they may know they are less open to risk of injury should they be involved in a collision?
    The Prime Minister: Part of the appreciation expressed was that we had made it possible for many of the disabled to have four-wheeled cars instead of the tri-car. The model P70 is an improvement on its predecessor, but further modifications and adaptations are now being made to it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Baroness Sharp is considering the whole question of the mobility of the disabled.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Does the Prime Minister recognise that most of us appreciate that there have been some improvements in the three-wheeled vehicle? However, may I ask him to change Government policy regarding the three-wheeled vehicle, which has not been made available to people who are housebound because they are not in employment? Does he realise that these people cannot get work because the vehicle is not made available for them to look for work? Will he try to change Government policy on this matter?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that this is a major problem and that, because of the numbers of disabled involved, the cost is very large. On the two occasions when deputations have been to see me at No. 10, they have said that they wished to establish an order of priorities to help the disabled in accordance with the funds which become available. We have endeavoured to follow that order of priorities. No doubt this is a question on which we shall receive guidance from Baroness Sharp's inquiry.

PRE-SCHOOL CHILDREN (CARE AND EDUCATION)
Mrs. Renée ShortQ9. Mrs. Renée Short asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Social Services in respect of the care and education of the preschool child.
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
Mrs. Short: Does the Prime Minister recall that the Social Science Research Council has just allocated £11,000 to make an investigation into illegal child minding? Is he aware that illegal child minding arises because there is not enough good nursery and day nursery provision? In order to improve this provision, will he see that the care of the pre-school child is united under the Department of Education and Science, so that only one Minister is responsible, and ensure that enough money is provided for the rapid expansion of these facilities, which are so urgently needed?
The Prime Minister: As the hon. Lady says, the Government are supporting this piece of research, which we regard as important. The Departments were consulted before it was embarked on. We must await the outcome of the research. I am afraid that I cannot give an undertaking at this precise moment about the amalgamation of departmental functions for which she has asked. On the other hand, she will recognise that the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Government have embarked on a programme of provision of nursery schooling—although, I agree, not pre-nursery schooling. This shows the importance that we attach to the matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will 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 14TH MAY—Consideration in committee of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill.

749
Motions on the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Regulations and on the Electoral Law (Northern Ireland) Order.
TUESDAY 15TH MAY—Supply (20th allotted day). Debate until seven o'clock on Rolls-Royce, and afterwards on School Building Costs. Both topics will arise on Opposition motions.
Second Reading of the Bahamas Independence Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Land Compensation Bill.
WEDNESDAY 16TH MAY AND THURSDAY 17TH MAY—Remaining stages of the Fair Trading Bill.
FRIDAY 18TH MAY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 21ST MAY—Private Members' motions until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, progress on the remaining stages of the Employment and Training Bill.
The House will wish to know, Mr. Speaker, that, subject to progress of business, it is intended to propose that the House should rise for the Whitsun Adjournment on Friday 25th May until Monday 11th June.
Mr. Wilson: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider how soon he can provide in Government time a debate on foreign affairs? It is now many months since the House debated that subject. There have been urgent developments during this period, including that on which the Prime Minister has been questioned today, and many others, too. Secondly, may we expect next week a statement on an entirely non-controversial matter, the Government's appreciation of the problem of famine in India and what the Government are doing? Could the House be put as fully in the picture as possible?
Thirdly, would the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend—whichever one is appropriate—to make a statement next week about the announcement by the Price Commission that it will not publicise or give any information to the public about its decisions in respect of prices except in major cases? Does he realise that that will cause the most tremendous chaos in the retail trade, and
750
that, while it is bad enough that the House should have to put up with an administrative tribunal not answerable to the House, it is completely intolerable that neither the public nor the House should be given details of its decisions?
Mr. Prior: I recognise that it is some while since we had a debate on foreign affairs and I know that the House would wish to debate them. I cannot promise an early debate because of the pressure of business ahead of us, but as soon as we can find a convenient time, we will, of course, consider it.
We recognise that the famine in India is a serious matter. There is also a very serious famine in West Africa, which is possibly of greater consequence even than the famine in India. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has answered a Written Question today about additional resources being made available to the Indian Government, I think for the boring of deep wells. I will see whether my right hon. Friend has any more information that he can give to the House.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Price Commission and its attitude to announcements. These matters were in order to be raised in the debate earlier in the week, but I will consult my right hon. Friend to see whether he has anything further to add.
Mr. Wilson: It might have been in order in that debate, but this announcement has been made since the debate. In those circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman go into this further? I think that he has undertaken to do so. The House is entitled to full particulars of the activities of the Price Commission, even if the House has no control over those activities.
I am grateful to him for what he said about the famine in India. He probably feels, after consideration, that a Written Answer is not enough in this situation. It is not only a question of the wells. He will recognise that there are problems not only of Government-to-Government supplies but also of the help which should be given at this time to voluntary organisations in Britain—as the previous Government did, when we called in all the voluntary organisations to discuss help to Biafra.
Mr. Prior: I will certainly ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether he should make a statement. We are already giving enormous aid to India. I know that it is greatly in the interests of the House that the fullest information should be given about that aid and about whether we can co-ordinate more closely the efforts of the voluntary organisations. Of course I will have that looked at and will talk to my right hon. Friend. I noted what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Price Commission and I will report it to my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Powell: Will my right hon. Friend recognise the urgency of a debate on the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and others on the subject of the proceedings of the Select Committee on Public Expenditure?
[That the Expenditure Committee have no authority from his House to concern themselves with matters not affecting the expenditure of moneys raised on the authority of Parliament or to purport to inquire into the actions of persons or corporations outside the jurisdiction, other than persons engaged in the service of the Crown.]
Mr. Prior: I have seen the motion, but I could not promise time in the immediate future for a debate.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: In view of the fact that the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs has made no statement about whether he intends to bring in his own Bill on pyramid selling or to adopt my Bill, and since people are being fleeced daily by this abominable procedure, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for his right hon. and learned Friend to make a statement to the House early next week as to exactly what the Government propose?
Mr. Prior: I will certainly convey that to my right hon. and learned Friend. There will be two days' debate on the Fair Trading Bill next week, which will provide ample opportunity for my right hon. and learned Friend to give the House an indication of what can be done to deal with what the whole House accepts is a practice on which action needs to be taken.
Mr. Fell: When my right hon. Friend arranged the Second Reading of the Bahamas Independence Bill, was he aware that it had become a highly controversial measure, in view of the fact that part of the population of the Bahamas wish to remain subjects of Her Majesty the Queen? In view of this, does my right hon. Friend not think that he should give a more prominent place to this business so that hon. Members may avail themselves of an opportunity of giving their views on it?
Mr. Prior: I recognise that there is a problem with regard to one island of the Bahamas group and that there are views on this subject, certainly among some of my hon. Friends. I believe that it is the island of Abaco. I think that there will be time to discuss this—admittedly at a rather difficult time of night, but I can at the moment find no other time. We are up against a deadline to get the Bill through.
Mr. Michael Stewart: Will it be possible to find time for a short debate on the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration?
Mr. Prior: Much as I should like to find time for that subject, it cannot be in the near future. However, if the House wishes to consider taking that as one of the debates on the Select Committee days which are available, we can consider it.
Mr. Tebbit: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Motion No. 331 in the names of several hon. Members opposite, referring to the abolition of the death penalty in Her Majesty's Forces? Could we have time for a debate on that matter, so that we can see how far the Government intend to go on the road along which they have set out?
[That this House, in the light of recent decisions, now takes the view that the death penalty for Her Majesty's forces under the Armed Forces Act 1971 for misconduct in action, assisting the enemy, obstructing operations, &c, should be amended.]
Mr. Prior: Subject to your views, Mr. Speaker, issues of this kind will, I think, be in order in today's debate. There are, from time to time, regular opportunities for referring to matters affecting the Forces—the Forces Acts, continuation orders and defence debates.
Mr. John Mendelson: With reference to the urgency of a foreign affairs debate, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on Tuesday the Prime Minister said in reply to a question that, although he was not prepared to publish the agenda for the talks with President Pompidou, because that was not customary, he would discuss, among other things, recent developments in the EEC. Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman give a firm assurance that in the week after we return there will be a foreign affairs debate in which the Prime Minister will take part, so that his discussions with President Pompidou may be reviewed by the House at the earliest opportunity?
Mr. Prior: I regret to tell the hon. Gentleman that I cannot give that assurance. In the first week or two after Whitsun we shall have a great deal of work to get through. We know that we must have a further debate on foreign affairs, but I should not like to give any indication now of when it will be.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Is my right hon. Friend aware that HANSARD for Tuesday 1st May has still not been published? We in the House are so used to HANSARD coming out regularly, reliably and accurately that this omission is like a missing tooth in a film star's smile. Even more to the point, is my right hon. Friend aware that it is a great inconvenience to my constituents, because it contains a statement by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment about the route of the M3 near Winchester, which is a very important issue for them?
Mr. Prior: I note what my hon. and gallant Friend said. I shall look into the matter and see why there has been further delay in publishing that edition of HANSARD. But I am certain that my hon. and gallant Friend has found other ways of telling his constituents his views on the Winchester by-pass.
Mrs. Shirley Williams: We were very grateful for the Prime Minister's promise that time would be found to debate the Franks Report, but will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether time can be found to debate the report of the Younger Committee, which reported last July and made an important recommendation that bugging should be banned in this coun-
754
try? In the light of Watergate, such things are not as remote as some might wish to believe. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider a debate on the report, or at least consider taking it with the Franks Report, before the Session ends?
Mr. Prior: I am grateful for what the hon. Lady said. I should like to consider the suggestion of a joint debate on Younger and Franks. I can certainly give the hon. Lady the undertaking that we intend to have a debate before the Session ends. It is just a question of when we can fit it in. I give the hon. Lady an absolute undertaking that we shall have that debate before the Summer Recess.
Mr. Crouch: Does my right hon. Friend intend that we should debate the Channel Tunnel before we rise for the Whitsun Recess? In view of the great interest generated in the problem, will he consider appointing a Select Committee after the debate to go into the subject in full?
Mr. Prior: There can be no debate about it before the Whitsun Recess. But in the next few days and weeks a good many reports are coming out which I hope will be of great value to hon. Members in helping them to make up their minds, and then we shall have to consider holding a debate in the period between Whitsun and the Summer Recess. Over 300 hon. Members are engaged in Select Committees of one sort or another. The chances of having additional Select Committees are very remote.
Mr. Arthur Davidson: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that we have waited a long time, and pressed for a long time, for a debate on the Franks Committee Report, and that the Prime Minister indicated that there would be an early debate, before the Summer Recess? With great respect to the Leader of the House, that does not seem to me to suggest a sense of urgency on his part. Can he give an assurance that he will not necessarily wait for a debate on Younger, but that he agrees that Franks itself merits a full day's debate? Will he have a debate much earlier than the Summer Recess?
Mr. Prior: It cannot be all that much earlier than the Summer Recess. There

755
will be only seven, eight or nine weeks at the most—[Interruption.] I said that on purpose—between the Whitsun Recess and the Summer Recess, and there is a great deal of routine work that the House has to go through. I am rather attracted to the idea of a joint debate, but I shall take account of what the hon. Gentleman said. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he knew that I hoped to arrange for a debate in the next few weeks, and of course I stick to that.
Mr. Kilfedder: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the main constitutional Bill on Northern Ireland will be published, and whether we shall have an opportunity to debate the Second Reading before the Whitsun Recess? Will he persuade the Minister of Agriculture to suspend the denaturing of wheat and other cereals until we have an opportunity to discuss the tragic famine in various parts of the world?
Mr. Prior: I must be careful not to to enter into the merits of what the hon. Gentleman said. The denaturing of wheat has nothing to do with the availability of supplies for famine relief.
I cannot give an exact day for the debate on the constitutional Bill, which has not yet been published, but I realise that the House would like to have a Second Reading before Whitsun if possible.
Mr. Dalyell: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any chance to reflect on the problem that was put to him this morning following the change of power in Shetland? Does he realise that the Government on 30th April adopted the strategy of relying on Private Bills to carry out a policy for oil land development on which both sides of the House were agreed? If the Private Bill should be withdrawn—it may be a hypothetical situation, but it is quite likely—what do the Government propose to do about it? Would they then find time to introduce legislation of their own, for what seemed right to us on 30th April cannot exactly be wrong by 10th May?
Mr. Prior: The Bill now goes to the Committee on Opposed Private Bills. I am not prepared to speculate on what the promoters of the Bill may do. On Second Reading the Government gave a
756
general welcome to the Bill, but said that certain matters would require adjustment in Committee. In particular, the Government's position on the compulsory purchase power was reserved. I have not had time fully to study the courteous letter the hon. Gentleman sent me. I shall do so, and in view of what he said this afternoon I will certainly contact him later in the week.
Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend yet in a position to say when we shall have the definitive debate on the new parliamentary building?
Mr. Prior: I think that the latest report from the Select Committee on Services will be available to the House in the next few days, and that then the House will have all the information available to it to make up its mind on this important matter. It will not be possible, as things stand, to have a debate before Whitsun.
Mr. Shore: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not only a debate on the Channel Tunnel for which time will have to be found, but that only last week a very important report was presented, the document on the future European regional policy, and that we understand that the timetable for consideration is for that report to be adopted, in so far as it is adopted, by the Council of Ministers in June? Will the Leader of the House give a categorical assurance that there will be no question of the adoption of such a report without prior and full discussion in the House?
Mr. Prior: It is certainly a matter that the House will wish to debate. I am not certain about the time scale that the right hon. Gentleman stated, but I shall look into the matter and, if necessary, say something more definite about it next week. We have heard before that things must be decided by June, only to find that they slip back several months in a very short time. But we shall examine the matter.
Mr. Driberg: With respect, would the right hon. Gentleman say why he says that the denaturing of wheat has nothing to do with the relief of human hunger anywhere?
Mr. Prior: I must apologise to the House for allowing myself to be drawn

757
on that point in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) but the hon. Gentleman can find these problems well discussed in the Adjournment debate which took place before the Easter Recess. If the hon. Gentleman looks at that report, he will see the full reason why the two things are in no way comparable.
Mr. McBride: May I add my representations to those made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) in relation to the EEC booklet? Is the Leader of the House aware that only today I have been informed that arrangements can be made for me to have a roneoed copy? Surely it is maladministration by the Government in not making arrangements for a sufficiency of printed copies in order that we can discuss this important business.
Mr. Prior: I could not accept that. Copies of this Commission document are available in the Library. The document does not contain firm proposals from the Commission but is in the nature of a preliminary document for discussion. With the annexes, which have not yet been received, it will run to about 300 pages. This is no small or easy document for distribution. However, I will consider further whether other means need to be used to make it available to the House. But it is not, I must stress, a firm proposal from the Commission at this stage.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [19TH ALLOTTED DAY], considered.

  DEFENCE
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Goodhew.]
  3.51 p.m.
  The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Ian Gilmour): It is barely two months since the House last debated defence, and since then there have also been three separate debates on the Armed Services. The House will not be surprised, therefore, if I do not have much to announce this afternoon. My intention is to devote the first half of my speech to a general review of the background to our defence policy, and more particularly to the outlook for Europe. The second part will deal with a number of points raised in the earlier debates and with one or two more recent matters.
  On the wider front perhaps the most significant event in recent weeks was Dr. Kissinger's speech on 23rd April when he elaborated the philosophy that lies behind President Nixon's avowed determination to make 1973 the Year of Europe.
  The House will agree that Europe should respond positively to the theme of Dr. Kissinger's speech. There is a great temptation to wait on events and to adopt an ostrich-like attitude. But this cannot be right. On the other hand, it would be foolish and dangerous to be swept along at a great pace without regard to the proper interests of security. In matters so important to our national well-being we must proceed cautiously and deliberately. We must not let euphoria over the prospects of détente cloud our judgment or blind us to the underlying realities. The military might of the Warsaw Pact continues steadily to increase, the tentacles of the Russian Navy reach out further round the globe. Whatever words of peace and good will come out from the Kremlin we must not forget that an atmosphere of détente can

  759
  evaporate overnight and leave us once again faced with the stark facts of military capabilities. Obviously, I would not go to the absurd extreme of saying we should disregard entirely the declared intentions of other countries. But I do counsel caution.
  I know that remarks like these lead this country to be characterised in Communist propaganda as the last of the cold-warriors. It is also claimed that we are following a deliberate policy of sabotaging the prospects for a European Security Conference and for talks on mutual and balanced force reductions.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. Anyone who lived through the last war or experienced the chilling climate of the early 1950's would wish to see a further relaxation of tensions in Europe. The Government would also like to see force levels reduced in Europe, but only provided that it could be done without detriment to our security. Therein lies the difficulty. We must expect many months, perhaps years, of patient negotiation. We must expect to meet setbacks and accept that false success would be worse than failure. It would be quite fatal to anticipate the outcome of any talks on MBFR by reducing force levels unilaterally now. There was a robust recognition of this crucial point in President Nixon's recent foreign policy statement and in a speech by his Secretary of State, Mr. Rogers, when talking of United States force levels in Europe.
  I can well understand the pressures that exist in the United States for a substantial withdrawal of troops from Europe, and I am not so sanguine as to take for granted that they will always be resisted. MBFR talks may yield the fruit of a reduction in force levels with no diminution in security. Let us hope so, but reductions should not anticipate an agreement.
  In the meantime I believe that the European members of NATO must pay regard to legitimate American demands that Europe takes a fair share of the defence burden. We should not, however, lose sight of the fact that the overwhelming proportion of NATO's conventional forces are contributed by the European members. As President Nixon has pointed out, although the United States contri-
  760
  butes about a quarter of NATO's forces in the Central Region, the European proportion over the entire European NATO area is far higher, amounting to some 90 per cent. in the case of land forces, 80 per cent. of air forces and 75 per cent. of naval forces.
  Moreover, we should also recognise, as I have been glad to see President Nixon recognises, that American forces are not in Europe to meet Europe's needs alone but also in pursuance of America's own strategic and national security interests.
  I believe that our own record of contribution to NATO stands up very well. Indeed it will be within the recollection of the House that we have come under some criticism for this reason. Yet I do not believe that there is any serious dispute over a wide spread of opinion in the House that NATO remains the fundamental cornerstone of our security.
  The Alliance is more than just the aggregate of forces assigned to it. It embodies political will in a unique way.
  It is remarkable that 15 sovereign States should have remained joined together in a commitment to common defence through all the vicissitudes of the last two decades. NATO has been the major factor in keeping the peace in Europe. It is now perhaps threatened by its very success. We must all be very clear that no outcome of the proposed talks on European Security and on MBFR would be worth while if the process of negotiation led to deep divisions between allies. The maintenance of confidence is critical to NATO's well-being. The present happy situation of mutual trust did not arise by accident but by hard work, and we need to continue to work hard in the cause of confidence. This means full and meaningful consultation and frank speaking between allies.
  The House will have noticed that Dr. Kissinger's speech included a call for NATO to work out a doctrine for the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Nevertheless much work has, of course, already been done in this area by the Nuclear Planning Group in which the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) played such a notable part. As the House will know, the Nuclear Planning Group has drawn up provisional political guidelines for the initial tactical use of nuclear weapons and has since been engaged on a number of

  761
  further studies in this area. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State will be attending the 14th meeting of the Nuclear Planning Group in Ankara next week when Defence Ministers will continue their discussions of this general subject of the rôle of tactical nuclear weapons.
  Some hon. Members may seek to link Dr. Kissinger's remarks on tactical nuclear weapons with the lead story in The Times on Monday which said that the Americans intend to deploy in Europe a new generation of what are inelegantly called "mini-nukes".
  The United States has not in fact put such a proposal to the Alliance. I would expect that if it did so there would be full consultation through the Nuclear Planning Group of NATO which plays a key part in maintaining confidence within the Alliance. Ideas of smaller, cleaner weapons have been mooted in the Press and elsewhere for some considerable time. They raise many fascinating intellectual questions such as when is a nuclear weapon not a nuclear weapon? What system of political control should govern their use? What happens to the nuclear threshold? And so on.
  In debating these questions, however, we must never forget that behind the intellectual fascination lie the security and well-being of millions of people.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that these questions are not merely fascinating but deadly and that any suggestion of the sort put forward in The Tunes—if there is any basis for it—should cause him to go further than talk about consultation and say that the Government will look askance at any such proposal and without any belief that it is likely to lead to something which could be accepted by anyone?
  Mr. Gilmour: It is much better to look at proposals and comment on them after they have been made.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: In view of the enormous importance of the whole subject of "mini-nukes", would it be reasonable to ask the Government for the undertaking that before there is any fatal conflict or any serious decision there should be a debate in the House in which we are given as much information as we ever have been given, if not
  762
  more? Does he take on board the fact that many of us who have been interested in defence for some years think that this alters many of the concepts to which we have been used?
  Mr. Gilmour: The business of the House is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. There is no question of any immediate decision on this issue. This is a long-term matter. There is no plan for the whole strategy to be changed overnight.
  Mr. David Walder: I was present at the conference from which the story in The Times emanated. Will my hon. Friend accept my assurance that there was no such proposal put forward by the American Government? This was merely a matter that was discussed among many others.
  Mr. Gilmour: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information.
  Continuing on the lines of the comments of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), we must remember that deterence is not just a nicely calculated question of more or less, but a reflection of the general will of the people to defend life and liberty. As Dr. Kissinger has said, when talking of trade negotiations, we must always remember that we must not just rely on technical judgments. This is a matter of political judgment being brought to bear at the highest level.
  Returning to my main theme, I am much encouraged, as we enter the so-called era of negotiation, by the small but undoubted progress towards a European defence identity exemplified by the steady gain in the status and authority of the Eurogroup.
  One of the more important and lasting of the Eurogroup's achievements will be the commitment that Defence Ministers have made that before embarking on any major equipment project the possibilities of a collaborative venture will first be fully explored. The House will know of the efforts being made by ourselves and the Germans to agree on a common future main battle tank. This involves making a major effort to agree on the operational requirement, which in turn means harmonising tactical doctrine. We shall, after all, fight the same war should deterrence fail. Here again we shall need much political will to succeed.
  Mr. Dalyell: If we are talking about political will and a European defence identity would it not be the right moment to ask whether these are the concepts which are in the mind of the Ministry of Defence? Ought we not, if these phrases are meaningful and there is to be a European defence identity, to have some say on French nuclear testing? I ask this in all seriousness. If we have no influence here it is rather hypocritical to use phrases such as "European defence identity".
  Mr. Gilmour: That is a subject to which hon. Members will probably return in their own speeches rather than in the context of mine. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have answered a number of questions on this point. My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary answered questions yesterday, possibly from the hon. Gentleman, on this. I must give him the answer which I am sure he expects, that I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend has said.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Then why are you speaking?
  Mr. Gilmour: I am not speaking about French nuclear tests. I was asked a question.
  Mr. Mendelson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gilmour: No, I will not.
  Mr. Mendelson: Why not?
  Mr. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman has already made one irrelevant interruption from a seated position and that is enough
  Mr. Mendelson: Do not be arrogant.
  Mr. Gilmour: I will try to emulate the hon. Gentleman's modesty.
  Mr. Mendelson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gilmour: Very well.
  Mr. Mendelson: What the Foreign Secretary said is within the recollection of the House. Many of us listened to him. If this is to be a defence debate, and the Secretary of State is unfortunately in another place—a state of affairs that ought to be brought to an end as quickly as possible—is there not an obligation on the Minister to give an answer to a perfectly serious question?
  Mr. Gilmour: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman eventually because I wanted to encourage him to make his interruption standing up rather than sniping at me from a seated position. I do not think that what he said has added to the debate. It has nothing to do with whether the Defence Secretary is in the House of Lords. The Defence Secretary, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers have made our attitude abundantly plain. We have made our attitude plain in the United Nations and to the French Government. There is nothing to be added at the moment. If the hon. Gentleman goes on asking the same question he is bound to get the same answer.
  A viable British defence industry is, in the Government's view, an indispensable element of national security, quite apart from the major contribution it makes to our export drive. I take a close personal interest in defence sales as does my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State. I am very pleased to announce that on 7th May a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia under which British industry will be responsible for maintenance facilities for certain aircraft of the Royal Saudi Air Force and for the associated training.
  The work in Saudi Arabia will be undertaken by the British Aircraft Corporation under a contract from the British Government. It is envisaged that the Royal Saudi Air Force will progressively take over the work from the British Aircraft Corporation as trained personnel become available in sufficient numbers. The arrangement is a follow-up to an earlier one under which a number of British companies provided equipment and established facilities in Saudi Arabia. This is a valuable order for British industry, and also offers the United Kingdom an opportunity to provide assistance to a friendly Government, which has shown itself to be an influence for stability in the Middle East. My right hon. and noble Friend visited Saudi Arabia last month and was most cordially received by King Feisal and other members of the Government. While he was there, he signed a letter of Intent with the Saudi Defence Minister which Daved the

  765
  way for the Memorandum of Understanding.
  I turn now to matters nearer home. Last week I announced the results of the second stage in our review of the Armed Forces' occupational pensions scheme. The announcement was generally welcomed for the substantial benefits it will bring to Service men and their dependants from 1st April this year. A number of examples were quoted in the Press, and there was a particular welcome for the better provision in cases of injury or death attributable to service. Invaliding pensions are now awarded after five years' service; and when young men are killed after short service, the widows and children will get substantial lump sum payments, and their pensions will be made up to fixed minimum levels if necessary.
  We are also introducing payments into the estate of young single men who die in service. It is also worth pointing out that we are introducing a system of transitional payments before the pension starts. For instance, when a man dies in service his widow will continue to receive his pay for three months before she goes on to the widow's pension, and a pensioner's widow will likewise continue to receive his pension for three months after his death.
  The combined effect of these improvements naturally varies from case to case, but is certainly substantial. Thus, if a corporal is killed attributably after four years' service, leaving a widow and two children, we shall be paying his widow a lump sum of £2,650 and she will receive Ministry of Defence and Department of Health and Social Security pensions totalling £39 a week.
  One feature of the new scheme is that widows' pensions will, for service after 1st April this year, be at one-half the rate of the husband's pension instead of one-third; and we are now working out arrangements for some scheme of "buying in" by which Service men will have a chance to obtain the one-half rate in respect of all their service before 31st March 1973. This was mis-reported in one or two cases as a scheme for retrospective improvement for existing pensioners, though my announcement made it quite clear that the new scheme applies
  766
  to Service men still giving service on or after 31st March.
  We realised that there would be disappointment that the new arrangements are not retrospective, but the plain fact of the matter is that if improvements in an occupational scheme had to be extended to those who have already retired, and their dependants, it would not be practicable for any Government to contemplate significant improvements of the sort I announced last week. For example, there are still half-a-million war pensioners from the two world wars, which gives an indication of the size of the bill that might be involved. I am sorry if any existing pensioners are resentful at the size of the improvements now being made, but I hope that these improvements will be taken by others as proof that in pensions, as in other conditions of service, we believe that provision for Service men must be kept fairly in line with good and up-to-date standards in the country as a whole.
  Mr. John Morris: Before the Minister leaves that matter, could he justify to the House why, as regards those serving after 1st April this year, these pensions will benefit all Service men, whereas as regards the transitional arrangements back to, I believe, August 1969, they will apply only to those injured or killed in Northern Ireland? How much would be involved in extending the transitional arrangements to cover every soldier who was killed or suffered injury in that fairly short period, and his dependants? Would not that be fairer?
  Mr. Gilmour: There are a number of things which we would like to do but which it is not always possible to do. The explanation which I gave the right hon. Gentleman before is that we thought —and I believe the House and the country think—that Northern Ireland was a very special case. Therefore, we were able to achieve this ex gratia scheme which I believe has been very widely welcomed. Of course, from a defence point of view we should like to give very good pensions, as widely and as much as possible, but there are strict limits to what we can do. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point but we managed to establish that Northern Ireland was a special case.

  767
  The House will wish to know that my right hon. and noble Friend has now received the report of the Committee under Lord Nugent of Guildford on Defence Land Holdings. We are most grateful to Lord Nugent and his colleagues on the Committee for all their hard work over the last two years. Their report is a long and deailed document but my right hon. and noble Friend has decided that it should be published as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made. There will then be an opportunity for public comment and discussion so that all views expressed can be taken fully into account by the Government in considering the recommendations of the Report.
  Finally I turn to a topic which is obviously of the greatest possible concern to the House as well as to the Services— namely, Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Dalyell: Has not the hon. Gentleman something to say on the decision announced since our last defence debate, namely, the decision to go ahead, at a cost of £70 million per ship, with the through-deck cruiser? That is a very important decision. Has not the hon. Gentleman something to say on it?
  Mr. Gilmour: I have nothing more to say except, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that the figure is his, not mine. I can only say what I said in answer to a Question, that we have placed the order and it is going ahead. As I also said at the time, the Project Denfiition Study, on maritime V/STOL has been concluded and is now being evaluated. As I said before, we hope to reach a decision on that before the Summer Recess.
  In Northern Ireland the security forces are continuing to achieve a degree of success in their campaign of attrition against the terrorists. During the first four months of this year 560 people have been arrested and charged with security offences, and 191 have had Interim Custody Orders served on them under the Detention of Terrorist's Order. Those arrested have included many of the people who have played a prominent part in organising and conducting violence, both in the Provisional IRA and in extreme so-called loyalist groups—although a few of the most wanted men have so far managed to evade arrest.
  768
  But in some areas, such as the Ardoyne, all officers of the local IRA unit have been arrested in recent weeks and the average length of service of the Commanding Officer is about a fortnight. This erosion of the IRA's experience and strength is shown by the increasing youth of the terrorists arrested, and the unfortunate innocent civilian casualties caused by indiscriminate or incompetent IRA shootings and bombings.
  But the IRA has not been short of arms, and the Army has continued to undertake selective searches for arms in the last few months, with considerable success. Since the beginning of the year about 560 firearms, over 20,000 lbs. of explosives and over 50,000 rounds of ammunition have been recovered.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Are there any figures indicating what percentage of those arms were of European origin?
  Mr. Gilmour: I do not think so. I will inquire and perhaps write to the hon. Gentleman. Of course, he will realise that the country of origin of arms is not necessarily the country of supply so there is a slight ambiguity about any such figures
  Much improved intelligence has enabled the successes in recovering arms and ammunition that I mentioned a moment or two ago to be achieved with as little disturbance as can be managed to the civilian population. Mindful perhaps of their need to retain support in the civilian population, the IRA's tactics recently have been to concentrate on selective attacks against the security forces. These typically take the form of sniping and ambushes in urban areas and bombing and mining in the rural areas and have, regrettably, achieved some measure of success. The continuing toll of death and injuries to the security forces is a matter for the very deepest regret. The Provisional IRA have also orchestrated a sustained propaganda campaign against the Army.
  Because of their successes against the terrorists, the two parachute battalions currently serving in Northern Ireland have been singled out as the prime target of this campaign, with allegations of excessive force against the Catholic

  769
  population. But it is no new development for units which are hitting the terrorists hard, especially in areas where the terrorists have formerly been strongly entrenched, to be subjected to such attacks. Even within the past few days comparable allegations have been levelled at several other units.
  There could be no clearer testimonial to the effectiveness of the Army's recent operations, and I need hardly remind the House that the Army acts impartially against violence and terrorism from whatever quarter of the community it may come. There are signs that the current propaganda campaign may soon have spent itself.
  I know that the whole House will wish to express its admiration to the Army for the way that it has stood up to all the stresses and strains of the past four years and steadfastly continued to carry out its most difficult task with complete impartiality, very great courage and remarkable skill.
  I can think of no better note on which to end my speech.
  4.21 p.m.
  Mr. Fred Peart: I thank the Minister of State for his announcement on Saudi Arabia. He did not give the details of what the deal is worth. There have been reports of £25 million, but I should have thought that the figure would be much more than that. I read a statement about it in The Guardian. Is it possible to be told a broad figure? If that is not possible, I shall understand, as there may be special reasons. However, if the Under-Secretary can give the figures, it would help.
  I am glad that the Minister paid a tribute to the Army. As the Minister knows, only the other day I intervened when there was some criticism from one part of the House in relation to the conduct of our troops in Northern Ireland.
  I believe we should sustain our Army in Northern Ireland. The morale of our people has been remarkable. The Minister has rightly paid a tribute to our soldiers. I wish to support that tribute on behalf of the Opposition. We trust that one day peace will come to Northern Ireland and that we shall not need the Army's presence there. But that is not
  770
  yet, and until then we must sustain our Army and it must play out its impartial rôle of restoring law and order. I am sure that everyone in the House supports that view.
  We have recently had a major debate on defence policy. Indeed, the Minister indicated that we have had four debates, a general debate and three debates on specific subjects—the Army, the Navy and the Royal Air Force. The debate on 15th March was wide ranging. Today, hon. Members could follow that general pattern. However, I wish to deal with certain specific matters on which I shall be critical of the Government.
  First, I deal with nuclear tests over the Pacific. On 9th May the Australia and New Zealand Governments initiated proceedings against France at the International Court of Justice at The Hague. Both countries are asking the court to rule against France carrying out further nuclear tests in the atmosphere over the Pacific. We have been informed that Australia has asked the court for interim protection measures in the form of a ruling ordering France to discontinue tests while the case is being heard. New Zealand, which has applied for proceedings, will ask the court for interim protection measures within the next few days.
  The Australian Government's contention, expressed in the application, is that
  "the continuation of nuclear atmospheric tests in the South Pacific violates international law and the charter of the United Nations."
  The New Zealand application says that, having failed to resolve the dispute by diplomatic means, it is compelled to refer it to the court.
  We all know that New Zealand has been very assiduous in this matter. Only recently new Zealand's Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Hugh Watt, has visited France, and other parts of Europe, and has impressed upon France the protest of New Zealand. He has impressed upon the British Government that we must strongly protest against a decision to proceed. There is strong feeling about this issue in Australia and New Zealand. I am sure that Mr. Gough Whitlam, the new Prime Minister of Australia, raised this matter with our Prime Minister. Also, Mr. Norman Kirk, the new Labour Prime Minister of New Zealand, has

  771
  time and again warned the French Government.
  However, I believe that this is not a matter just for New Zealand and Australia. We have our responsibilities. Britain has a presence in the Pacific. After all, Pitcairn Island is the nearest land to the French testing area, and could be affected by fall-out. Moreover, we cannot ignore world and Commonwealth opinion. I am sure that when he met our Prime Minister Mr. Whitlam argued that Britain should support Australian and New Zealand efforts to dissuade France from further nuclear testing in the Pacific atmosphere. France should not be indifferent to the strong feelings of our Australian and New Zealand friends.
  In this House members of all parties have expressed their concern. We had questions to the Prime Minister today. The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), who is not a Socialist, stressed the importance of the Commonwealth attitude. We also have on record speeches from the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), who has mentioned specifically our responsibility in relation to territories in the Pacific. No one could call him a Left-wing Socialist or even a moderate Socialist.
  The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) raised this matter in Western European Union. On both sides of the House there are hon. Members who heard her intervention there, when she asked M. Debré, the then French Defence Minister, a question on this specific issue. The hon. Lady said:
  "Will the Minister have conversations with the leaders of Australia and New Zealand to explain his point of view, as he has done so helpfully today"—
  that was when he addressed the Assembly—
  "or revise the area in which the tests are to be carried out?"
  What response was there from the Minister? He said:
  "I do not think that the question falls within the competence of his Assembly."
  Our colleague's question was simply brushed aside and a measure of arrogance was revealed.
  What is the Government's position on this matter? The Government have
  772
  stated—the Minister has repeated it today—that we have conveyed our views to France, that France knows our views and that we shall convey to France the views of Australia and of the Commonwealth. But this is not good enough. There should have been a forthright statement from 10 Downing Street on this matter. Why have the Government's statements been so tepid? Why are we pussyfooting on this matter?
  There may be political reasons for this. Perhaps it is because we are now adopting a new European stance. I suspect that that is so. After all, we must appease France if we want concessions. We may want to modify the common agricultural policy, for example. France's rôle in this matter is important. It may well be that for these reasons we are playing down our attitude towards the French Government in relation to these nuclear tests. Perhaps we are seeking French support in the Community. Perhaps we are dreaming of the day when we shall have an Anglo-French nuclear deterrent.
  I return to a matter which I raised in the debate on the Defence White Paper. I refer to my criticism of paragraph 9 of chapter I of that White Paper, which declares the following:
  "Thus in parallel with the enlargement of the European Economic Community, a number of European countries will be developing and extending their practical co-operation in defence. That process should be facilitated by the opportunities that will arise in the Community for the removal of fiscal, legal and technical barriers to trade and to the free operation of enterprises throughout the Community."
  What does that paragraph mean? After all, M. Debré, the then French Minister, declared in December at Western European Union
  "We for our part consider that if defence is to be credible it must retain its national character."
  Although M. Debré is no longer the Minister of Defence, I am sure that his views are still those of the present French administration. I want to know what are the views of our Government. We need an answer today. During the Common Market debates, many of my hon. Friends raised this matter. Over and over again, when we discussed the terms of entry to the Community and the attitude of the Government, we asked

  773
  whether or not Her Majesty's Government made a deal with France privately and whether there is now a possibility of a leap forward towards the concept of an Anglo-French nuclear deterrent. I expressed concern on this matter. I should still like to know whether the Prime Minister discussed it with M. Pompidou. We have never been told the details of the conversations before the main negotiations. Of course we have had denials of any deal over nuclear sharing as part of the negotiations, but only recently we have seen a conflict of policy.
  I have with me a statement made by Lord Carrington, Secretary of State for Defence, when he addressed the Royal United Service Institution as reported in The Times on 4th April this year. He said:
  "The Prime Minister has spoken of the possibility of an Anglo-French nuclear force held in trust for Europe, and there has been a good deal of speculation in recent months that we are actively engaged in making such arrangements with the French. But this is not so."
  He was quite categorical. The Government may not be
  "actively engaged in making such arrangements",
  but what is the Government's aim? Only the day before, as reported in The Times, the Defence Secretary made that statement the British Ambassador to France, Sir Edward Tomkins, declared at a Press luncheon
  "that Britain's entry into the European Community involved a fundamental change in British policy."
  He said:
  "Our first priority is now Europe".
  Later, answering questions, the ambassador said that
  "Mr. Heath's offer before he became Prime Minister of forming a Franco-British nuclear force still stood. But it could be achieved only in the distant future."
  Is this one of the aims of British defence policy? Are we seeking at some time ahead to go into negotiations and to seek to achieve co-operation with the French and create this organisation which has been so eloquently advocated by many Tories over the years? We had it often referred to by the Prime Minister himself in his famous Godkin Lectures at Harvard University in March 1967 when he said that we should have a nuclear force based
  774
  on existing British and French forces which could be held in trusteeship for Europe as a whole.
  Many of my hon. Friends, representing a large cross-section of feeling in the Labour movement, have questioned the Prime Minister about this. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) time and time again has posed the question to Ministers. In the last debate he repeated it and complained that there was a lack of response from the Government. I should like it to be dealt with in this debate. There has been plenty of time to consider it. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be forthright on this matter when he replies to the debate. It is an important question. It affects our relationship with the United States of America. We all know that under the MacMahon Act Britain and the United States have continued to co-operate on nuclear matters. As a consequence of that Act Britain is prevented from sharing nuclear knowledge with other States.
  This matter could have serious repercussions in other countries in Europe in the Community, for example, in West Germany. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) recently said that it was a "a lousy policy" under which Europe was to sell butter to Russia. I think it would be a lousy policy in connection with West Germany's policy of détente with Russia and East Germany if that détente were sabotaged by a secret or, later, an overt Anglo-French nuclear agreement. This, of course, is the danger. Inevitably, if we seek to co-operate with France, which is not in NATO, we could give offence to our West German allies and, above all, harm the détente which is so important.
  We also have our treaty obligations. We are signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but France is not a signatory. This should be borne in mind when we consider any proposals of the kind which have been suggested by the Prime Minister and even repeated by him in this House. There are wider questions covering the political aspects of nuclear sharing. Is there a need for increased European defence co-operation? Would this include both conventional and nuclear forces? If we accept the need for co-operation, what form will it take? Has the new Community a special responsibility as distinct from the

  775
  responsibilities that we have in NATO itself?
  If one accepts the need for greater cooperation, how does one achieve it? The Labour Government emphasised the structure of the North Atlantic Alliance. From 1964 to 1970 I was privileged to be a member of that Government. The official British position was clear. The only possible context for discussing closer integration with Western European defence was that of NATO, which in nuclear matters meant the Nuclear Planning Group. I am glad that the Minister of State paid tribute to the group's work this afternoon. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson), when he was Prime Minister, stated in the House:
  "We are prepared to discuss nuclear military co-operation, whether with France of with other allies in the proper forum, which is the nuclear planning group …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 22nd July 1969; Vol. 787, c. 1491.]
  I want to know what the position is now.
  In an article in Le Monde in 1971 which caused Questions to be asked in this House, Jean Deniau, then Brussels Commissioner with responsibility for European and American affairs, demanded that the United States must revise the MacMahon Act of 1946 so that Britain and France might share nuclear secrets. Our Prime Minister was questioned on that, and he repealed his concept of an Anglo-French nuclear deterrent held in trust for Europe. This was on 21st October 1971. Many other Conservatives—I think of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) and Mr. Niblock—published a pamphlet Towards nuclear Entente. The Minister responsible for our European negotiations, the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), wrote a preface approving its contents which stated:
  "We need a mini deal. A mini deal is something which a Conservative Government when returned to power might do well to investigate."
  Is this still the view of hon. Members on the Government side? Do they agree with the Foreign Secretary, who is on record as saying:
  "There could be nuclear arrangements complementary to the NATO Alliance if necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July 1970; Vol. 804, c. 23.]
  776
  This was in relation to co-operation with the French. Some hon. Members present today must have heard the Minister responsible for European negotiations, the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham, speaking in the Western Union Assembly in 1971. He said that once Britain had joined the Common Market
  "the whole setting for defence co-operation and co-ordination between her and the Six will be transformed."
  He went on
  "In the future as the unity of Europe spreads and deepens, defence will have to be included in some framework of unity."
  What do these Ministers mean when they say this? The Minister of State the right hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), winding up the last defence debate, when pressed to stand firm behind the provisions of the non-proliferation treaty and that no nuclear deals with France were or would be contemplated outside the framework of NATO, said to my then right hon. Friend Mr. George Thomson:
  "I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no proposal before either of the countries which is outside the framework of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. However, both France and this country possess nuclear weapons and I believe that, in the long term, it would be wrong for me to rule out the possibility of some co-operation between the two nuclear Powers of Europe."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July 1971; Vol. 819. c. 616.1
  We are concerned that the creation of an Anglo-French nuclear force would inspire difficulties and problems in international treaties for all of Western Europe, especially Germany, and the United States. There would also be reactions of the Soviet Union, with the consequent effect on European security and détente.
  I know that the Minister has made a firm speech about Soviet intentions. I tend to accept his realism. I do not criticise him for that, but the Government are committed to trying to get an agreement. To obtain the sort of arrangements that I have mentioned would throw a spanner in the works. We wish to have a policy of détente with the Soviet Union and other members of the Warsaw Pact. It is the official policy of the Government, and we must not wreck a policy which in the long term could create peace in the world. If we encourage arrangements for nuclear

  777
  sharing and develop contacts outside NATO we may jeopardise progress towards détente.
  I have always paid a tribute to the rôle of the United States in Europe—the development of Marshall aid and America's efforts which saved Europe from chaos soon after the war. The American military presence is essential to our security and also to the security of the United States, as the Minister of State said in his opening speech. I believe though that there would be difficulties about this matter. There have been reports that even the President is agreeable to an Anglo-French nuclear link. On 9th May The Times carried a report from its correspondent saying
  "President Nixon will raise no obstacle to the formation of an Anglo-French nuclear partnership, according to sources on both sides of the Channel. Both Governments have been told privately by the White House that Mr. Nixon would not inhibit Britain from passing on to France some of the nuclear secrets acquired from America under the special Anglo-American treaty of 1958."
  However, there may be difficulties in Congress. Whatever the President decides in respect of defence policy, the purse-strings are held by Congress and the Senate. The Times report continues:
  "There is also concern in London and Paris that the Watergate affair will reduce Mr. Nixon's authority to change the prevailing hostility to the idea in Congress."
  So, even in the United States there could be difficulties and controversies if that is true. The report in The Times was followed by another on 7th May.
  This was dealt with by the Minister who spoke about his attitude towards the new generation of mini-nuclear weapons which could be used in the battlefield and which would be ready for use in Europe in the next three or five years. I am glad that we have had assurances on that, and I know that the Minister was fair in his reply. This is an important matter, and suspicions are naturally aroused. I know there has been a conflict of views here. There was an excellent article in The Guardian on this matter in which Professor Rotblat and some of our distinguished scientists commented on the proposals which have been put forward, suggesting that they were nonsense. They say there cannot be any small, clean atom bombs for use as tactical weapons.
  778
  However, we shall not deploy this argument, but we believe that the Government must have control of the military, and I am glad that decisions will be taken only at very high level on this matter. Any escalation would be harmful to the new security arrangements and proposals and to the desire for détente in Europe.
  I agree with the Minister about Dr. Kissinger's speech. It probably marks a turning point in European affairs. While I do not entirely agree with the speech, I know that the Foreign Secretary has approved it, and I know, too, that the French have condemned it. The French are hostile to it, but we know that the speech marks a step forward. The new concept of an Atlantic Charter which spells out in great detail the attitudes on defence should be carefully studied at some later stage, and we should discuss it more fully not only in a defence debate but in a foreign affairs debate as well.
  I cannot disagree in principle with the section on defence. Dr. Kissinger said that
  "Atlantic unity has always come most naturally in the field of defence."
  Obviously, there must be changes. He says that we face the challenge of maintaining our collective defence
  "under radically changed strategic conditions and with the new opportunity of enhancing our security through negotiated reductions of forces."
  On the other hand, America reiterates its own firm contribution to the presence in Europe and I am glad that the United States has reaffirmed this in no uncertain terms. It is stated there in the speech
  "The United States is prepared to make its contribution."
  I could go on quoting Dr. Kissinger. He seems to have considerable influence in the White House. I sincerely hope that it continues. His speech is a milestone in European history and no doubt it will be discussed not only here but in the Council of Europe, the Strasbourg Assembly and the Western European Union.
  I have broadly covered some of the issues which many people in this country are worried about. I believe that there is unity on the main strategy on defence. I believe that the keystone of our defence is still NATO. We must be realistic. It is true that the Soviet Union has built

  779
  up its navy—for example in the Mediterranean. It is still building up its forces in other parts of Europe. We believe that it is right however to negotiate from a position of strength and not from weakness. We must never risk the security of our country and I say that to some people who wish to disarm unilaterally. There must be no unilateral disarmament which would leave us in the parlous state of the 1930s. I can never forget that period. I remain firm and I stand by what I said in the previous defence debate. That I believe is the viewpoint of the vast majority of ordinary men and women in this country. I would not want to let them down.
  4.50 p.m.
  Mr. Julian Critchley: I have just completed a report as the rapporteur of the Western European Union Assembly, the subject of that report being the three international conferences that are now taking place, the relations between them and the implications for Western Europe's defence of any result which may be achieved by any of them.
  The chief anxiety that we should have in Western Europe is the lack of any movement towards either military or political integration within Europe itself. This failure to make progress is all the more serious because it comes at a time when Western Europe has to take part not only in East-West negotiations but in West-West negotiations. If one looked for reasons for this stalemate in European unity, this lack of progress, one might first assert that France will only act in what she considers to be her own interest; that the Germans, who have the economic and military strength to act, are so riddled with guilt that they are unable to take the initiative, when, in fact, Germany is the only country in Europe which is strong enough to do so. As for Britain, we have the political will to make progress, but we have not yet got the economic strength which is the basis of political will. The consequence is that no progress of any kind is made.
  Despite all the noises that come from Strasbourg as a consequence of my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) and his brave band of brothers, we are in a dilemma. On the one hand we have to try to alter the rules
  780
  of the Common Market in our own interest because we had to pay a very high price for entry: that is our short-term interest. But our long-term interest is to build the unity of Europe, and there could be conflict between these two things.
  European anxieties are provoked by the necessity not only to negotiate with the Soviet Union at a time when the Soviet Union is becoming militarily more powerful, but to negotiate with the United States at a time when the withdrawal of American forces from Europe must become a reality.
  Of the three conferences, the first one I visited was the security conference at Helsinki. This, I think, is the least important of the three. The Russians want from the West at Helsinki access to our economic potential. This is in our gift. We want from the East at Helsinki, first, concessions on the free movement of ideas and people across frontiers, on which the Soviet Union will be extremely reluctant to make any real concessions. The other thing we want from the Soviet Union is that it will re-write, as it were, the Brezhnev doctrine in favour of the inviolability of frontiers within the Socialist commonwealth itself. Quite clearly, the Soviet Union is not going to re-write the Brezhnev doctrine, and whatever result may come will be a matter of semantics and interpretation. So we can, if we wish, make economic concessions to the Soviet Union, but it is extremely unlikely to be willing to make concessions to us on those two important matters of substance.
  The security conference is something which the Soviet Union has wanted for years. In fact, its origins can be found in Litvinov. The Soviet Union returned to the demand for a security conference in the middle 60s. But by 1972 she had already achieved recognition of the status quo in Europe, which was her prime objective in having a security conference anyway, and Russia is now faced with a forum in Helsinki where the advantage ought to lie with the West, if we play it carefully. The West should be able to play away for a win at Helsinki, which is not necessarily the case at Geneva or, more particularly, at Vienna in the MBFR negotiations. All we have to do is ape Mohammed Ali, or Cassius Clay, and say "We are the

  781
  greatest", because the majority of the 34 nations at Helsinki are "western" of one sort or another, and are likely to award us the verdict.
  It could be, though, that the economic concession that the Soviet Union wants from Western Europe and the United States might be traded effectively against an agreement at Vienna on constraints, which might follow the reduction of forces across the board. So Helsinki might be useful from that point of view.
  Following my visit to Helsinki, I went to Geneva to try to talk to the American and Russian negotiators in SALT 2. However, although we wrote letters, made telephone calls and made a nuisance of ourselves, not one American or one Russian would see us, because neither the Russians nor the Americans will see anybody on matters which they consider to be their province and nobody else's.
  I do not think there was a great deal of European anxiety about SALT 1. Quite clearly, SALT 1 amounted to a non-aggression pact between the United States and the Soviet Union, and as such was in the interest of us all. But SALT 2 is different because what they are discussing is not their own weapons systems but our weapons systems. They will be discussing the American nuclear commitment to defend Europe, and the means whereby the Americans might be able to defend Europe in certain circumstances. They might also discuss the British nuclear deterrent, and the French nuclear deterrent, although it is true that the Americans have said they will not do that. The Russians wish to do so.
  What I am really asserting here—and I am trying to return to my opening theme of European anxiety—is that the thing that really matters, the strategic nuclear balance, is something that is being discussed by the super-Powers in private. They will take decisions, which must impinge upon our vital interests, and all we can do is ask of the Americans that they consult. They did consult over SALT 1 and I have no reason to believe that they will not consult adequately over SALT 2.
  This is the most important of the three conferences, I think, because, as negotiations in SALT 2 develop, what will be revealed increasingly is the gap between
  782
  the two American nuclear strategies. One strategy is designed to protect the United States from any attack by the Soviet Union; it is a strategy which is based upon the "assured destruction" of the Soviet Union itself: that is, the Soviet Union is deterred from attacking America by the inevitability of the American response against the Soviet civilian population—in other words a mutual assured destruction capability The other American strategy—and here I come to the gap which will be increasingly revealed as negotiations proceed—is the American strategy for the defence of Europe, and that is not based upon a mutual assured destruction capability strategy at all but depends upon the first use of American nuclear weapons against a Soviet conventional attack.
  It is the gap between these two strategies—the one aimed at Soviet peoples, and the other at Soviet weapons systems—which will become increasingly obvious as negotiations continue.
  The third and most congenial of the cities on my itinerary was Vienna, and I was there in April. I note today on the tapes that the West has finally conceded the Russian demand that Hungary, which was one of the original four in the preparatory talks in Vienna, should only have the observer status on which the Soviet Union insisted after Hungary had accepted our invitation to attend as a full member in MBFR. When one tries to speculate on Soviet motives for its insistence that Hungary should be an observer only, the only conclusion one can reach is that we are all watching the health of the President of Yugoslavia, because the Soviets will not accept constraints upon their capacity to reinforce Soviet forces in Hungary in a situation of instability that might well follow any crisis in Yugoslavia or the death of Marshal Tito. That is why the Soviet Union has held out on that matter, and she appears to have got her way.
  My anxiety about MBFR is deeper. When one looks at the motives of the allied Powers for being in Vienna, they are all different. The United States, which originally had no wish to enter into any sort of European arms control negotiations, discovered MBFR as the way to keep Mansfield at bay. Here was a measure against which American force

  783
  reductions in Europe might be calculated against the evidence of any conceivable Soviet force reductions. In this way a good proportion of the boys might be brought back home. The British, as ever, went along as a favour to the President. The French, who are not necessarily anti-American as the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) asserted, said "We shall not go to Vienna because we do not wish to encourage any move which might stimulate or speed up the rate at which America withdraws from Europe". So the French stayed away. The Germans went to Vienna because they saw the MBFR negotiations as a logical extension to their Ostpolitik, and a way of reducing defence expenditure in terms of the Bundeswehr. The irony is that it is the Russians who wanted a security conference but are now fed up with it, while it was the West that insisted that as a quid pro quo for Helsinki we should have MBFR talks in Vienna.
  We now find that it is a far more difficult forum for us than Helsinki, and the Soviets have discovered that their capacity to gain advantage in political terms in Vienna is considerable. The proof of that is that in recent weeks the Russian negotiators there have introduced into the preparatory talks the old concepts of the 1950s of nuclear-free neutral zones in central Europe, which have nothing to do with force reductions. But they at least have one effect, which is to frighten the Germans into a more realistic attitude in Vienna.
  Western Europeans have to decide whether it is in our interest to make the talks at Vienna short or long. Our real object is to keep the United States interested enough to stay in Vienna and to reach some sort of agreement with the Soviet Union which would mean that, when the Americans withdraw, they will withdraw with the minimum loss of force cohesion in Europe.
  I was told by the American negotiator there that he looked for results from Vienna by this time next year. If he means what he says, that can mean only that the Americans will acept a percentage reduction vis-à-vis Soviet forces in Europe—not a proportionate reduction, but a percentage reduction—which will allow the Americans to take back 5 or 10 per cent. of their forces. Clearly, all the
  784
  fuss about the equations—how many tanks equal how many guns equal how many men—and how we should introduce geography into these complicated equations will go by the board. The Americans will take a political decision. That will be a percentage reduction of forces of 5 or 10 per cent. Then the whole process could begin.
  It is in the Western European interest that the reduction of forces should in the first instance be limited to the forces of the super-Powers, and then the stationed forces. Once the Americans go, the Dutch and the Belgians will want to go too. Increasingly, in NATO Europe itself we shall get a NATO Europe of the three great Powers. After looking at the stationed forces, we shall finally have to look at the national forces themselves, because what we want to do is to leave the German problem until last in the context of MBFR.
  If I am right in asserting that American force reductions are inevitable—not unilateral, but a percentage cut vis-à-vis the Soviet Union—this must press upon the main European neurosis, which is the fear that one day the Americans will abandon us. The strategy of flexible response depends broadly upon a certain number of conventional forces in being in Europe We have to ask ourselves the extent to which force reductions would make the strategy of flexible response useless. The answer is that we do not know. But there must be a position on the thermometer of reduction when the Soviets might consider that the Americans would no longer move to the defence of Europe were Europe alone to be attacked by conventional weapons.
  We must increasingly come to the conclusion that nuclear weapons will never be used first by us. They can only be used second to deter the first use of nuclear weapons by other people. We cannot go back to a strategy of massive retaliation at a time of nuclear parity. That is impossible under SALT 2. We rely upon a flexible response strategy to make our own belief in the first use of nuclear weapons credible. But, as our own forces reduce, all our strategies are called into question.
  If we are unable to defend ourselves in Europe by the first use of nuclear weapons, which sooner or later must be the case, we have to consider how we

  785
  raise a conventional force able to blunt the Soviet armoured thrust in central Europe, to protect the independence of the evolving State of Western Europe. Suggestions have been made about "mini-nukes". But is a mini-nuke a "nuke"? There are many who would argue that a nuclear weapon is defined only by those who receive it. The mini-nuke might be the weapon that we need to block and contain an attack by superior forces in central Europe. But, even if it were not the mini-nuke, we have to look for a conventional equivalent able to give us the power to meet that attack.
  Mr. Dalyell: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument with interest. A serious writer on these affairs has been saying much the same. In the hon. Gentleman's view, does the same argument apply to British nuclear weapons and to the French force de frappe?
  Mr. Critchley: The only military justification for the two independent deterrent forces is that they act in the final analysis to deter the first use of nuclear weapons against us. That is what they are in business to do.
  I do not believe the bogy of the Anglo-French nuclear deterrent. I suspect that it is a device that some members of the Labour Party are inclined to use to distract attention from other defence matters which may be more embarrassing to them.
  There is no need for Anglo-French co-operation unless and until we get a United States of Europe. That is some 50, if not 100, years away. We shall never get an Anglo-French nuclear deterrent because the sovereign Powers in the Common Market context will wish to keep control over the ultimate use of that weapon.
  We must not kid ourselves. We cannot go on for ever putting our defence policy on the basis either that the Americans will come to our defence or that the Americans or anyone else will be able to use nuclear weapons against a conventional attack by the other side. The hard fact of strategic life is that nuclear weapons only deter other nuclear weapons. It is conventional forces which are needed to deter the conventional forces of others.
  5.9 p.m.
  Mr. Bernard Conlan: Both the Minister of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) referred to the amount of time that this House has spent recently discussing defence. It is little wonder that we have spent considerable time discussing the subject in view of the very high expenditure currently incurred on defence. In 1973–74 the staggering total of the defence budget was approximately £3,300 million. That is an increase this year, compared with last year, of a little more than 5· per cent. I can visualise that defence spending will continue to increase given that our existing strategy and approach to defence remains unaltered. Inevitably we shall have to meet the bill.
  The decisions that are being made at present about defence expenditure arise from strategic decisions which were probably made a decade ago. I do not blame the present administration overmuch for the staggering total of defence expenditure. They are the victims of decisions which were taken in the early 1960s. If that analysis is correct, we must project our views forward not to the 1970s but to the 1980s. If we can anticipate the form of defence development in the next decade, defence expenditure 10 years from now will remain at an even but staggering total.
  I am concerned that many of the projected defence developments will fall due to be paid for in the late part of this decade and in the 1980s. For instance, we do not yet know the total anticipated cost of the MRCA. I dare say that the Government are unable to make an accurate assessment of what the cost of those aircraft will be when taken into service by the Royal Air Force. We have heard today the cost of the throughdeck cruisers. The bills will have to be met in the latter part of the 1970s and in the 1980s.
  We must be thinking in terms of a suitable replacement for the Polaris fleet when it is phased out in the 1980s. Do we replace that fleet with the American Poseidon, or do we not have the Poseidon but go for the Poseidon's successor? Whichever way it is, it will be frightfully expensive and, therefore, a tremendous burden in defence expenditure.

  787
  Then there is the question of the next family of guided weapons systems which are now being developed. What will they cost? Already we have had reports that the development costs are escalating almost daily. Further, the RAF's transport fleet will fall due for replacement in the 1980s. All these costs will come at approximately the same time. Whether the country can afford all these costs at the same time will obviously be a subject to debate further.
  It is well known that the Americans have already taken the first steps in replacing its Polaris fleet with Poseidon. The time will come in the not too distant future when the Americans will not be producing any component parts for Polaris. What will be the situation then? Where shall we get our spare parts? What price shall we have to pay for these spare parts? Presumably the Government will say to the Americans, "Although you have phased out your Polaris fleet, we are still in need of Polaris spare parts. Will you please make suitable arrangements, as the appropriate supplier, to keep the production lines open." No doubt the manufacturer will say "To keep the production line open merely to supply parts to the British fleet will be terribly expensive. Therefore, the British will have to pay accordingly." What price shall we pay for Polaris parts? That will be another problem for the 1980s.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: No doubt my hon. Friend will take into consideration the Labour Party's policy of abandoning dependence on the American nuclear weapon, to run down the nuclear bases and to cease to place our whole defence aspect on the nuclear weapon. Clearly, that policy will be followed by the next Labour Government. Perhaps that will help my hon. Friend to answer his question.
  Mr. Conlan: I hope that my hon. Friend is right and that that policy will be implemented. We must wait and see. However, the problem which I have posed must be faced. The result will be additional expenditure all the time. It is folly to believe that in the foreseeable future we can dramatically reduce the escalating costs of defence unless we are prepared to make radical and substantial changes in our approach to defence.
  788
  The Expenditure Committee has been examining defence expenditure. I have no doubt that in its wisdom it has found some elements of defence expenditure where if certain things are done there will be a reduction in costs. I am sure that the Committee's work has been fruitful in that respect. However, any suggestion and recommendation that may come from that source, from Government Departments or from governmental examinations of defence expenditure will be absolutely insignificant compared with the global sum of defence expenditure, because of our basic approach. We must find a new approach to defence if we are to reduce defence expenditure.
  It is interesting that Canada has decided to combine its three Services. No longer is there a Canadian Air Force, a Canadian Army and a Canadian Navy. The three Services have now been combined. That has been done for economic reasons.
  Mr. W. E. Garrett: For one uniform.
  Mr. Conlan: For one uniform and for a common approach to their problems. Canada was forced to combine the three Services in order to reduce defence expenditure. However, there are a great many rumblings within the Canadian Parliament and the Canadian armed Services as a result. If we were to attempt such an exercise I am sure that the events in Canada would be a tea-parly compared with the events which would take place in this country. Members of the Canadian armed forces have resigned. Other ex-members of the armed Services have been writing irate letters to the Press condemning the decision. If we were to emulate the Canadian decision we would find that the members of the three Services would be equally divided. Probably no Government would like to claim responsibility for such a decision.
  Reference has been made to the American approach to European defence and security. I do not agree that the American Government entered into the MBFR talks in order to keep Senator Mansfield at bay. That is a rather cynical view which I believe is inaccurate. I believe that the American Government have entered into these discussions with

  789
  deep sincerity, and I hope that the discussions will be successful. If they are, we shall be greatly assisted.
  For some time past there has been great pressure inside the United States for the unilateral withdrawal of her forces from Europe. It is said that as the European war has been ended for 25 years why is it necessary still to send American boys out to Europe. The ending of hostilities in Vietnam has added weight to the demand for the return of American forces from Europe. It would be a mistake for the American administration to succumb to those political pressures at this crucial time of the MBFR discussions. If American forces were to be withdrawn unilaterally from Europe, part of the bargaining power of the West would be removed and I hope, therefore, that they will remain.
  It is interesting to note that the two periods during which there was no United States presence in Europe—before the First World War and before the Second World War—led to world conflagration. The removal of the American presence might lead to a third world war, I hope, therefore, that for the stability and peace of Europe those forces will remain.
  The whole range of defence expenditure will continue to increase, regrettable though that be, simply because the political will and the political decision to restructure our approach to defence are sadly lacking.
  5.22 p.m.
  Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I will not follow the speech of the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) except to say that I was interested in his survey and entirely agree with what he said about the increase in defence expenditure. I hope that he is wrong in saying that there will be radical changes in defence policy.
  It is apt that we should be conducting a defence debate on 10th May. On this date and at this very hour 33 years ago the British Expeditionary Force—of which I was a member—was proceeding across Belgium to take up defensive positions on the River Dyle against the advancing Germans. Little did we know on that day 33 years ago that within three-and-a-half weeks we should be back
  790
  inglorious, through Dunkirk. As the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) said, I hope that the lessons of the 1930s will never be forgotten.
  I believe that there is agreement on both sides of the House about the successes of the British Army in Northern Ireland. The trouble is that the news is becoming stale and a large proportion of the British public is beginning to lose interest. People do not realise the difficulties which the British Army faces in Northern Ireland. To understand those difficulties we must cast our minds back to January 1972, the occasion of Bloody Sunday. After the events in Londonderry on that day the news media—television particularly—painted the Army in unfavourable colours. The Widgery Tribunal which was then set up to inquire into those events gave the less moderate correspondents the opportunity to highlight some of the more juicy bits. To cap it all, a monstrous article appeared in a well-known Sunday newspaper, written by a reporting team in an attempt to refute and undermine the findings of the tribunal.
  This unhappy situation was changed about six months later by the successful Operation Motorman on 31st July 1972, when the no-go areas in Derry were successfully cleared. From that moment the Press changed its attitude and became kinder. Despite that, there is still a slight emphasis in the Press on the effects on recruiting and on the fact that the troops in infantry battalions which are embarking on third, fourth and fifth tours are not extending their engagements. No mention is made of the steady trickle of men who went from the forces into civilian life and are now gradually returning to the forces.
  People are getting bored because they are unaware of the Army's task. Imagine what it feels like to be the parent or the wife of a soldier serving in Northern Ireland and hearing the morning radio news bulletin starting with those ominous words "Northern Ireland"—nearly always a portent of bad news. When Northern Ireland is not mentioned people are lulled into a false sense of security.
  How many people going to bed at night realise the number of soldiers on duty in Belfast, Derry and throughout the Province? How many people realise that

  791
  patrolling goes on for 24 hours, night and day. How many people realise that soldiers on patrol present a relatively easy target for a determined man armed with an Armalite rifle with telescopic sights and, furthermore, that a shot can come from any direction and angle? How many people realise the numbers of soldiers who, though not on patrol, arc in reserve, waiting, fully dressed, for any emergency? How many people realise that in places like Strabane soldiers do not take off their clothes for a week? People should be told about the conditions under which soldiers live and the strain of the separation which they undergo.
  The Army has been fantastically successful in this period. This success is undoubtedly due to a brilliant combination of professional skill, courage, determination and—another quality which is just as important—good humour. I would go further. I do not believe that any army in the world today could have carried out the task which the British Army has done so magnificently.
  The Minister referred to the insidious and powerful IRA propaganda machine which is always aimed at success. Its chief means of attack is to accuse the British Army of brutality, but murder and bombing by their own adherents is fair game. These are some of the points that the British Army is up against.
  I realise that in the past the public were made aware of these problems and displayed a magnificent response to an appeal made by the Daily Telegraph to provide television sets for our soldiers. This showed the interest that was taken. But force levels in Northern Ireland are very high—they must be reduced—and the effects are being felt in the Army.
  Apart from the turbulence and the separation about which we hear, we are getting to the stage where young tradesmen in the Army are unable to get on with their trade training. That means that they do not get their tradesmen's rate of pay. It also means that large-scale exercises in Rhine Army, which are important, can no longer take place. Of course, it is realised that force levels are entirely dependent on the political situation.
  I hope that, in view of what the Army is doing and has done, the news media
  792
  will try to give it that just publicity and praise which it so rightly deserves and which would provide the justifiable pride of this country in the Armed Forces of the Crown.
  5.33 p.m.
  Mr. W. E. Garrett: The House could not fail to have been moved by the account given by the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield and Tam-worth (Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) of the life of an ordinary soldier in Northern Ireland. It was good to hear this from an ex-professional soldier. I believe that he has done the House a service by drawing attention to this often forgotten crowd of men. British subjects like ourselves, who carry out these arduous, unrewarding and dangerous tasks.
  About two months ago we had a similar debate of this character on defence, and the two principal characters in that debate are confronting each other again. The debate has gone on, as it usually does, in a quiet, uncontroversial manner. Those of us who are interested in defence always find the subject rather puzzling because of the vast amount of money that is spent and the number of times that it impinges on foreign affairs, which usually raise the temparature of the House. But on this occasion, as on previous occasions, the speeches so far have been well thought out and show that Members have knowledge of this important subject.
  I was unable to attend the House on the following day when there was a debate on the rôle of the Royal Navy, which was conducted and led by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, whom I am pleased to see here today. In the last debate in which I participated I referred to the Royal Navy. Unfortunately, the Minister did not know or ignored the questions that I put on that occasion. My basic view is that he did not know how to answer the points that I had put across. I touched upon the need to give public information regarding future naval contracts.
  In the debate on Navy Estimates on 21st March it was announced that a contract was to be given to Messrs. Vickers at Barrow for a command or through-deck cruiser. I wish that we could call them cruisers, but there we

  793
  are. I tried to elicit whether we. on the Tyne, would receive a contract. Unfortunately, I got no reply.
  On 21st March, at column 525, the Minister gave an analysis of the types of vessel under construction and likely to be built. Therefore, I hope that when he replies to this debate he will tell the House whether any more of the Type 21 frigates are to be ordered. For the benefit of those who are not informed on naval matters or the rôle of some of the vessels in the Royal Navy, these ships can perform an operation on their own or participate in joint exercises. They are what might be termed the small-to-medium type ships.
  The Minister stated that tenders were to be issued for the Type 22 frigate, which is a slightly larger version of the Type 21, and that some of these vessels should be in operation by 1978. I should like to know how many vessels of this type are to be built and when further orders will be issued for it.
  I turn now to the orders for the large command or through-deck cruisers. These are obviously big stuff. Today the Daily Telegraph, which seems to have an insight that hon. Members and Ministers do not have, has given a figure. That cannot be correct, because the first ship of this type has not yet been built, and, as it is a negotiated contract, we can hardly expect a final figure.
  I should like to renew the plea that I made on that occasion that there should be an announcement of orders for the second, third and possibly fourth of this type of vessel and that one should be given to the Swan Hunter group on the Tyne. Although the Swan Hunter group has a healthy order book for merchant vessels, particularly super-tankers, it would willingly undertake the work of building a cruiser of this size.
  I hope that the Minister is aware that on the Tyne highly-skilled technical and craft facilities are available. There must be continuity of work there. These people will disperse if they envisage the possibility of redundancies. I should not like to see that—nor would the Government—because it is difficult to get this type of labour force together again. Swan Hunter could do the work, and I am sure that it will if it is given the opportunity.
  794
  The debate continued on Thursday, 22nd March. Again, in column 592, reference was made to the forthcoming command or through-deck cruiser. It was clearly stated that Vickers had got involved with other contracts and that the figure would not be available until the vessel was in its final stages of construction.
  The article on page 12 of the Daily Telegraph refers to this type of vessel. The thought crossed my mind that it was significant that this article should be issued on the day that we are having a defence debate. It gives an alarming picture of an alleged defect in the vessel's capability, pointing out that it cannot stand up to a low-level attack and that we have not got the type of aircraft to give warning of such an attack. I should like the Minister to enlarge upon this article or to refute it completely. If it is refuted, clearly the work on these vessels can proceed without any further worry about air danger when at sea.
  This brings me back to the need for the Tyne to be given a clear indication that it will be awarded one of these contracts. If the Minister cannot give an answer today, I suggest that he should give an assurance that it will be announced shortly. There are seven naval vessels under construction on the Tyne, but an order for this type of vessel is essential to retain the large body of personnel required for this highly complicated type of design.
  Another point that I should like to raise is completely unrelated to the sea. As this is a wide-ranging debate, I should like the Minister to indicate when we should know what amount of land is to be released by the Ministry of Defence. In Northumberland, and no doubt in many other counties, we have been too placid in this matter. We thought to ourselves: "It is Ministry of Defence land. We will leave it like that". So far the contest to ease land away from the Ministry of Defence has not been very successful. The Minister should take note that a committee is reviewing this situation and jolly it up, and release land not only for building but for opening up to the public, because much of it is in the countryside, and use some of it for agriculture and forestry. My two points are widely diverse. One refers to the land; the other to the sea.
  5.42 p.m.
  Mr. Jerry Wiggin: This is the first occasion that we have had a defence debate since the tragic air disaster which affected so many of my constituents, and I should like to pay tribute to the way in which RAF personnel helped to alleviate the suffering after the accident.
  Officers and men of RAF Lyneham who accepted an aircraft back from Basle two days after the accident with some of the survivors, as well as many relatives, on board did so in a quiet, helpful and understanding way. They put themselves to endless trouble in the middle of the night to provide food, assistance and ambulances. Subsequently, coffins were returned in quantity to my constituency and were looked after by RAF Locking. The way in which the officers and men of the station carried out the task was beyond praise and helped enormously in the way in which my constituents were able to take this great shock. I have written to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force along these lines but I felt it would be appropriate to pay tribute in the House today.
  The form of our defence debates is by necessity somewhat of a hotchpotch. I make no apologies for repeating some of the things which I have said in recent debates.
  I noticed that the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) had complaints similar to mine. Because of the multitude of detailed points raised, it is not always possible in a comparatively brief winding-up speech to get an answer to each individual point.
  I should like to take the Minister's theme a little further. What he has said this afternoon, about the contribution of America to NATO and its future position as far as the alliance is concerned was very important and needed saying. He put it most clearly. This needed to be said by someone in the Minister's position. Perhaps the most important part of his speech was the very clear statement of the intentions of Russia and of the dangers that can follow from being over-enthusiastic about disarmament negotiations and a feeling towards détente. However, the question that remains unanswered—I have quoted this before and
  796
  make no apology for quoting it again—is the whole question of flexible response and the tripwire philosophy after its proven success of some 28 years.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army said in the Defence Estimates debate:
  "I remind the Opposition that the strategy of flexible response was worked out at a time when they were in power and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East … played a notable part in working it out.
  "It should be made clear that we cannot go back. If the strategy of flexible response goes, as it inevitably would if the amendment were put into effect, nothing else is left. The tripwire strategy of John Foster Dulles no longer makes sense. We abandoned it for good reasons in 1968, because it had become incredible. Now, with effective nuclear parity between the super-Powers, any idea that the Americans would launch their strategic missiles in response to, say, a limited incursion into central Europe is ludicrous."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March 1973; Vol. 852, c. 1613.]
  I have asked before why this policy is ludicrous and incredible. Surely the great merit of nuclear armaments has been their very awfulness, the total destruction if they are used in any sort of war and the fear of any aggressor that if he were to step across a predetermined boundary it would bring on him such a holocaust that there could be no possible profit in such an invasion. It is this, I believe, that has kept both sides firmly within their own boundaries, that has kept Europe and basically the world at peace since the last world war.
  Once we begin to talk about a flexible response, about having a day or two of negotiations, seeing what we can do, using only strategic nuclear weapons in the first step, we shall be playing into the hands of our powerful enemies. We should continue to make it abundantly clear that if they put one toe over their boundary in an aggressive manner they will bring upon themselves all the might of NATO, with every weapon that it has at its disposal.
  Hon. Members have mentioned that ghastly word "mini-nukes", which to me means only large shells. We talk about these weapons having an explosive force of 30 tons of TNT. It is convenient to be able to throw this through a gun or missile but why should we get so excited about it? If 30 tons of TNT were simply placed as a mine and exploded, the damaging effect would be

  797
  the same. Somehow, we have in our minds the great fear that nuclear fission has an awful effect. The fall-out and radio-active aftermath are, of course, a factor that up to now has been vitally important in the broad strategic concept of warfare. These small nuclear weapons, one understands, can have their radioactive content masked out.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), in his last speech and before the article appeared in The Times, mentioned this and said that it was one more weapon in our armoury for maintaining peace in the Western world.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of credibility, is it not the case that it has been made clear in the United States that the only reason that would persuade that country to launch nuclear war was that it was being attacked? The incredibility of the tripwire philosophy, therefore, lies in the fact that no country will risk self-destruction because another country is threatened.
  Mr. Wiggin: We have already heard a good deal about the French and their self-interest. There are times when we should make our self-interest paramount. As a part of Europe, politically and geographically, we must consider what would happen if, say, Russia were to have aggressive tendencies towards us.
  To return to nuclear weapons, it may seem that the great threat on this front is the development of cheap nuclear weapons. Of course, there are methods of creating fission and fusion which are being researched right across the world, which would create a nuclear weapon of such cheapness that, although it might be large in size and, therefore, difficult to conceal, it would create a wholly different set-up of world power.
  The development of electronics and all the other marvels of modern science could lead to Europe becoming an automated battlefield, in which the approach of the enemy was recorded electronically and fed into computers which would reel off what the approaching armies consisted of and respond automatically with other electronic weapons. There is a great temptation among our armed Services
  798
  to continue to look for more and more sophisticated weapons because they save manpower, they are effective and they would appear to have the desired military effect in an individual circumstance. But what happens when all these automated weapons have been fired off, when we have exhausted the non-nuclear weapons that will be used in the initial stages of flexible response? Then, the men and the cheap weapons will be there—the tanks of the Russian armies, and their aeroplanes, not particularly sophisticated but in vast quantities, their trucks and so on, and division after division of men whom they have and we do not.
  When hon. Members talk about America pulling out, they should realise that America's contribution, in manpower alone, to NATO is so great that without it we should have to look very carefully at how we, as one of the NATO nations, would be able to continue to make our manpower contribution without some form of conscription or the calling up of our reserves.
  A rather longer-term thought concerns our own Services and their future. I am thinking particularly of the function of the Royal Air Force within the coming decade or two. I would not wish my remarks to be interpreted as a suggestion that the RAF should be abolished, but I think that the Ministry of Defence would be right to have a look at the way in which air power has already become divided among the three Services. Is a missile that is launched from the ground and manned and crewed by the Royal Artillery so very different from one that sits on a ship and is crewed and looked after by the Royal Navy? It flies through the air as a flying machine, which can also be under the command of the RAF in a different form.
  When hon. Members talk about amalgamating all three Services, they should remember that it is pretty well acknowledged that the Canadian experiment of amalgamation has been a failure. We must realise that the three Services were correctly split up for a specific purpose. It is ridiculous if today the Army and Navy each has a mini-Air Force while the Air Force has a mini-Army and the Army has a mini-Navy. All these things happen.

  799
  If we examine this carefully, we see that the only function of the RAF that is not precisely land or sea is that of the very high level fighter attacks now carried out by Phantoms and Lightnings. There is no difficulty in that responsibility being ultimately transferred to one or other of the Services by deliberate decision, when all the other functions would fall easily into the responsibility of either the Army or the Navy. While that sort of idea will no doubt cause horror in RAF circles, in economic, practical and business management terms it needs to be considered in the next five to 10 years.
  I have spoken many times before about our reserves. I am afraid that I did not get much of an answer the last time that I raised one or two points about the reserves. The whole House accepts the absolute necessity for reserve forces. We need them for many reasons, not the least of which is that our regular forces are quite inadequate numerically to cope with any warfare involving a major Power. The benefits from reserve forces extend not only to this back-up function but also, of course, to the soldiers, airmen and sailors concerned.
  The RAF and the Navy have special reserve problems. Reserve sailors and reserve airmen have to have equipment, and, as a result, the RAF only has reserves who extend the life of the existing aircraft—air traffic controllers and the like who can be called on to keep the back-up facility going longer. There are no reserve pilots as far as I know, and no reserve ground or maintenance crews.
  In the Navy there is a reserve that goes to sea in minesweepers. I should like to see their expertise spread wider and their exercises go further. They should also have more ships, though I accept that there are physical problems in the hardware concerned.
  With regard to the Army, I must immediately reject the statements we hear that this country is becoming very anti-military. We now have 60,000 men who voluntarily give up their time to serve in the TAVR. One hears many people say they do not think the TAVR still exists. I have urged Ministers time and again not to miss an opportunity to remind the nation that it does exist, is doing well, is well recruited and is well-equipped in general.
  800
  The TAVR is doing everything that a regular unit can do in terms of equipment, and very often in terms of manpower. Naturally, its training is not quite so good, because it does not have the time or the expertise, but the keenness is there and it will perform very well if it is ever called upon to do so.
  The new units of the resuscitated old TA are desperately short of vehicles. It is essential that units of a home civil defence force be able to move and to communicate with each other. It is ridiculous that we are now going back to the situation that we had at the time the Labour Government disbanded the TA. In order to go on a weekend's exercise men had to bring their own cars. They still do it and manage. But it is not impossible to buy a couple of hundred Land Rovers. I know that the regular forces are taking the majority of the ordinary fully-equipped Army vehicles to Ulster, but the Ulster emergency has lasted nearly four years now, and the Army should be able to cope with finding equipment for the new units.
  On such things as publicity, officer recruiting and the TAVR review my hon. Friend will know my views. I stated them in the Army debate, and I have heard nothing from him. I hope that he will have another look at the matter and see whether he can examine the whole of the TAVR review and decide whether the exercise is worth it in the circumstances of what it is to carry out, or whether he should make it a much wider exercise and look at the whole concept of the TAVR at the same time.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Peter Blaker): I sent a letter to my hon. Friend yesterday. I do not know whether it has reached him.
  Mr. Wiggin: I have seen my mail, but one can never tell with modern postal services. However, one notes the propitious way in which correspondence seems to arrive in conjunction with defence debates.
  Finally, I should like to congratulate the British Aircraft Corporation. Little has been said about the great contract which it has won. The right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) said it

  801
  was £25 million but the figure of £250 million has been quoted. While one appreciates that a good deal of this money will spread over sub-contractors, there can be no doubt that it is an important achievement and that our defence sales people should be congratulated on what they have done.
  It is easy enough for us to say these things, but it is a hard business in the competitive world of defence sales where other countries are trying to sell equipment at below cost price, and where other equipments have different merits according to the customer. It is very easy for those people to be forgotten. They do a very good commercial job of great help to British industry, and they should be warmly congratulated.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mrs. Barbara Castle: I should begin by making two apologies. First, I apologise to the Minister of State for not being able to be present during his opening speech. I explained to him that I was involved in a Select Committee.
  Secondly, I must apologise for raising what may at first seem to be a rather parochial matter compared with the broad and very important issues that have been ventilated in other speeches. I want to talk about the Royal ordnance factories. When I think about the matter again I realise that perhaps it is not so small and parochial an issue after all, because the factories play a vital part in the production of our defence supplies.
  Clearly, if we are talking about getting value for money, about economy in our defence expenditure, we must realise that it is crucial to use our Royal ordnance factories to the most effective extent. We should be extremely proud of them. They have a reputation and record that have never flagged. They are a crucial part of our whole defence preparedness. When the Government of which I was a member set up the Mallabar Committee in 1968 to study how the efficiency of the ROFs might be improved, its report gave them very high marks.
  I shall not make a long speech, but as the context for what I want to say about my own Royal ordnance factory in Blackburn I want to remind the House of
  802
  the opening paragraph of the conclusions of the Mallabar Committee. It said:
  "We found the MOD ROFs were well managed and controlled and there was clear evidence of cost consciousness and systematic cost control. We were impressed by the calibre of the management staff and found them strongly motivated by loyalty to the organisation and the Armed Forces in the achievement of a high quality, reliable and safe product."
  We should remember that, because it is still true, and it is still true about the ROF in my constituency.
  I should have thought that that report would have given the ROFs the green light for the fullest future participation in the production of the supplies we need. But in 1971 the present Government followed up the Mallabar Committee by appointing the Rayner Working Party on the future of the ROFs. Thus there is an implication of a question mark over that future, an implication that perhaps there would be some drawing back from the full support and use of our Royal ordnance factories.
  The Rayner Working Party made various recommendations that I shall not go into now. It also recommended that the procurement of fuses should be a matter for separate study. That study has been carried out by the Leitch Committee and is now complete. It has led to proposals that are now being discussed with the staff and trade union side of the Royal ordnance factory in my constituency, a large part of the activities of which are fuse production. With its modern and well-equipped production facilities, it is responsible for about 50 per cent. of current production of fuses in this country.
  I do not intend now to go into the details of what the Leitch Committee proposed and what the Defence Department is considering. The matter is under discussion with the trade union and staff side, but the proposals have caused intense alarm because they seem to be designed to remove the production of electronic fuses from the Royal ordnance factory exclusively to private industry.
  What I am doing this afternoon is both alerting the House and making a plea to the Minister. I want to pay him a a tribute. Naturally, when the proposals were circulated I had an immediate, alarmed and outraged approach from

  803
  both the staff and trade union side of the ROF in Blackburn. I invited a large deputation to London, and I am grateful to the Minister of State for having agreed to receive it at very short notice. I am grateful to him for the courtesy with which he listened to us. I am bold enough to say that I think we taught him something that perhaps he had not appreciated. Certainly he expressed his willingness to reconsider the proposals and to enter fully into discussions with the staff and trade union side at national level.
  The hon. Gentleman has been true to his word to the extent that there has been a further visit by Mr. Leitch, the chairman of the working party, to the Blackburn ROF. I believe that the staff and trade union representatives were able to demonstrate to him that it is a palpable misstatement to say that the Blackburn ROF does not have an electronic and design capacity that would enable it to enter massively, efficiently and economically into this field. If it is not allowed to enter electronic fuse production, the result can only be contraction and redundancies. The requirement for conventional fuses is nearly at an end. Therefore, if the ROF at Blackburn, whose record of productive efficiency is unrivalled by any firm in this field, is now told that it may not be even a competitor for tenders for electronic fuses, it is being condemned to a slow death.
  I make no complaint at all about the Minister. He is on probation. I only hope that he will emerge with a clear record at the end. I am grateful to him for having listened to us and for clearly being prepared to reconsider the situation with an open mind. Obviously, I do not ask the hon. Gentleman for a reply this afternoon.
  I do not seek to elaborate my argument with the details that I could give. I hope that to do so will not prove necessary. But at a time when it is clear from recent cases in the drugs industry and elsewhere that concentration of production for a monopoly purchaser in private hands makes it very difficult for that monopoly purchaser to check the cost. and be satisfied that it is really getting value for money on the taxpayers' behalf, it is essential that the principle of the right to fair competition by Royal
  804
  ordnance factories should not be breached.
  I want to remind the House of just one example that hon. Members will always have in mind. I will not talk about Roche, but clearly there is a kind of parallel. There we have the Department of Health, a massive purchaser on behalf of the National Health Service, having to intervene on behalf of the taxpayer. Here the Ministry of Defence is the purchaser. We all know that to control costs, to check other people's costing from outside in that situation, is far more difficult than if one has a foothold within. Indeed, it was the very existence of the Blackburn Royal Ordnance Factory that led to the exposure of the Ferranti Bloodhound affair. The Royal Ordnance Factory in Blackburn obtained an order for launch control posts on an at-cost basis. It was the Royal ordnance factory's performance on that job which eventually led to a committee of inquiry, into the complete Bloodhound order. It was the Blackburn ROF's submission of a fair and reasonable price for the launch control posts which sparked off the whole affair.
  Therefore, I say that the House should hesitate long indeed before it deliberately decides to wind up one aspect at least of the work of a Government organisation which can help us to act as a waich-dog on costs in the public interest.
  I feel strongly about this, as the Minister knows. I have a lot of material I can put before the House. I do not intend to do so because I hope—I dare to say I believe—that it will not be necessary.
  In conclusion, I am not asking for an answer from the Minister today, but I am begging him to act quickly, to put out of their misery this fine body of men and woman at the Blackburn Royal Ordnance Factory who have served their country so well and so economically.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: We are extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady for the way she has treated this matter this afternoon. As she has said, she raised the main point in dispute with me at the deputation. It was also raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), who is also intimately concerned in this matter. We are giving it close consideration and

  805
  the decision will be announced fairly soon.
  6.12 p.m.
  Mr. David Walder: I am very glad to follow the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), not entirely because of her blue eyes but because we know there are other events of a local nature which might demand our attention elsewhere. The right hon. Lady's polemic ability is well known. She is my near neighbour, and I am pleased to see that we have stalemated each other.
  It is sad, on a much more serious note, that this is such a poorly attended debate. It is, perhaps, some consolation to realise that debates on defence matters throughout the European Parliaments are also poorly attended. Defence is not a matter which raises great public interest, and there may well be a reason for that in that the public simply do not understand what is going on even at this moment in Vienna, Helsinki and Geneva. It has opted out of a consideration of those matters. There may be a certain amount of wisdom in this, as I shall hope to prove in a moment, but I should now like to refer to the three conferences taking place at this moment.
  Between what is happening now in Vienna, Helsinki and Geneva there is no formal link. Nevertheless, in 1972 in Brussels the NATO Ministers said, looking upon the three sets of negotiations,
  "that progress in each set of the different negotiations would have a favourable effect on the others."
  It would be foolish for us to try and consider the sets of negotiations as being separate, though quite obviously we have rather more intense interest in one of them than, I would suggest, in the other two.
  One can also see this in context when one considers that the Russian threat to Europe is universal. I use the word "threat" advisedly. It may be a rather strong one but it is fair enough, when one looks at Russia's foreign and military policy, to look at her overall position and to judge her intentions by her capabilities, because her capabilities have increased immensely in the last few years.
  It is right and proper for us to ask the very simple question "Why?". That
  806
  threat, of course, is posed in many more directions than the Central European front.
  That brings me to the article in The Times on 17th May, the front page article about which I have already interrupted my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I was at that conference, and it should be made clear that it was a private conference and not one organised by any Government. I was there merely as an observer. A number of papers were put to the conference by defence experts, but, as I said to my hon. Friend when I interrupted him, it would be quite wrong to say that because that conference happened, because matters were discussed, there was any official statement of Government policy, whether from the United States or from any other of the nationals who participated.
  That conference also had another lesson, because the participants were strategists and technologists. This sort of discussion can get a little out of hand, a little away from the practical details of real life. Being a defence strategist has become an academic task. The study of the subject has become in many ways almost an industry in the United States.
  It reminds me a little of Haldane, who reformed the British Army. One day he was asked by a general what sort of pattern of army he hoped for in the future. He replied, presumably to his rather mystified military interlocutor, "I favour an Hegelian army". Sometimes, in some of the discussions that take place, we get a little near to that.
  In looking at the Russians, I am much more interested in what is happening on the flanks of NATO, what is happening in the Mediterranean and what is happening in the Middle East. There we can see considerable and increasing activity by the Russian Navy. I am also interested in what is happening on the northern flank of NATO. I am much more concerned about these areas than the central one upon which all the strategists, amateur and paid, seem to concentrate. When I look at the Russian policy in Europe I am reminded, too, that there is an element of subversion implicit in Communist doctrine. We should never forget this when we talk about what I will call the "big league" disarmament negotiations. That exists and continues.

  807
  Anyone who cares to read Russian defence literature will accept that point.
  When we go into these disarmament negotiations we present an element of disunity that is undoubtedly worrying. France is outside NATO. She still insists, if we follow what her Ministers say, upon national control. I think we would be prepared to accept that, but she seems to offer very little chance of co-operation with her neighbours and partial allies in Western Europe. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) is not now present. I am not seeking to take advantage of him by raising this matter in his absence. It is only a minor matter, but the right hon. Gentleman is slightly out of line when he attempts to criticise to such an extent any possibility in future of Anglo-French nuclear co-operation.
  Almost inevitably at some time when we are dealing with the new generation of nuclear weapons there will have to be closer co-operation between ourselves and the French. Ideally there should be closer co-operation between ourselves, the French and the Germans. I realise, however, that there are severe limitations on German activity, and for the moment it would seem that the possession by the Germans of any nuclear weapons, whether massive or "mini-nuke" as mentioned in The Times, would obviously be regarded by the Russians as severe provocation.
  The Minister of State, looking to the three conferences—MBFR, CSCE and SALT—was hopeful but not over-optimistic. He talked of a lengthy time scale, and to that extent he agrees with me. There is no easy, miracle solution to this problem of disarmament in Europe. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) about the security conference. It is the least important. It may well turn out to be only a propaganda exercise. It is concerned with the free movement of ideas and the like which may come about.
  I must utter a word of caution, though, about CSCE. I do not think we should adopt a euphoric optimism similar to that of Peter Sellers in the film "I'm all right, Jack". No doubt the House will remember that in that film he was a Communist shop steward. When asked
  808
  by Ian Carmichael whether he had ever been to Russia, which he admired intensely, he said "No, unfortunately I never have, but I would very much like to have gone. Just to think of all those cornfields and ballet in the evenings". I I do not think that my hon. Friend is as euphoric as that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot may have over-emphasised the point that the SALT and MBFR talks are purely a conspiracy between the USSR and the United States, an agreement at top level by the great Powers. I do not think it is as simple as that. We ought not to be so suspicious of our ally or our possible adversary. My advice on that set of conferences is contained in another story which is about Metternich, the Austrian Chancellor. When a Council of Europe really did exist, some time after the Congress of Vienna, someone came to Metternich and said" I think I should tell you, Prince, that during the night the Russian delegate dropped dead". Metternich said "I wonder what his purpose was".
  6.25 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: I begin by making similar observations to those of the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. David Walder). This has been something of a North-East Lancashire evening, oddly enough. I am the hon. Member's neighbour, as he is the neighbour of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). It is two to one in his favour. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman. He has great elegance of style, and in a debate on defence it is interesting to hear references to cornfields and ballet, all of which we have in North-East Lancashire, even if we do not have to my knowledge someone called Metternich.
  I do not claim to be a defence expert. My sole reason for speaking is to support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn has said about the Royal ordnance factories following the Leitch Report. My speech has been shortened because of the intervention of the Minister of State. I was pleased to hear that a decision will be taken shortly on a matter which is of great concern to many of my constituents who work in the Royal ordnance factory at Blackburn and have done so for many years.

  809
  I, too, paid a visit to the factory. I would not have ventured forth into my right hon. Friend's constituency had I not been invited. While I cannot speak with any expertise about the technical details of fuse procurement, I was impressed by the enthusiasm and conviction of the staff from the top downwards. They are convinced that they have the ability, the know-how, the design team and the facilities to compete with any private firm in the manufacture of electronic fuses.
  The proposition is simple: whether it is right that a Royal ordnance factory with its long history and tradition should be excluded not necessarily from production but from being able to compete on equal terms with other firms, many of which do not have its facilities or traditions. I hope that the Minister will be true to his word and reconsider this. I have seldom come across workers at all levels so anxious to keep a factory going. They know, and this is beyond contradiction, that there is and will be a great contraction in conventional fuse manufacture. If they are to be left with the scrag-end of fuse production, morale is bound to suffer. It would be a tragedy for this area and these workers if that happened.
  6.30 p.m.
  Dame Joan Vickers: First of all, I apologise to the House for being late. Before I knew that this debate was to take place I had arranged to join a deputation to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I told my hon. Friend the Minister and Opposition Members of this, so I offer my apologies.
  I have chosen today to speak on two subjects which I hope have not been touched upon. I should like to say to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson), who has just spoken of the Royal ordnance factories that during the war I had to deal with the welfare of women and girls in those factories for the Ministry of Supply. I would like to congratulate the hon. Member on the way he put his point and to say that those factories are very well run. I hope that the Minister will give him a satisfactorily reply in due course.
  810
  I should like to draw attention to a very silent section of the Royal Navy, the hydrographers. The most famous ship, HMS "Challenger", did a survey from 1872 to 1876. It took 20 years to write up the various observations on the expedition, in 50 volumes, excellently illustrated. Today we must acknowledge that the exploration of the seas and oceans is of outstanding importance, and the Royal Navy and its officers and men concerned are to be congratulated and should have more recognition for the work they undertake.
  My reason for raising this matter today is that I understand there are anxieties in regard to the shortage of technical manpower. If I may quote from the Annual Survey, it tells us that the five inshore survey craft are ageing and work is hindered by the slow progress in regard to the development of true solar system. I would have thought that this was something on which action could be taken. Perhaps when the Minister replies he will say what is to be done in regard to these ageing ships.
  It also seems very unfortunate that there is lack of promotion in the Service. I understand there were no promotions last year to commander level. This means that we are getting short of men in this category. There is, too, an acute shortage of senior officers and officers of the rank of lieutenant-commander. If the standard of training is to be kept up. this situation is not good enough. It is not only our people who are being trained; there have been students from the navies of Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. I hope that my hon. Friend will see that more promotion can be arranged and that more people can be encouraged to come into this very worthwhile service.
  It is not only that this service is doing excellent surveys which are absolutely fundamental to keeping our ships sailing safely on the seas. If we take, for example, HMS "Hydra", when the Island of Rodriguez was hit by a cyclone, she saved the lives of six Maldivians whose boat had been blown away from Addu atoll. There were 13 of them. Unfortunately seven died, but the ship managed to rescue six who were later returned to the island of Gan. Just recently, HMS "Fawn" has been helping to save an

  811
  American motor vessel with 100,000 gallons of rum on board which was leaking into the sea. She waited two weeks until she was safely off the rocks.
  Turning to actual surveys, I would like to give the example of the survey undertaken recently in the Bougainville Strait between the British Solomon Islands and Bougainville Island, an area which has not been explored since 1884. Fifty uncharted reefs were discovered and it was found that the depth of water had gone down since the area was previously charted; but the survey was able to find a passage one mile wide which was 33 metres deep. This is why it is so valuable to have such a service. Many more ships will now be able to go safely through that passage.
  The Annual Report that I have mentioned is well worth reading, but I would like to know from my hon. Friend, without going into all the details of the report, what is being done in regard to studying the composition of the sea bed itself as a consequence of continual fishing and the constant spoliation of the seas through oil and other causes. I would ask whether it would not be possible for this service to undertake some of this work when on the high seas.
  It is very interesting to note in the report that commercial operations have never looked healthier. In other words, the Royal Navy has been selling charts, and the income from this source in 1972 exceeding £1,600,000, mostly from exports. Charts are now going over to metrication and with more automation and computerisation at sea this has proved very beneficial both at sea and on shore in the work of the hydrographers. I would like an assurance today that the Minister well appreciates the very important work that is being done by this service and that he will see it gets all necessary support.
  The other matter in which I am interested as a delegate to Western European Union is future relations between United States Forces and Europe. It was stated in WEU document 598 dated 31st December 1972 that the total of our services in Europe was 63,367, plus the Second Tactical Air Force. I gather that at present 4,600 of these men have been taken from BAOR and have gone to Ulster.
  812
  What part are our European allies to play in conjunction with ourselves and America in future? What worries me is that the United States armed service strength is being drastically reduced. I gather those forces are being reduced from 3·6 million to 2·2 million by mid-1974 and that they are now turning to the voluntary system which is costing them very dear. I do not know whether or for how long they will be able to continue recruiting. I gather, for example, that a newly-recruited man gets £1,550 per annum. Bonuses are £1,200 on recruiting and £6,000 for re-engagement after one term of office.
  The European countries and ourselves cannot, of course, compete on those lines, but other difficulties are arising for our European allies. Germany and Denmark are reported to be having difficulty in recruiting even conscripts because they have provision for conscientious objectors. Conscientious objectors do not have to serve if they prove that their convictions are genuine. Therefore, those countries' forces are getting smaller. In the United Kingdom, 47 per cent. of our defence money goes on personnel. It would appear that unless we get more up-to-date equipment we are going to spend more on personnel than on equipment. I believe that we will be in difficulty in recruiting men if there is no up-to-date equipment.
  If we are to have "Poseidon" for the four Polaris submarines, what is to be the cost? I believe the estimate is that if the MIRV replaces "Poseidon" in the United States programme as at present planned, this would cost about £680 million. What are likely to be our costs if we follow suit?
  I would also like to know what the Government are doing in regard to the MRCA programme, because I understand that West Germany has found that the costs are rising so much that she has reduced her orders from 600 aircraft to 332. This comes from a WEU report. I believe that at present our Government have a commitment for re-equipping the RAF with 350 of the MRCA. I would like to know whether this is to be carried out and, if possible, to have an idea of the cost. The cost of the F14 fighter in the United States has risen to £7 million per aircraft. If a similar vast sum is to be spent on the Royal Air Force,

  813
  what will be left for the Royal Navy, which already lacks modern equipment and weapons for its nuclear submarines?
  It appears to me that the Royal Navy, like its hydrographers, is being neglected. The research and development department of the Royal Navy is allocated only about 10 per cent. of the money for this kind of work. This is somewhat unfortunate in the light of the fact that the Russians are building up their fleet and when one remembers that thousands of our people would probably have starved to death in the last war had it not been for the Royal Navy—which also ensured that the other two Services were fed and could carry on—we simply cannot afford to neglect the Royal Navy.
  It is vital that the Royal Navy should get its fair share of the defence budget. To re-equip with the MRCA is estimated to cost £2,450 million. If that figure is correct, surely it would be better to reallocate some of the money to the Royal Navy so that it could get a fairer share of the defence budget. I understand from previous debates that at present 35 per cent. of the defence budget goes on personnel costs, including 13 per cent. on civilian employees; 39 per cent. on equipment and research and development, including 13 per cent. on research and development itself; 8 per cent. on works and buildings—which perhaps could be cut down following the survey which is being conducted; and 5 per cent. on stores and services.
  What of the future? We have a number of organisations dealing with defence— NATO, Western European Union, the Eurogroup and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. They are still far too segregated and a lot of their work overlaps. I should like to have arranged a conference between representatives of these various organisations in order to ensure less overlapping, particularly in re-equipment of the various Services.
  I end on a cheerful note. In January 1973 the United Kingdom joined the coordinating committee in Europe known as "FINABEL". This is the first time we have been allowed to join an organisation which has a standing armaments conference dealing with the standardisation of equipment. I sincerely hope that this is a major step towards co-ordination of armaments and equipment so that, for
  814
  example, one member country will not build too many ships while another builds too many tanks. I hope that there will be real understanding in the planning of the Armed Forces so that we can have in the future a united European force.
  6.44 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Usually, I follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) with some measure of agreement. On this occasion I agree with that part of her speech in which she seemed to be supporting what the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) said. The hon. Gentleman said that he was not advocating the abolition of the Royal Air Force, but he seemed to put forward a convincing argument for its abolition. The hon. Lady was getting close to doing the same. Perhaps she wishes to utter the same sort of disclaimer as he did. Nevertheless, they have both convinced me.
  I have some attachment to the Royal Air Force, having spent five years in it during the war. Looking back over the scene, one can probably say that an air force was a temporary necessity because of the state of technology at the time. One can perhaps say that the existence of an air force was a necessity in the historical and strategic circumstances from the First World War to the Second World War, and I suspect that the continuation of the Royal Air Force beyond the Second World War is rooted in some kind of sentimentality, which I myself feel, rather than in an assessment of the realities of the situation as it has become.
  The United States does not find it necessary to have a separate air force. I was much persuaded by the view of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare when he suggested that most Air Force activities today are associated either with the Navy or with the Army and that there is little purely Air Force activity which is not associated with either of the other two Services.
  My interest in this is that I believe that abolition of the RAF as a separate force would be one means of substantially reducing arms expenditure, since it would remove a completely separate area of procurement from the scene. It would leave only two areas of procurement— the Royal Navy and the Army—and this

  815
  would probably save a substantial amount of money.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I feel a little astonished. I think the hon. Gentleman said that there was no United States Air Force.
  Mr. Jenkins: No. I said that the United States Air Force was associated either with the Army or with the Navy. There is a United States Navy Air Force and a United States Army Air Force. I suggest that that pattern might be followed here. In the United States, air activities are closely associated with either the army or the navy, and I suggest that the logical conclusion is the abolition of the RAF as a separate entity. However, I do not wish to spend any more time on the subject, having stated my agreement with the argument of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare. I shall leave it there. I see, however, that I am getting a measure of support from the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles).
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles indicated dissent.
  Mr. Jenkins: Very well. I will leave it at that.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am somewhat confused. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there is no such thing, for instance, as the United States Strategic Air Force? I thought we had slept quietly in our beds for the last 20 years because of its existence.
  Mr. Jenkins: I was not saying that. I was saying that the argument of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare in favour, as it seemed to me, of the abolition of the RAF as such and its association with a Naval air force on the one hand and an Army air force on the other hand appeared to be a very good idea. It should certainly be examined more carefully, and I understand that it has been examined from time to time in the United States.
  I want to add to the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) about the question of land. I believe that there is probably a good deal of land about the place which is not being fully used. I know that this is often said about land in the possession of the Armed
  816
  Forces and that examinations have been made. When was the last examination made? Has an examination of the position of the land held by the Armed Forces ever been made by an organisation other than the Armed Forces?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Antony Buck): Perhaps I may clear up that point at once. The Nugent Committee has now reported after examining the whole question of Ministry of Defence land. The report is to be published.
  Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful. I was not sure whether that was so. When is it expected that the report will be published?
  Mr. Buck: Very shortly.
  Mr. Jenkins: I hope that "very shortly" means "quite soon". That being so, perhaps we can leave that point.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield and Tamworth Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) spoke of the very arduous and difficult duty of the Army in Northern Ireland. I wonder whether it occurred to him that perhaps the Army is being asked to perform in Northern Ireland a duty which it is not proper for any army to be asked to perform; that is, fighting in circumstances in which the adversary is not another army in the sense of another formulated military force. I am increasingly wondering about that. The question whether it is proper that we should continue to maintain our forces in Northern Ireland will arise increasingly.
  Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: We keep an Army for events of this nature, and its soldiers are trained to carry out tasks of this type.
  Mr. Jenkins: Indeed. But is it proper that the Army should be used in the form of an armed police force? That is what it amounts to in Northern Ireland. We should ask ourselves whether the job which is being done in Northern Ireland is one which any army ought to be asked to perform. That question crosses the minds of many of us from time to time.
  My final point is about nuclear armaments, a subject which hon. Members are probably beginning to know has concerned me for many years. It seems that the House is never more of a club than

  817
  when discussing defence matters. These debates are confined generally to experts on the subject, who talk in a fairly close and well-informed language but on the whole tend not to raise the deep issues of principle which inform the attitudes of the parties which are represented here.
  Listening to defence debates, one sometimes has difficulty in realising that the Labour Party's background contains a powerful pacifist element. One finds it difficult to recognise the great debate that took place within the Labour Party between its pacifist element and those in favour of collective security, personified in the name of Ernest Bevin. This background has always been within the Labour Party. Therefore, members of the Labour Party are rather reluctant soldiers and armers. We tend to look at defence expenditure as a first possible economy. Our attitude differs, therefore, from that of the Conservative Party, which regards defence expenditure as a first and important expenditure. We are inclined to look at it as a last expenditure. That does not mean, however, that we have a great success in reducing defence expenditure when in office. But it is fair to say that since the present Government have been in power the amount of money that they have been spending on defence has increased very rapidly. That is why I have been examining the possibilities.
  If a future Labour Government are to make radical reductions in defence expenditure, they will not do so by means of minor economies. They will do so only by major changes of policy. We are tired of spending 5·5 per cent. of our gross rational product on defence, which is rising to 5·75 per cent. under the present Government, compared with a European average of about 4·3 per cent., which includes the West German figure of only 3·7 per cent. If we wonder why other European countries seem to be better supplied with hospitals and housing and all the things that we lack so much it is to some extent because we are spending too much on armaments and defence generally.
  Therefore, if we are to make these changes, it is no use saying that we shall be able to do so by minor economies here or there. We shall have to consider profound changes of policy. I have touched upon two of them. We shall have to consider whether the de-
  818
  ployment of our troops in Northern Ireland is something which is to continue for ever, or for how long it is to continue. We shall also have to consider the question whether it is proper for us to be engaged to the extent that we are engaged in nuclear weapons.
  Britain has a tradition of acting on its own in these matters. We are now moving into a European situation in which, besides the Soviet Union and the United States, we are the primary nuclear-armed country of the world. We are the nuclear bastion of the West. We ought to ask ourselves whether this is a rôle that we ought comfortably to perform. The Labour Party does not think so and decided at its conference last year in favour of winding up American nuclear bases in Britain and in favour of opposing a defence policy based on the use or the threatened use of nuclear weapons by Britain and its allies. The Labour Party takes the view that alternative policies which are not based on nuclear weapons should be evolved. They are certainly much cheaper.
  A defence debate which deals with the important minutiae of defence but fails to deal with some of these fundamental questions is a debate that does not go to the heart of the matter. One recognises that fundamentally it is difficult to divorce defence from foreign policy. Defence is conditioned by foreign policies and attitudes to some degree.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is taking notes. I do not believe that he is to wind up the debate—
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Shame !
  Mr. Jenkins: My hon. Friend is taking notes. I hope that one of his notes is for the purpose of conveying to the Opposition Front Bench that at least one member of the Opposition wishes that the sort of attitude within the Labour Party, which informs the Labour Party and the country and will continue to inform the Labour Party at conference after conference, should be enunciated in this Chamber.
  I am unrepentantly of the view uttered many years ago by Aneurin Bevan, that regional pacts were not a move towards peace. He took the view that if one

  819
  had NATO this generated the Warsaw Pact, and that the regional pact was a basic cause for very large-scale armament. He thought, by and large, that our defence contribution should be on a world scale rather than directed towards the maintenance of regional power. That is the sort of attitude which we ought to be discussing, and these are the sort of questions of broad political and strategic policy which ought to inform our defence debates. We ought to pay some account to these matters rather than to the important details which have been occupying us this afternoon.
  Mr. Cormack: Did not Aneurin Bevan also say that we should not "go naked into the council chamber".
  Mr. Jenkins: He had this wrong idea towards the end of his life, but none of us can be perfect. These are the sort of issues which we must begin to debate if we are not to run away from the realities which affect us and the problems which will have to be the concern of a future Labour Government.
  7.1 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: No one could doubt the sincerity with which the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) propounds his point of view, but I know he will understand when I say that I dissent vehemently from much of what he said in his speech. I think that the difference between the two parties— or certainly elements in the parties, and not including the Opposition Front Bench, as was exemplified by the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) this afternoon—is like that between the man who throws away his umbrella because the sun is shining and the man who takes his umbrella to get it serviced and repaired.
  The hon. Member spoke about the expenditure of our allies but failed to mention the very large conscript army in Germany which enables them to reduce the cost of maintaining a very heavy commitment in Europe, as a consequence of which we can sleep peacefully in our beds. When he spoke about his nuclear policy, I could not help thinking: "It may not frighten the enemy, but by God, it frightens me".
  This is the first defence debate in which I have presumed to trespass
  820
  because, as the hon. Member said, these have become the province of certain well-known experts, although, alas, not many of them are present this afternoon. I think it a great pity that we debate defence when the Chamber is so often so very empty. Of course there is a double reason today, because we know that there will be no Division at the end of this debate and throughout the country our colleagues are helping in the democratic process. But they would not be able to help in the democratic process with quite the ease and peace of mind they now enjoy were it not for the fact that we have a defence policy which has preserved our country over the last quarter of a century and more.
  It seems to me that this is the most important subject that legislators can ever debate. If I cannot claim the expertise of some of my hon. and right hon. Friends, I can adopt the advice which was given by a farmer to a non-farming friend: "If you cannot recognise the breed, you can at least appreciate the need."
  I want to concentrate my remarks upon Europe and NATO and the future of the alliance. Although this is often said, it seems that we stand at a cross-roads in history. The recent speech by Dr. Kissinger will, I think, come to be recognised in future as perhaps one of the most important foreign policy statements made in this century. I quote what I consider the key passage in that speech:
  "In Europe a new generation—to whom war and its dislocations are not personal experiences—takes stability for granted. But it is less committed to the unity that made peace possible and to the effort required to maintain it."
  That is the continuing and expanding dilemma with which those of us who may be fortunate enough to be entrusted with guiding the destinies of this nation for the rest of the century will be faced.
  I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. David Walder) was absolutely right to sound the warning note which he expressed. The aim of the Soviets remains the same—the total dominance, indeed absorption, of Western Europe. Although the military threat may be a trifle more ambiguous than hitherto, it nevertheless remains. Of course the Soviets do not want war. By other means they wish to sap the resolve

  821
  of those who are against them, to spread dissension and take advantage of local conditions.
  I intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister of State to ask about the origin of arms in Northern Ireland. The fact that they originate from a certain country does not mean that they have been supplied by that country, but there have been very disquieting stories in the past couple of years and I have no doubt that certain elements have taken advantage of local conditions there. I say no more about that. We must remember that this kind of thing is not new. Terrorism and street violence were used by the Nazis in Germany to break down the fabric of the Weimar Republic and have been used time and again. It suits the purpose of the Russians to see certain adversaries in the West weakened in their resolve and in their capability. I take the line that we should beware of the Russians even if they bring gifts.
  When one thinks in terms of détente, one should proceed with great caution. Just a week ago I had the privilege of being in Germany. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) present. He was in the same party. We had the privilege of talking to German experts in the Foreign and Defence Ministries and discussed Ostpolitik. I should describe Ostpolitik as a justifiable adventure, but it is an adventure. There is a danger that this policy will produce a new attitude of mind not only in Germany itself but throughout the West, leading to undue optimism. When we think of the agreements that have already been negotiated and signed, we see that they do not bring a great deal to the West. Perhaps those who visit East Berlin are now allowed the normal conditions of prison visiting, but East Berlin remains a prison to those within it.
  I have the privilege of being chairman of the all-party Committee for Soviet Jewry and I have seen many examples over the last 18 months of what it means to live in the Soviet Union, what it means to live without the protection which we take so easily for granted. So when we talk about Ostpolitik and SALT, a European security conference and MBFR, we should be more than cautious. That is why I was greatly reassured by the remarks of my hon. Friend in opening the debate.
  822
  We should never cease to forget the time factor. In democracies time is important because those entrusted with governing a nation have always to keep their eyes on the clock, as it were. They have always to concentrate—and nothing concentrates the mind more than a coming election—upon public opinion. Those in the East do not have this problem to live with. For them, time is not important in this sense. We perhaps have to think in terms of a Parliament, but they can think comfortably in terms of decades. The Chinese are past masters of this, and so are the Russians. They can afford to be patient because they have not the degree of answerability that we have. We should bear this in mind. We must be very careful not to drop our guard in any way, not to create that sense of false security to which my hon. Friend referred.
  We should always remember that the Brezhnev doctrine was occasioned by the rape of Czechoslovakia only five years ago. It is a new Monroe doctrine, but is far more sinister because it says that there shall be no interference in the affairs of Socialist States, not even internal interference by those who live in a State. Therefore, efforts to effect change made by those within become a justification for attack from without. When my hon. Friend spoke about Yugoslavia and the problems which may face that country on the death of Tito, he sounded a warning note which we should do well to heed.
  I am not trying to be a scaremonger, and I do not say that the Soviets are planning an invasion and the use of force against us. It is, however, wrong to say that they would never use force. Bearing in mind the extreme vulnerability of the flanks of NATO, bearing in mind that if the Soviets went across the centre they would take on all the Powers at once but that if they went through the flanks they would take on only one or two, we should also bear in mind that the use of force in all circumstances is not out of the question. They will use force if they think they can get away with it, and it is our job to persuade them that they cannot. If they think they cannot, they will use what blandishments and stratagems they can.
  One thinks of the story of the rich man who lived in great comfort, envied and

  823
  despised by his neighbour. His neighbour could not do anything to obtain the rich man's possessions, so instead he seduced his daughter. The neighbour outmanoeuvred the rich man. That story is not without its moral in this area of discussion.
  I am not seeking to preach a gospel of despair. The Russians are realists and have shown that they can keep agreements if it is in their interest so to do. NATO has been a deterrent, but only because of its nuclear arm, and this is why we should be careful about what we say about nuclear weapons. We should not rule out the eventual emergence of a true European nuclear deterrent.
  Of course, the flexible response is all. It is essential that we do not rely absolutely and entirely on a nuclear arm, but we must not under-insure. The lesson of the next two decades was spelt out by Dr. Kissinger in his speech of great vision and brilliance. It is that the United States wants co-operation and does not want economic competition to degenerate into conflict, thus poisoning the alliance. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that this does not happen. It is incumbent upon us to foster such organisations as the Eurogroup, which seems to have the most hopeful possibilities of all those schemes where we are working together.
  It is in equipment and training that we should concentrate on getting together. Nine nations with nine different weapons systems are no match for the Warsaw Pact with a more or less common weapons system. We should be thinking in terms of a European tank and of developing a strategy of anti-tank warfare perhaps using the helicopter. However, I am not equipped to deal with this sort of technical question, although I appreciate its importance.
  We must get our priorities right in talking about expenditure. We can spend thousands of millions of pounds on Concorde and Maplin and all the other things which may or may not be desirable, but we sometimes pull ourselves up short and sharp when we talk about spending £60 million on defence. To do that is almost to betray the future and it is something of which I hope I shall never be guilty.
  824
  This country has only 27 submarines, whereas the Soviet Navy has about 390. It is in the light of such facts and figures that we must look at the whole problem.
  I look upon this as a sacred trust. Whatever we do about pensions and social security, education and housing, it can be put right and changed if necessary. If we created a system which weakened the Atlantic alliance we should be betraying future generations and they would be in danger of living lives where the freedom which we take for granted had been replaced by a dark and repressive fear, and perhaps something more odious than that.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Had I not been committed to a political meeting tonight for our former colleague from Billericay, Mr. Eric Moonman, I would have wished to raise certain issues with the Government—perhaps the French nuclear tests, the whole question of Polaris, Poseidon and Trident, the MRCA and a number of other controversial issues. However, I believe that one should not raise controversial issues unless one is present to hear the answers and I shall not be. Therefore, I shall say nothing about them. I shall stick to one subject which is offbeat and non-controversial.
  For the first time in my life I motored over Easter through the area of the Somme in Northern France and had occasion to visit several of the war grave cemetries there. I should like to recall here and now that it is enormously to the credit of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission that these cemeteries are magnificently kept. I had not seen them before, and the purpose of my intervention tonight is to ask the Minister if, through the usual channels which are available to him, he will record to those responsible for keeping these cemeteries my appreciation of the marvellous condition in which they are.
  That is not only my opinion. The same opinion is held by Mr. Coles, who runs a chain of stores in Australia and who is known to some hon. Members. He had a family reason for visiting the war graves of Northern France. He lost two brothers in the First World War. He asked me to record that both graves were beautifully kept. The casual visitor

  825
  is given every help by the French employees of the Commission. Perhaps something could be passed on officially to the people who are responsible, because it may be that the excellent job that they do should not go unnoticed in this House.
  Mr. Blaker: I entirely share the hon. Member's opinion on this matter and I shall see that his remarks are passed on to those concerned.
  Mr. Dalyell: That is all I was asking for.
  7.17 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Defence debates used to be great occasions. Those were the days when Governments stuck to their primary function of defending the country and keeping law and order in the streets Nowadays things are very different— Governments intervene even in the price of lavatory paper. I saw a Parliamentary Question asking for action by the Government on this fascinating subject only a week or two ago.
  Consequently, of course, the whole parliamentary system is grossly overloaded.
  I suppose it is a matter of semantics whether parliamentary indifference stems from public indifference, or whether public indifference stems from apathy in Parliament. However, I am sure that the ghost of Benjamin Disraeli must be sitting on the Government Front Bench beside my hon. Friend the Minister today listening in astonishment to a defence debate unfolding without anything being said about the implications of the new Suez Canal project—just 100 years after de Lesseps's great scheme came to fruition.
  Perhaps the indifference is only an expression of wishful thinking. The public are so opposed to war, particularly in this nuclear age, that they hope that by their refusing to think about it the problem will just go away.
  It may be because of the idealism and internationalism of the younger generation, who seem to think that all wars in the past have been caused by the foolishness of their parents.
  It may be because of the pacifist unilateral disarmament lobby, many suppor-
  826
  ters of which are sincere and some of whom are motivated by very Left-wing ideology, but all of them, in my opinion, are misguided.
  It could be a lot to do with the attitude of the media, particularly of television, which give the impression that they are resolutely setting their faces against any serious discussion of defence subjects.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) raised the question of the TAVR. How long is it since we saw any programme about the TAVR on television?
  It may be, of course, just a swing of the pendulum of public opinion, or the mood of the nation. Before we get too depressed about it we should recall that Winston Churchill was unable to alert this House and the nation to a much more obvious, immediate and understandable danger which existed in the late 1930s.
  Defence debates are increasingly concerned with trivia. The earnest seeker after truth may jump up and ask the Minister about the Mark 24 torpedo. The odds are he does not know what the Mark 24 or any other mark of torpedo is.
  Instead, I believe we ought to be concentrating on the big issues—the overall expenditure, the manpower issues—and making clear to the public what are the dimensions of the real threat which justify the taxpayer's having to put his hand so deeply into his pocket for tax expenditure.
  The evolution of grand strategy which I believe we should be talking about is a gradual process. We now live in a world in which peace is truly indivisible and peace time and war time are no longer two separate, clear-cut conditions.
  Philosophically it is ludicrous, fantastic and, indeed, tragic to live in a world in which two rival super-Power blocs maintain an uneasy peace only through the existence of weapons of unimaginable horror and the competitive expenditure of vast sums of money on sterile military preparations.
  Turning to the practical realities today, in this summer of 1973, we are in a sort of watershed situation. The Soviet bloc now has something like nuclear parity but with enormous conventional superiority over the West.

  827
  At least this state of affairs is recognised by NATO, which, to be fair, has existed for 25 years without ever giving up one yard of soil to the Warsaw Pact countries.
  However, we must realise that the basic foundations of NATO are now very much shaken by doubts about the American political will to continue to make such a large contribution as it has hitherto and— a practical point but, it is hoped, only a temporary one—by the radical change in the American military establishment, which has now decided to go for all-regular forces. We must pay an enormous tribute to the Americans for all they have done and are continuing to do for NATO.
  But in all this scenario which I am summarising there is one very baffling question. Why does the Soviet nation maintain such large military forces? Why does it have 400 U-boats in full commission at sea, roaming the oceans of the world? Why is it launching one brand-new nuclear submarine every month?
  I believe it is impossible any longer to take seriously the suggestion that the Soviet Union really believes it is liable to be attacked by the West and excuses itself by saying that the whole Soviet concept is defensive. The Russian leaders are sophisticated people nowadays, no longer shut off from the world, and they must know that the West, with its high standard of living, would have nothing possible to gain from any pre-emptive attack on the Warsaw Pact countries.
  If we accept this, only three other possible explanations remain.
  The first is that the Soviet Union really intends a direct military attack at some point in time against the West, but I dismiss this. The same argument applies in reverse—that no prize could possibly be worth the risk.
  A second but unlikely possible explanation, I suppose, is that the Soviet centralised economic system is so plain damned inefficient that it would collapse in disorder and unemployment if the USSR did not maintain huge forces and vast armament production. I do not think so, but it is a possibility.
  The third possible explanation, which I believe is the most likely, is that in pursuit of undisguised political ambitions the
  828
  Soviet Union plans to be able to use its forces world-wide on an opportunist basis to extend its own influence and frustrate the trade and influence of the capitalist world, without resorting to declaring war at any stage.
  In a striking article in the Daily Telegraph of 12th March this year its correspondent, Mr. R. C. H. Steed, wrote under the heading "Softening up the West". The opening paragraphs of his article are these:
  "Never before had an advanced civilisation offered such opportunities and encouragement to a powerful enemy openly dedicated to its overthrow, or contributed so much to such a result by absorption in internal disputes and self-indulgence as if no danger existed … they seemed incapable of apprehending any threat, and at the same time showed an increasing lack of faith in their own values and an increasing reluctance to make any effort or sacrifice to defend or preserve them."
  So might some future historian write about the Western Europeans in relation to Russia during the era of what is called "peaceful coexistence" and "detente".
  The author continues to quote examples taken from a book called "The Peacetime Strategy of the Soviet Union" published recently by the Institute for the Study of Conflict, in Whitehall. This book emphasises the extent of the orthodox Communist Party's activities in fomenting industrial unrest in the United Kingdom, pointing out that this is helping
  "… a minority of manipulated militants to get control of the trade union movement and thence of the Labour party through the notorious 'block voting' system."
  The book also gives examples of related Communist Party activities in other countries, such as France, Germany and Italy. It says, with regard to Italy:
  "There is no doubt that within the Catholic Church itself at various levels Communist cells are operating."
  Finally, it points out that in Britain the
  "Left-wing Free Communications Group claims a membership of between 500 and 700 in the Press, radio and television. Its objective of workers' control of the media, after all"
  the book continues,
  "is shared by the Chairman of the Labour Party."
  If this analysis is an accurate one, and I believe it is, the threat is certainly not confined to Europe but is world wide. Here the new dimension which we face is

  829
  the extraordinary development of the Soviet Navy into a worldwide oceangoing fleet.
  Faced with this situation, what action can the Western Powers take? I believe that first and foremost—and I put this very seriously to the Minister—we must break away from our obsession with the narrow military defence of the plains of Western Europe. It is absurd that NATO, by definition, admits no threat at sea beyond the Tropic of Cancer: that is to say, a latitude of 22½ degrees north, roughly in the vicinity of the Canary Islands—and that with half a million tons of oil for Western Europe rounding the Cape every day of the week Western Europe has no concerted naval plans for the protection of its overseas trade anywhere except in the North Atlantic.
  Faced, as we are alleged to be, with an energy crisis of terrifying dimensions, neither Europe nor America seems to give any thought to the vulnerability of their oil supplies either from instability in the Gulf, where the oil comes from, or from interruption at sea in the long haul round Africa.
  I believe that, pathetically slowly, this point may be beginning to be understood and at least the North Atlantic Assembly last year resolved to authorise the Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic to make contingency plans for the protection of the Cape route.
  Clearly, the whole future of the alliance is in need of drastic revision, and some tentative recognition of this is reported in today's newspapers. But I believe it will be a long haul and that we in Britain cannot wait for the formal moves the Minister was talking about today, but must act without delay both in our own interests and in anticipation of being successful in causing an awakening among our allies. This means a very substantial increase in the allocation of funds to naval and maritime air forces, and a radical recasting of defence plans to give vastly greater attention to the defence of our overseas trade routes, particularly round the Cape and in the Indian Ocean.
  There are some signs in this direction; for example, the recent decision to order the first of the through-deck cruisers. I applaud this and congratulate the Government on it. However, in my view, the order should be for three straight away.
  830
  The second has been the decision concerning vertical take-off jets, which we have discussed ad nauseam and which I shall not inflict on the Minister again today. However, it must be pushed to a positive conclusion.
  More co-operation on a bigger scale neeeds to be carried out with South Africa in terms of naval and maritine air forces. We have not yet had an answer about the sale of Nimrods to South Africa for the defence of the sea trade routes. We also need a continuous and not a spasmodic naval presence in the Gulf.
  Finally the ANZUK forces based on Singapore must be maintained regardless of any backsliding by Austrialia.
  To sum up, at this very moment in history when Russia has discovered the vital importance of maritime strategy Britain must not lose sight of it, nor allow her allies to do so.
  7.31 p.m.
  Sir Richard Thompson: Since I first intervened, in a maiden speech, on defence matters 23 years ago there has been one consistent theme in all the White Papers on defence which have been published. It is the one summarised in paragraph 4 of the White Paper, which issues a grim warning about the growing extent in real and relative terms of Soviet power.
  In the early days, going back to the years after the war, when the allies had an overwhelming preponderance and a monopoly of the atom bomb, this was taken fairly lightly. But those days have long since passed away. A comparison of the warnings given in paragraph 4 of the White Paper, rightly drawing attention to the growing size of the Soviet operation, with the other side of the picture and the generally accepted belief that the Americans in one way or another will phase themselves out of Europe, perhaps slowly—but there is little doubt that they will start doing it—and the fact that the French are still outside NATO, and bearing in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) said about the Germans having both the economic power and the manpower to make an effective contribution but being too riddled with a sense of guilt for what happened in the last two wars to be the effective ally that

  831
  one might otherwise expect, shows that the forces ranged against the Soviet bloc are pretty fragile.
  I wonder whether we are building up forces appropriate to today's conditions. Basil Liddell Hart, an old personal friend of mine, used to say over and over again that we fight the next war on the text books of the last. Even with all those lessons in mind, I believe that we are still in danger of repeating that error.
  Many people thought after the last war that the proliferation of atomic power, when it ceased to be an American monopoly, spelt a speedy end to civilisation. In the event they were proved wrong. The balance of terror—that grim phrase —precarious as it was, actually worked. We have had a long period not of peace but a period during which the likelihood of the outbreak of an atomic war has steadily receded, although there have been times such as the Cuban crisis when it was perilously near. We all remember the days of the nuclear disarmers, the marches, the demonstrations and the sentiments reflected in this House. All is quiet on that front now because the sheer credibility of either side taking the risk of nuclear war has subsided.
  So it was that the emphasis for some years past has switched increasingly to conventional forces and to more sophisticated but still on the whole non-nuclear weapons. This new emphasis has become apparent in the forces mentioned in the White Paper. But I still wonder whether we are not preparing for the wrong kind of aggression still with our basically conventional navies, armies and air forces. I believe that we are already witnessing the kind of warfare that we should be preparing for, if warfare it has to be. Certainly it will not be nuclear. There will be no armies marching, no aircraft bombing and no navies confronting one another on the high seas.
  I believe that we have had a foretaste of the form that the aggression might take, with the aircraft hijacker, the kidnapper and the small group of utterly ruthless men like the Black Septemberists armed with modern weapons and without scruples. Such people have already held whole Governments to ransom to secure their ends. I believe that this process is only in its infancy.
  832
  It is the sophistication of weaponry today which places such appalling power in people's hands. The ease with which incredibly small and devastating devices can be manufactured quite cheaply places a frightening concentration of power into a very few desperate hands. Skilfully used, this power can blackmail Governments and hold whole populations in terror. It can effectively overturn key sectors of industry and paralyse communications if it is applied ruthlessly at the right point and at the right time.
  In such circumstances conventional armies, navies and air forces are not relevant. That is not an argument for not having conventional forces. It is one for developing them in such a way that there is a conscious and deliberate provision to deal with this kind of armed subversion. When the damage is done and when the citadel has fallen, it is no use mobilising the army, sending in a gunboat, turning out the air force and the rest. It is too late.
  I do not see anywhere in the Defence White Paper, which otherwise I welcome, even a recognition of this new dimension of war, let alone any special measures to deal with it. It is no good saying that this is a police operation. It is too big and too dangerous for the police to tackle unaided. We have had a glimpse of it in a relatively primitive form in Ulster. There we have seen how 20,000 soldiers have been pinned down for months. That is a measurable part of our entire establishment coping with this sort of guerrilla subversion. Let no one dismiss it and say that it is a police operation and not one for the Armed Forces. It is not.
  Over the years civil defence has been dismantled. But there might have been a nucleus of trained manpower there who would have been appropriate to deal with this threat.
  When all is said and done, the defence of the realm is at risk. In all the millions of pounds that we spend we should spare some money urgently to carry out some research and make some provision to meet the growing threat of urban guerrilla subversion and armed activity. I remember my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchell) making a very good speech about this in an earlier

  833
  defence debate. No one can say that I am breaking new ground. However, I should like to hear the Minister say that he is breaking new ground in making provisions to counter this real and desperate threat.
  I do not profess to know the answer myself, but the problem must be known to our defence chiefs and must be appreciated by them. We know that our reserves are limited. That is why when they are deployed they should be deployed in the right way. Whatever form the next war takes—and it will not be a conventional kind of war—there will be no use in re-fighting El Alamein and Midway or re-invading the Continent. None of those matters will be relevant. The trouble will come from within. It will be quick, ruthless, and devastating. I want to see suitable provision in the Defence Estimates. The requirement may be for a special corps of people. I do not know the answer. The defence chiefs must be thinking about the matter, and I hope that my right hon. Friend, when he replies, will be able to give some reassurance.
  7.42 p.m.
  Mr. John Morris: When I heard the subject for today's Supply debate I thought that it was rather a pity, to put it mildly, that a defence debate was to follow so soon after the substantial number of days that were spent during the last couple of months debating defence. Without in any way wishing to appear patronising, I accept that we have had a number of useful contributions. That goes to show, perhaps, that the normal two-day defence debate does not allow sufficient time to permit everyone who wants to take part in our discussions to do so.
  It has been a worthwhile debate. We were interested in many of the Minister of State's observations, particularly his comments about the rôle of NATO. My right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) has dealt substantially with that. The Minister of State said that there should be no weakening of the alliance. He said that apart from the material components there was also the important matter, which is perhaps of overwhelming importance, of the will to defend both life and liberty.
  834
  I shall not dwell on the issue of life, but on liberty. The alliance can be weakened from without. Members of the alliance can be lost on the way. However, if the whole concept is based upon the will to defend life and liberty, the alliance can in like manner be weakened from within.
  We have heard important speeches during recent defence debates—some from Conservative Members—about Greece. That is the kind of situation which is tolerated and encouraged by the recent visit of the Chief of the General Staff. Those are matters which should be approached with great care. There is, of course, tyranny in Greece. Where there is tyranny, it must have its effect upon the will and the real meaning of the words "The will to defend both life and liberty." That is why the Minister of State, when he so rightly uses those words in future, would be right to consider entering a caveat with some members of the alliance.
  I was interested by an answer which was given on 3rd May to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd). My hon. Friend asked the Minister of State how many men and ships were involved in the recent visit by Royal Navy ships to Portugal, the length of the visit, the cost and matters of that kind. It appears that three of Her Majesty's ships with their companies of approximately 850 men arrived in Lisbon on 30th April and stayed until 4th May. They were accompanied by a rear-admiral and a Royal Marine band. The purpose of the visits was to mark the 600th anniversary of the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance. The Department, which is so conscious of pounds and pence, was unable to quantify the costs of a visit of that nature.
  When we were in government we were attacked strenuously time after time about the Beira patrol which the present Government, in pursuance of the mandate of the United Nations and their obligations thereunder, so rightly maintained much to the annoyance of many of their supporters on the backbenches. It makes rather odd sense to try to explain to the Royal Navy and to our forces that they may have to take part in the Beira patrol and then to tell them the following week to go to the junketings in Portugal. It seems sometimes that the left hand of the Minister

  835
  of State does not know what the right hand is doing. Alternatively, it may be the other way round; the right hon. Gentleman's right hand may not know what his left hand is doing.
  All that we can sense from these matters is that the Government's foreign policy is ambidextrous. However, the rôle of the forces is held up to ridicule if that kind of situation is tolerated. If NATO depends upon the philosophy of the will to defend life and liberty, it is imperative that we should be conscious of and examine from time to time objectively the rôle of some of the members of the alliance.
  I was glad to hear the Minister of State's statement about the German-British tank—
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles rose—
  Mr. Morris: I shall not give way at the moment.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles rose—
  Mr. Morris: I have given way to the hon. and gallant Gentleman on dozens of occasions but very often he has not added to the usefulness of our debates.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he putting forward the proposition that the visits of the Armed Forces, wherever they may go, and the recreation which they have should be conditioned by the ideology of one or other of the parties within this House? Is not that a fantastic proposition to put forward?
  Mr. Morris: I was putting forward a proposition whilst examining the Minister's words that the philosophy of NATO relies on the twin objectives of the will to defend both life and liberty. Where tyranny exists in the alliance—it is an alliance pledged to defend both life and liberty—it would be right for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to examine the members of the alliance and the rôle which our Armed Forces play in our association with them.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles rose—
  Mr. Morris: I have given way to the hon. and gallant Gentleman; I do not do so again.
  I was glad to hear the Minister say that steps are being taken in the pro-
  836
  duction of the German-British tank. Perhaps I have wearied the House on more than one occasion with the need to pursue that important objective. If we are pledged to carry out a joint and communal defence, much greater emphasis must obviously be placed upon using the same tools for the job. The hon. Gentleman has rightly put his finger on the matter and endorsed, if I may say so, what has been said on previous occasions—namely, that the heart of the matter for the European tank, as with the MRCA, is to get the philosophy right.
  There has been in the past an enormous divergence of philosophy regarding the type of tank that is needed by this country and the type which is used on the Continent. Unless that gap in philosophy can be bridged, there is little prospect of common production of the same kind of weapon. I am glad that the Minister of State has noted this and I welcome the emphasis he placed on it. I wish him and the Secretary of State well in pursuing this objective. As we move into the conceptual stage of the post-Chieftain era, I wish them well because I cannot otherwise see our being able to allocate the large amounts of money which will be needed for a fairly short production line in this country going it alone.
  I noted the Minister of State's remarks on the new deal which has been negotiated with Saudi Arabia. I congratulate the sales staff of the Ministry of Defence who worked on this under the guidance of the Minister of State. I am sure that he takes a great interest in these matters, as I did. The less one says about past difficulties in Saudi Arabia, the better. I hope that this arrangement will bring a reasonable degree of order and efficiency in the maintenance of equipment supplied in an important previous sale. I wish the Saudis well, but the Minister is right to emphasise that we must watch how deeply we get involved and ensure that the people on the ground in that country are able to take over as quickly as possible. It is a significant and important contract and I wish the British Aircraft Corporation well with this arrangement.
  I am far from happy about the announcements which the Minister has

  837
  made today and on previous occasions about pensions. I understand the difficulties of making the new pension arrangements applicable to everyone because of the immense amounts involved. I understand also that Northern Ireland is a special case. It may well be that, because of the difficulties there, steam has been given to the Minister of Defence in winning his argument with the Treasury and securing fairly generous terms.
  If Northern Ireland is a special case which has engineered this change of heart in the Treasury and enabled the Minister of Defence to win his fight, I do not understand why the transitional arrangements are confined solely to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland may be a special case, but to the family that loses its breadwinner in any other part of the world that soldier is a special case. The amount of money involved in the transitional arrangements which date back only to August 1969 is not very large. I do not understand why this retrospective arrangement should be confined to Northern Ireland and should not extend to any soldier, sailor or airman who has been killed or injured in any other part of the world in the last two or three years. There cannot be many.
  Neither today nor at Question Time has the Minister attempted to defend or to argue this decision. All he has said is that Northern Ireland is a special case. With the utmost respect, I hope that he will not say that a large amount of money is involved. We are not talking of making the arrangements applicable to everyone. All I ask is for the hon. Gentleman to re-examine this to see whether the transitional arrangements can be applied to everyone. Everyone who has suffered since 1969 is to himself and to his family a special case. Although the Minister sought my assistance at Question Time, I cannot justify a retrospective payment that is confined to one set of people, and I am surprised that this cry has not been taken up by other hon. Members.
  The Minister mentioned Lord Nugent's undoubtedly valuable work on defence lands. We look forward with interest to seeing the report when it is published and to the Government's reactions to whatever proposals it contains.
  838
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gates-head, East (Mr. Conlan), in an interesting and valuable speech, raised the problem, which has been canvassed before, of the cost of the MRCA and the cruiser programme coming together. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) also seized on this aspect in her zeal to ensure that the Navy had a proper share of the defence cake. I do not intend to go over this ground again, but a firm marker should be put down. Difficulty will arise with two sets of defence expenditure coincidental one with the other in the last part of this decade. Undoubtedly one will have to suffer. The Minister must be seized of this contingency and be sure that he has a plan to meet it, otherwise there will be escalating defence expenditure out of all proportion which will be difficult to defend in the House.
  A fortnight or three weeks ago a national newspaper reported that the Government were concerned with the increase in public expenditure and that proposals which hitherto had been blessed with a measure of approval were being re-examined under the spotlight of the Treasury and were coming back again to the Ministry of Defence. The Daily Telegraph said that the first-off of the cruiser programme was one that had got under the wire. I do not know whether a new examination of defence expenditure is going on. The Under-Secretary of State may find it difficult to give a detailed answer but perhaps he or the Minister of State will write to me and tell me the expected expenditure on equipment. Has there been any change since the Defence White Paper was published? Cuts in defence expenditure are usually made on equipment; particular programmes are cut back or done away with or, perhaps more usually, a programme is moved sideways and orders are slowed down, so that the money is paid out in the next financial year. If that is going on, we should be told at the earliest opportunity.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) spoke of the conduct of our troops in Northern Ireland. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Workington said. We commend our troops most highly for the great

  839
  dignity and honour with which they have carried out a most arduous task in difficult conditions. The House is grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield and Tamworth for reminding us of this.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) was concerned with ensuring that there are enough shipbuilding orders for his area. At the time when I had responsibility for this matter, we had a bias towards the development areas. Perhaps at some stage the Minister will tell us whether that bias is continuing.
  One matter which obviously concerns the shipbuilding industry, where there are great demands for a certain type of labour at a particular time when a ship passes from one stage to another, is redundancy. Unless there is a new ship to be built, the labour originally demanded will be in less demand and there may be redundancies. It is therefore necessary to have a forward-looking programme so that the demands on labour and skills in the following years can be slotted into place.
  Under the Labour Government I called in all those in charge of our major naval shipbuilding firms to put them in the picture as best I could regarding the likely demands for the future subject to the allocation of contracts. That is usually competitive. Therefore, I could not give them a firm figure, but I could give them a planning figure of what they would be likely to be called upon to provide.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: What about the three cruisers?
  Mr. Morris: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that we have discussed this matter from time to time. I do not propose to go into it now. Whether we are discussing cruisers or any other form of shipbuilding, it is necessary to have a long-term programme which is not cut about, so that we can plan rationally. In this way, whether it be for cruisers or a mixture of other ships, the yards can then plan the availability of skills. That is of vital importance. I should like to know whether, as in my time at the Ministry of Defence, naval shipbuilders have from time to time been called in
  840
  to Ministers to discuss and be put fully into the picture concerning likely future demands.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) referred to the Royal ordnance factories and in particular to the question of fuses. I raised this issue with the Treasury Bench in, I think, the debate on the Army Estimates. I do not wish to enter into the technicalities of fuse production. We are dealing with something perhaps much greater than the House really understands. Without a specialist definition of what is involved and the assistance of experts, I would not pretend to be able to take the House through the ramifications involved in this sphere.
  Under the Labour Government a new arrangement was set up whereby the Royal ordnance factories had the lead in design and development of these necessary modern fuses. Indeed, the whole future of the Royal ordnance factories depended upon being able to carry out a programme of that kind. If they lose that initiative—they may have lost some already for all I know—the whole future of a large part of the ROFs will be extremely bleak. It would mean that, instead of being the initiators and designers, they would became the repetitive producers of other people's ideas.
  If the Royal ordnance factories are to maintain their skills and retain their engineers and designers, it is imperative that the kind of issues raised by my right hon. Friend—the Minister has been thanked for the gracious way he has met representations—should come to fruition. If we are to maintain the ROFs as a major reserve producer of weaponry for part of the Services' needs, it is vital that they should be more than repetitive producers of shells and matters of that kind. They must maintain the lead in design in part of this area, otherwise there is a danger that the whole of their higher management and skilled engineers will go and they will be unable to recruit people of that calibre in future. So the effects are perhaps much wider than we imagine.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) has raised with me the question of the future of

  841
  Hawker Siddeley Dynamics at Stevenage. I understand that this firm has been offered a large contract by MOD(Navy) for ship-to-ship missiles. I also understand that because of the cancellation of ELDO contracts there is a danger that 400 redundancies may occur in the plant within the next three months. It will take a year or more for the missile to reach the production stage. It will then need a large skilled force, but in the meantime it may have been disposed of. There are real fears in that area. I hope that the Minister—I do not expect him to deal with this matter tonight—will write to my hon. Friend as early as possible in order that these men may have their fears put at rest.
  I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army for the note that I had from him today. A defence debate, as the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) said, sharpens the return of ministerial correspondence.
  I was glad to hear from the Undersecretary of the good use that is being made of cheap flights to BAOR by soldiers serving in Northern Ireland. I understand that so far 1,400 soldiers have made use of them. So that soldiers can make use of these facilities, all troops have one 72-hour break during their four-months tour. We congratulate the Government on what they have done in this respect. It was done following a visit to Northern Ireland by myself and my colleagues more than a year ago. I am grateful for the speed with which the Government have acted on and carried out that suggestion, and I am glad that so many men are able to participate.
  Lastly, I want to deal with the question of atmospheric nuclear tests. This is not a national matter confined only to Australia, New Zealand, or France. Indeed, the boundaries where such tests occur cannot be drawn as national boundaries. The effects are felt from one end of the world to the other, but particularly in the locality where the tests occur. Indeed, about six or ten years ago there was concern in this country about the level of strontium 90, particularly in the westernmost part of the country. The record of the French in the Southern Hemisphere has been far from good. Although techniques have developed substantially from those of 20 years ago, their tests have been far from clean.
  842
  Why do not the French test underground? They have done it before in the Sahara Desert. Perhaps the increased expenditure that that involves and the pressure on the defence budget in France is one of the reasons for their not being minded to carry out tests underground. Another reason is that they do not want to be obliged to the Americans. They do not want to make a request to the Americans for the use of their facilities.
  I am advised that the French are to carry out similar tests to those carried out by this country, by Russia and by America 20 years ago. The knowledge they will gain will be parallel to that which was achieved by those three other countries 20 years ago. The only difference will be that the pollution this time will be labelled "Made in France".
  The attitude of the Government has been far too ambiguous. They have been far too late in the day in making the representations which they have made. I concede that the Foreign Secretary has now seen the light. He does not think that the tests should be held. He disapproves of the tests. He has made it abundantly clear to the French. But when the Australians came here to seek to enlist the support of the Government, and the New Zealanders in turn made representations, they went away grossly dissatisfied about the support they had hoped for from Her Majesty's Government.
  It is rather odd that Conservative Members who make such a great play with the old Commonwealth and the ties of kith and kin and the loss of Australia and New Zealand—[An HON. MEMBER: "We have not lost them yet."] I understand that this sentiment is now confined to a narrower field than it was years ago. They still seem to make these noises, but the moment Australia and New Zealand seeks our support in a matter of vital importance to them, they get very little support.
  I do not wish to weary the House with a catalogue of the miserable statements from the Government Front Bench which have been made from time to time. The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was asked on 15th May 1972 by one of his hon. Friends

  843
  what representations had been made. All he had to say was:
  "As a depository Government for the Partial Test Ban Treaty, which prohibits nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water, Her Majesty's Government naturally hope that the French Government will decide to accede to the treaty. The French Government are aware of our views on the matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May 1972; Vol. 837, c. 117.]
  Dame Joan Vickers: At a meeting I personally questioned the French Minister of Defence, M. Debré. I asked him whether he would have firm negotiations with Australia and New Zealand. He snubbed me by saying the matter was not in order, but he had been talking about it for four or five minutes. At least we tried.
  Mr. Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning that. My right hon. Friend mentioned some deliberations in the WEU. We find that month after month, when the matter is raised in the House, all we have from the Government is talk about hopes and statements like "We have told them of our views". There has been strangely lacking any steam from the Government to make the strongest protest possible at the French proposal to carry out these tests. As recently as February of this year, the Minister of State replied:
  "We have no authoritative confirmation that a French test series will take place in the Pacific in 1973".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February 1973; Vol. 851, c. 53.]
  He has been saying exactly the same thing month after month. The whole world, except the poor Foreign Office, knows that the French intend to carry out the tests.
  I shall not weary the House by going through what happened in January. The Minister of State for Defence said something in the same fashion on 25th January. He was asked about this and said:
  "The French Government have not yet confirmed that there will be a test series this year. If nuclear tests are carried out we shall, as in the past, take all appropriate steps to look after the health and safety of the inhabitants of our dependent territories in the area."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January 1973; Vol. 849, c. 626–7.]
  Mr. Critchley: In the run-up to the Australian election, Mr. Whitlam said that, if he were to be elected he would send a senior member of his Cabinet to
  844
  the fall-out zone of the French nuclear tests. Has the right hon. Member any suggestions of a Member from his Front Bench to do likewise?
  Mr. Morris: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is quite correct in that. I did not follow the Australian elections but I think that this matter related to New Zealand. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who spends some time on these matters, could consider and reread his views. My understanding was that it was the New Zealand and not the Australian Government, but I may be wrong.
  I find the present naivety and innocence of the Government in telling the House time after time that they had no authoritative information about whether a test would take place as not unlike what the Foreign Secretary was saying about tests last year when he visited Canberra and Auckland. On 29th June he said:
  "Our attitude is quite plain. We test underground if we test at all. They test in the atmosphere. This is a fact of life we live with, there is no point in taking a position on it."
  Perhaps the hon. Member for Devonport will bear it in mind that that is how the Foreign Secretary and her Government set out the position. This is not a fact of life. It is a fact of death. People for countless generations will suffer from the carrying out of these tests.
  Dame Joan Vickers: Following my question M. Debré lost his post, so perhaps the new Minister will have a change of heart.
  Mr. Morris: Nothing would cheer me more than to hear that there had been not only a change of Minister but a change of policy in accordance with the representations which I am sure the hon. Lady made most convincingly.
  But what is odd is the way in which the Foreign Secretary went on to discuss the situation last year. He said:
  "We have made our position clear to the French and that is as far as I would go. Of course we have our people on the Pitcairn Islands. I have not seen a report from them in the last day or two"—
  I do not know whether telegrams come daily to the Foreign Office from the Pitcairn Islands—
  "but after the last test, of course, the level of nuclear radiation was well below anything

  845
  that could be a hazard to health. We will see what they say this time."
  Yet when the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was asked what representations had been made from the Pitcairn Islands, the answer was that none had been made because no inquiries had been made; no initiative had been taken by the Government to discover the views of the people in the islands.
  But there was more to it last year. In his caravan the Foreign Secretary went on to Auckland, where he said in a Press conference:
  "You must not always believe what the newspapers say"—
  a very wise remark.
  "Britain",—
  he said, unfolding this great news,
  "has signed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty."
  I do not know whether this fact had been denied in the New Zealand newspapers, but he stressed the point, that therefore we were against tests in the atmosphere.
  "Everybody has known for months past that the French were going to make a test. It is a little bit naive now to be surprised that they have done so."
  Everybody knew this year, except the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office, including the Minister of State reading the Foreign Office briefs, time after time said that there was no confirmation that the French would carry out their tests.
  How right the Foreign Secretary was to point out to his undoubted tormentors in Auckland that it was rather naive to suggest that the tests were not expected that year. Everybody knows this year, in the same way. It is no good Ministers saying that there is no authoritative confirmation. Everyone knows that, unless there is a change of Ministers and a change of heart, these tests will be carried out.
  The Government have been playing this down and hoping that the problem would go away, that it would not bother them and that there would not be agitation in this country. Now Austrialia and New Zealand have applied to the International Court. We have our locus in the International Court in regard to our position over the Pitcairn Islands, let alone over the other countries
  846
  involved—Fiji, Tonga, the Cook Islands, Samoa and all the other islands in the region, all of them deeply interested and involved. We have a responsibility for the Pitcairn Islands and a responsibility as a signatory of the nuclear test ban treaty. It is our job to consider our position in exactly the same way as Australia is doing and in the same way as New Zealand is doing. We should here and now be making the same kind of application to the International Court. I find it odd in the extreme that we are not doing so.
  I know that these issues embarrass Conservative Members, but the hon. and gallant Admiral the hon. Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), will agree—this is not an invitation to him to rise once again— that we are told that every nation shares the high seas and no nation has the right to close them to any other nation. Those words are firmly entrenched in international law and endorsed by the Australian Prime Minister. If British ships, or any ship for which we have responsibility and which carries our flag, be it of the Royal Navy or the Merchant Navy or any ship of the Commonwealth, is turned back from the area where the French are carrying out their tests, this important principle of the freedom of the seas, which has stood the test of time in peace-time, undoubtedly will be breached.
  It is wholly wrong that we are not taking our place shoulder to shoulder with Australia and New Zealand in the International Court.
  8.22 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of Slate for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Antony Buck): It gives me great pleasure to wind up this interesting and constructive debate and to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris). I think it would be in order to congratulate him on becoming "learned". We have always known that he was learned but we are now able to acknowledge that fact by so describing him. He will make a great deal of money as a leading counsel, and I congratulate him on taking his silk. I hope that the length of his cases will not be such as to cause his fees to become too exhorbitant.[AN HON. MEMBER: "What

  847
  about the length of his speeches?"] I had certain thoughts of that kind in mind.
  In my speech tonight I shall attempt to answer as many points raised by hon. Members as I am able, and as time allows. I shall, of course, see that I reply to other matters by correspondence, or they will be dealt with by hon. Friends as is appropriate.
  I will deal first with the observations made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the Government's attitude to the French nuclear tests in the Pacific. The position has been made absolutely clear by my right hon. and hon. Friends. We hope that Francs will accede to the partial test ban treaty and cease atmospheric testing. We have voted at the United Nations in favour of a resolution urging cessation of atmospheric testing. We have made our views known to the French Government and to the Australian and New Zealand Governments. Our position is absolutely clear and needs no further justification.
  Mr. Peart: The Under-Secretary must understand that our case is that there has been no forthright declaration by Her Majesty's Government. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend stressed that. There is an impression that we are going cautious with the French.
  Mr. Buck: My right hon. Friends have spoken in the way I have described. We have voted as we have in the United Nations and made our views known to the French. I share the suspicions of some of my hon. Friends that the Opposition are trying to make too much of this for reasons best known to themselves.
  On a related point, the right hon. Gentleman in his admirable—mostly admirable—opening speech showed that he was concerned about Anglo-French nuclear collaboration. He pressed for an assurance that no secret pact had been agreed. I am not entirely clear why he needed that assurance, because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has several times told the House that we have agreed that such collaboration must be a matter for the long term, and that no concrete proposal for it has ever been discussed between the two Governments.
  The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the Saudi Arabian contract. I am
  848
  told that details cannot be provided, as the right hon. Gentleman, with his great experience of these matters, will understand. But I have authority to say that the figure he mentioned was erroneous, and that a more accurate figure was quoted by one of my hon. Friends. It is rather larger than the right hon. Gentleman suggested—[Interruption.]—through the newspapers.
  As this is not a single-Service debate. I shall rove beyond what may be regarded as my more usual naval sphere, and spend some time talking in general terms about defence. But I am sure that the House will understand and forgive me if a faint maritime tinge appears from time to time.
  I propose to isolate two general areas on which it might be useful for me to concentrate, first following up what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said about NATO and the situation that confronts it both in Europe and in its worldwide context. I shall then pass to what the House will agree is the major factor in enabling Britain to maintain her efficient and professional contribution to NATO—the men and women in the forces and their conditions of service. I shall also mention Northern Ireland.
  The Opposition have said some interesting things about NATO. The present Government, like the previous administration, have as their highest priority the maintenance and improvement of the North Atlantic Alliance. The right hon. Gentleman deployed a similar theme in his opening speech. We, like the Opposition, are convinced that NATO provides our insurance for a future in which the West is free to determine its own policies without the East breathing down our necks.
  How are we to interpret the ever-growing military strength of the Soviet Union and her Warsaw Pact allies if not as a means of putting the West under uncomfortable political pressure? We must remember that what we are up against is not an exclusively European or even an exclusively NATO threat. It extends world-wide. The Soviet Union's defence effort absorbs a much higher proportion of her national resources than is the case in most NATO countries, and her expenditure on defence continues to rise in real terms each year. Her military capability

  849
  as a result is growing steadily. The continuous introduction of new equipment in all Services is not only improving this capability but increasing the range of options open to her.
  In March, during the debate on the Royal Navy, I drew attention to some aspects of the growing maritime power of the Soviet Union. The Soviet fleet has become a very effective instrument of policy, and it shows every signs of continuing to develop its capability for operations in distant waters. In 1963 the Soviet Union had 30 nuclear submarines. She now has 110. She then had 17 missile-armed cruisers and destroyers. She now has 60. In all, she has about 300 attack and cruise missile submarines and about 135 major surface combatant units.
  There is continual Soviet naval activity in the North-West Indian Ocean. We have recently become aware that the Russians have established a small naval barracks in Somalia at the port of Berbera. This has not been announced before in the House.
  Going to the Mediterranean, the United States Sixth Fleet, which helps to safeguard NATO's southern flank, continues to be challenged by the Soviet Mediterranean squadron. In the Atlantic, the increasing Soviet maritime capability is such as to cause doubts, frankly, about NATO's ability to reinforce the European theatre from the United States.
  This again is a theme which my hon. Friends have deployed from time to time.
  Then one turns to the Warsaw Pact ground forces, which comprise a threat of formidable dimensions. The Warsaw Pact has some 70 divisions immediately available for operations against NATO's 23. After reinforcement, it could be 90 against 27. We know that at present there are more than 100 armoured, mechanised and airborne Warsaw Pact divisions stationed in Eastern Europe and European Russia, deployed and trained for offensive operations, with all the advantages accruing from easy access to reinforcements and, of course, enormous reserves of manpower.
  The Warsaw Pact, then, as a whole, has an overwhelming superiority over NATO in conventional ground forces. Our men are outnumbered by 2:1 in Central Europe; our tanks by 2½:1; our artillery by2¾:l.
  850
  The Soviet Union has some 11,600 military aircraft widely deployed, and a large efficient air transport fleet. In Europe there are some 5,360 combat aircraft, backed by 1,200 medium and heavy bombers in the Soviet long-range and naval air forces, as against NATO's 2,850.
  Perhaps I may remind the House also that the Soviet Union's strategic forces now include some 1,500 intercontinental ballistic missiles, some 700 medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles, and about 60 operational ballistic missile firing submarines. We know that new strategic land and sea based missiles are under development.
  In the face of this massive catalogue of military prowess, we can only speculate why the Soviet Union now appears to be prepared to negotiate on measures for détente. We are glad that she does so appear. This is a matter which has been mentioned by hon. Gentlemen opposite and, indeed, by my hon. Friends. Some factors which have caused her to appear to be willing to negotiate in this way are apparent, such as the need to meet domestic demands for goods and services, the existing situation relative to her own affairs in the East, and an acknowledgement of nuclear parity with the major Western Power. Furthermore, we can recognise that the areas of common interest between East and West may be increasing, which is hopeful. The Government's objectives certainly are to do all we can to ease matters in a new area of East-West relations in which tensions will be relaxed but security remains un-diminished. This last point must be, and is, basic to our approach to the talks which are now in progress and which have been mentioned during the course of this debate. Undiminished security, of course, depends absolutely on the maintenance of a strong North Atlantic alliance.
  The development of our defence policy thus depends on the maintenance of the European Atlantic partnership embodied in NATO. The continuing health and credibility of NATO demand that Europe must play its full part and provide an equitable share of the forces required to defend the Atlantic area. This is where closer defence co-operation by the European members of NATO is so important. By working more closely together, wasteful duplication can be reduced and the

  851
  value of the European defence effort much increased.
  I will not go into the activities of the important Euro-group as they are widely acknowledged. I am sure that the European direction is the right one for us to concentrate on in order to reach the twin goals of getting the maximum value for money and cementing our relationships with our allies.
  Perhaps I can now turn from these rather broad considerations which determine our defence policy and concentrate for a few minutes on the basic requirement for implementing that policy; namely our men. Perhaps I should say personnel, because the women's and nursing services are also of great importance, and we all acknowledge that.
  I will deal first with recruiting. In our previous defence and Service debates this year a good deal was said about current recruiting trends, and I will not repeat the details. The broad picture is that recruiting is tending to come down from the record levels of 1971 and 1972 but the trained strengths of the Services are up to the mark and re-engagement is continuing to improve, while the rate of wastage is decreasing slightly. As always, there are some shortages in some categories, and we keep a close watch on the age structure and are particularly anxious to recruit more young officers into the Army.
  Those who are now joining all three Services are of extremely high quality. One has only to visit a mess in any of the Services to realise that what some have supposed were the days of the officer who was a chinless wonder with fire in his belly but no brains in his head are definitely over. There are plenty of brains these days.
  Looking to the future, we shall need to recruit about the same number of men, 40,000 a year, out of a narrower age band and from a smaller pool because of present and forecast changes in the pattern of education and in the population structure. All of this adds up to the need to pay constant attention to conditions of service and to ensure that conditions of service are well up to all comparable work in civilian life and that the inevitable discomforts and constraints of Service life are properly taken into account.
  852
  Perhaps I can pick out some of the more important of those factors affecting recruiting. Substantial improvements have been made since 1970. Pay is obviously an important factor affecting the intake of recruits and the prolongation of service. We devote a lot of attention to this. I acknowledge at once that we started off with the help of the new military salary, which had been introduced by the Labour Government in 1970, and which provided a good basis for the subsequent improvements we have been able to make. In 1971 we set up three review bodies to advise the Government on the pay and allowances for those who had no collective bargaining machinery. Most important from the point of view of the Services is the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, whose responsibility covers all Service men and women up to the rank of brigadier and equivalent.
  The first report of the review body was published in April last year and contained a useful summary of the reforms which have taken place in Service pay. It also recommended new rates. The review body also said that it would keep Service pay under continual scrutiny and make further recommendations as and when it thought fit. The Government's prices and incomes policy applies to the Services as to everyone in the community, but we have made it clear to the review body that we would like it to continue its work during phase 2 of that policy. I think that is the right decision.
  Hon. Members will be aware that we have introduced important improvements in the engagement structure of our forces. We have taken into account the changes announced by the Government following the Donaldson Report. These were put into effect from 1st April 1971. As many hon. Members will be aware, one of the results of these improvements is that boys enlisted below the age of 17½ have the right to shorten their engagement on reaching the age of 18.
  We also introduced the system of flexible engagements, which applies to those who enlist as adult Service men and those who graduate from boy service. This is known as the notice engagement scheme. It was introduced in May of last year. Basically, it gives the Service man the right, on completion of training

  853
  and 1½ years' productive service, to give 18 months' notice of leaving.
  These important improvements, as I believe the House all round would agree, in conditions of service should be for the benefit of the Services as a whole and an incentive to recruitment, by getting away from the greater rigidity which the earlier structure had.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Before he leaves the subject of recruiting, could he bring the House up to date about the 15-year olds? He will know that the Royal Navy took 36 per cent. of its manpower at the age of 15, and the Army 22 per cent. Is he still tussling with his right hon. and fair Friend the Secretary of State for Education or has he lost the battle with her?
  Mr. Buck: I would not put it quite like that. I have the greatest sympathy with my hon. and gallant Friend on the question he poses to me, especially because HMS "Ganges", which I believe he has principally in mind here, is relatively near my constituency; and every year the boys come over to the Colchester Tattoo and, saving the presence of my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State for the Army, rather steal the show from the Army from time to time, as I have often said to my Army friends. But I am afraid there does not seem to be much possibility that HMS "Ganges" will be able to continue in its present rôle. I admit to sadness about it. Perhaps my hon. Friend could himself have a tussle with my right hon. Friend about this matter, though I feel there are very strong arguments which make it not feasible for HMS "Ganges" to continue, sad though I feel that is.
  I have dealt with Service conditions, with pay and with engagement structure. There are other factors, and one I would like to put before the House which is from my point of view perhaps most important is the matter of confidence— confidence in the Services and confidence in the determination of the Government to see that the Services are well treated. It is not entirely easy to see what makes for confidence but it is very easy to see what happens when confidence is lost. In 1968, following a series of defence reviews, recruiting slumped to 28,000 compared with the 40,000 plus which, as
  854
  I have said, we need each year. The next year, 1969, was not much better, and if that pattern had continued the strength of the Services would have been so seriously eroded that further major reviews would in turn have been necessary and the whole debilitating process would have continued.
  By comparison, in 1971—a certain event happened in 1970 of which I am not making a party political point but it will not be lost on the House—confidence had been restored and recruitment reached the figure of 46,500. We are now back to a more modest figure a little below the 40,000 mark, but the change in climate is clear and welcome.
  Mr. John Morris: Surely the hon. Gentleman must not give only part of the picture. He should give the figure for 1970 and try to tell the House exactly what happened before that substantial increase which occurred and the rising trend in those years because of the introduction of a military salary by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Denis Healey).
  Mr. Buck: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been listening he would have heard me pay tribute a few moments ago to the fact that right hon. Gentlemen opposite brought in this scheme. I said that in terms which will be recorded tomorrow. But the event which happened in 1970, which I am bound to say I am prepared to stress if the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes, was an election; and a Government were restored who are not encumbered within their membership by people who do not believe in the armed Services. I am prepared to concede that hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite and we were agreed—[Interruption.] I was pressed on that point or I would not have dreamed of stirring up this matter at this stage. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman has outlined the very significant event which happened in 1970, which was a change of Government.
  There is, however, one factor which no Government can rely on being able to control. This is the incidence and type of activity confronting the Services. But we do what we can, despite the difficulties which the Services are having— for example, in Northern Ireland. The House is aware of the various measures

  855
  we have been taking there to improve the conditions of the troops—the provision of better accommodation, extensions of leave, cheap telephone calls and many other things.
  The devotion and forbearance of our troops in Northern Ireland is wholly remarkable. That has been stated on both sides of the House, and rightly so. I was in Belfast four weeks ago and met members of all three Services. I spent some time with units of the Army and the Royal Marines—the 2nd Light Infantry from Colchester, on its fifth tour in Northern Ireland, and 42 Commando. As on my earlier visits, I was tremendously impressed by the way in which they are conducting themselves and the way in which these men, some of them on their fifth tour of duty in the Province, are tireless in carrying out their difficult and hazardous rôle. They show remarkable understanding of the need for patience and restraint. What they are doing is worthy of all the tributes which have rightly been paid them tonight.
  I turn now to some of the specific points raised in the debate. I have done my best to deal with the points raised by right hon. Members opposite, but, clearly, I have not done it wholly to their satisfaction. I will consider what further answers I can give them.
  The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) made an interesting contribution. He called for a new approach to defence. I looked forward to hearing in more detail what he had in mind, but was a little unclear about it when he had finished. I noticed that he did not cast blame on us for escalating defence costs.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) made one of his usual interesting and forthright speeches. He mentioned in particular the question of the media. I have great sympathy with all he had to say on that, having had certain encounters with the media of a not wholly satisfactory nature, relating to similar matters.
  The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) raised the question of shipbuilding. I will not go into the details about the various parts of the programme, and perhaps I can take up the question of
  856
  Type 21 and Type 22 in correspondence with him rather than in the House now. I assure him that the capability and skill of the management and workers of Swan Hunter, including the old Wigham-Richardson, are not forgotten in the Ministry of Defence.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) raised an interesting point. I will not enter the lists with him about tripwires. I will leave my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army to deal with that matter. I associate myself with what my hon. Friend said about the TAVR.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) referred to the interesting subject of the Hydrographer's Department. I am paying a visit to the Hydrographer ere long, and I will then go into the points about equipment and personnel which she raised. But it is notable that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is serving on a survey ship at the moment, and this must give some confidence that the Hydrographer's Department is not in such bad order as my hon. Friend indicated. The value of its work is vastly appreciated throughout the world. I will go into the other matters she raised more specifically in correspondence.
  Dame Joan Vickers: I hope that my hon. Friend enjoys his visit. However, coming from a Service town, I hope that I am not being unduly sensitive but I thought that his remark about "fire in the belly" was perhaps unfortunate. We depended on these men in two world wars, and it would be unfortunate if he gave the wrong impression.
  Mr. Buck: What I said about fire in the belly was that officers today are not, as is sometimes suggested they have been in the past, chinless wonders with fire in their bellies but no brains in their heads. I would not have subscribed to that view, although occasionally, looking at the history of the charge of the Light Brigade, for example, in isolated incidents there might have been a little truth in it.
  Sir R. Thompson: Will my hon. Friend not equivocate about this but just quietly withdraw the suggestion about chinless

  857
  wonders? It does not come well from a Minister who is supposed to be defending the Services.
  Mr. Buck: If what I said caused offence to my hon. Friend, I withdraw it at once. Representing a garrison town, the last thing I would want to do is to cause offence. I was referring to the high calibre of the officers of today in what I thought was an amusing illustration. I am surprised that that was taken amiss. I unreservedly withdraw those remarks and apologise if I have caused any offence whatsoever.
  In conclusion, it is the object of both sides of the House and all those who take an interest in defence matters that we should have greater publicity for the difficulties and the menaces which face our country and that the public should be brought to a better understanding of those problems.
  The more that the public understand what we are confronted by, the more they will give wholehearted support to the basic aims of our defence policy and the more they will hold the services in the high esteem which they richly deserve.
  Mr. Michael Jopling: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  AGRICULTURE
  Resolved,
  That the Fertilisers (United Kingdom) (Amendment) Scheme 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th April, be approved.—[Mr. Jopling.]

  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (MOTOR CARS)
  Resolved,
  That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the cost of motor cars, not exceeding in number those provided for the United Kingdom Delegation to the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, for the use of Members of this House and of the House of Lords while attending sessions as members of the European Parliament.—[Mr. Jopling.]

  GUARDIANSHIP BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

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

  BDR MACHINES LIMITED BRISTOL
  8.53 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: I wish to raise tonight the isue of the closure of an important factory and business in my constituency. This firm is called today by the modern title of BDR Machines. That is an up-to-date name for what is known usually, with a touch of affection in Bristol, as Dolman's.
  This business of BDR Machines is in the heart of the old industrial part of the city. It is a firm with a certain history. It was founded by a pioneer in the making of automatic vending machines, Mr. Harry Dolman, who is now retired from active business. Mr. Dolman was very much a pioneer. In the early days the company in the main made vending machines which were then new ingenious devices. More recently the company moved successfully—or it was thought to be successfully—into other fields of manufacture of automatic machinery, making machines for factory packaging and for automatic marking. The company has indeed deployed a whole range of special skills and learned very high respect for the good work done by its employees, I think it could be said that that Brecknell Dolman and Rogers had a wide reputation at home and abroad for the high quality of its products.
  Until fairly recently then the prosperity of the company, so far as one could judge, was not in doubt. It

  859
  employed designers, technicians, many skilled craftsmen and administrative grades. I know the factory well and have spoken there especially at election times. No one to my knowledge suggested that the company was not prosperous. I have evidence for the fact that it had a long order book for orders from both well-known companies in this country and from users in overseas markets. So much was the future prosperity of the company taken for granted that, although I do not know all the details, when with the passing of time Mr. Dolman and some associated with him decided to retire from active industrial life the company was sold to the Vokes Group.
  That was in 1969, not very long ago. I assume that the Vokes Group was anxious to buy a going concern with a high reputation. There was much talk at that time of the new opportunities and increase in employment that the amalgamation with the Vokes Group would bring to the Dolman factory. In 1972 the Vokes Group in turn was taken over by that large industrial combine, Thomas Tilling. But then to the amazement of everyone in Bristol, where the firm is very well known, and in spite of protests by the employees and trade unions, this year the decision was taken, presumably at the top level of the Tilling Group, to abandon the business altogether.
  At one time the company employed 1,600. That number was already run down, and this action entailed approximately 500 redundancies. The closure will presumably be fairly gradual, but it is intended to close the factory and to abandon the business. Among the 500 employees now to be displaced are many who have given the whole of their working lives to building up the business. Some worked in it from its early foundation.
  The news came, as I say, as a surprise. It amazed most of us in view of how the company had always been, in terms of this century, in a modern line of business in the manufacture of automatic vending and other contemporary machines. This kind of modern machinery which saves time and labour is in enormous demand, one would have thought, both here and abroad. No so long ago BDR machines was quoted as the kind of company that would find new scope with Britain's entry
  860
  into the EEC. In other words, to put the position into modern economic parlance, the company's occupation with vending machines and automatic packaging machines was to be in a growth area of business.
  I do not think it could seriously be said that the quality of the product was not right. In his letter to me on 10th April, the Minister said:
  "Every encouragement will be given to ensure, as far as possible, that BDR expertise is utilised by British industry."
  How it is to be utilised when the company is to be abandoned and broken up, I am not clear. But the Minister and the Department are in no doubt about the quality of the product.
  Therefore I, the workers at the factory, the trade unions and those of my constituents to whom I have spoken fail to understand why in these circumstances the undertaking is to be consigned to the industrial scrapheap marked "No longer required." According to a notice sent to employees and the trade unions by the management of the Tilling Group, the main reason is the failure of the company under its new management to secure
  "satisfactory sales volume for our range of products in a poor national market".
  I am puzzled to learn that there is a poor national market for products of this kind. Perhaps the Minister would throw some light on this. The company goes on to say that it is against a background of continually increasing costs.
  I wrote to Mr. Aubrey Jones. He has been through many incarnations in his time but these days is a director of Thomas Tilling. He was well known to the House at one time, a former Conservative Minister and subsequently Chairman of the Labour Government's Prices and Incomes Board. I wrote to Mr. Jones, because he is an industrial director with considerable public and political experience, thinking that he more than some people in industry would understand the social implications of a closure of this kind. He replied sympathetically, of course, but enclosing a letter from Mr. Meaney who is managing director, I believe, of the Voke's group within the Tilling combine.
  When it came to his reason for the closure, Mr. Meaney did not mince words. He put the blame, fairly or otherwise, on

  861
  the original owners. He said that they had rashly embarked on a costly decimalisation programme. I have his letter here with me. He said:
  "The principal reason for the transition from profits in Mr. Dolman's day to losses in the Voke's era appears to be that at the time of acquisition Voke's were not aware of the large and continuing problems of decimal conversion of the vending machine range".
  If that were so, it does not speak very well for the Voke's accountants that this company was taken over without, apparently, adequate investigation of the future costs that would be incurred by decimalisation adaptation.
  Those are two views of reasons for the closure. Another view is that of the trade unions. I think it can be said— my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) will agree with me, I am sure—that the trade unions, a wide group of which have members in the factory, have played a most constructive rôle throughout the business. They have been reasonable, they have been understanding and they have certainly done their utmost on behalf of their members to see, as far as they can, that adequate compensation for loss of employment is paid. Whether it really is adequate is doubtful, but the unions have certainly done their best to ensure for their displaced members the maximum compensation that the company will grant.
  Since we have a little more time than is usual for an Adjournment debate, I should like to quote in aid Mr. Aubrey Jones. He said:
  "As an individual"—
  I do not know whether that has any significance; I will not suggest it has—
  "I never really like the idea of companies closing works and passing on the resulting responsibility for coping with those made redundant to a governmental authority. It would be nice if the company could reabsorb the workers displaced in the same area. Unfortunately however Tillings have no other activities in the Bristol district, and I am afraid I have no alternative course of action to suggest."
  Though this is primarily a matter for negotiation between the unions and the management, and the unions have done their utmost in view of what Mr. Aubrey Jones says in his letter to me, I would have thought that this great combine should have been far more generous in
  862
  the matter of severance terms than it has been.
  Apart, however, from the question of the terms of severance, the unions have their own point of view to express, and have expressed it, on the reasons for the closure. The trade unions and many employees at the plant allege that the company has been badly managed since the acquisition by the Vokes Group, and that the assets have been run down and dissipated in the interests of a so-called rationalisation by the larger group. In short, the unions allege that there has been asset-stripping, that the company has been ill managed and has been the victim of an ill-conceived, badly carried out rationalisation by people at a very great distance.
  In an adjournment debate it is not possible to cover adequately the whole of a complex situation of this kind. In my judgment, however, there are disquieting features of the two takeovers which should be investigated, and I use that word advisedly because it is not my own. In his letter to me of 10th April the Under-Secretary said that
  "subsequent to the take-over of BDR, several disquieting situations were uncovered that would have posed difficult future problems irrespective of the ownership of the Company."
  When he replies to the debate, the hon. Gentleman ought to say what those disquieting features were.
  The Government themselves have an indirect interest in a situation of this kind where an enterprise is abandoned. Nowadays there are investment grants and training grants. In other words, it is possible that in the Vokes combination, and perhaps subsequently in the Tilling combination, investment grants were given because, although the Bristol area would not, I think, qualify for such a grant, there is a factory at Burnley. Certainly there will have been training grants. Is this public money lost or is any of it recovered? I shall be obliged if the hon. Gentleman deals with that point.
  Behind this story of the destruction of a thriving local enterprise by financial amalgamation there is a much larger moral and social issue. It arises not only in relation to BDR Machines in Bristol but wherever there are amalgamations followed by subsequent closures. Should it continue to be possible for decisions of this kind to be taken purely on financial

  863
  or investment grounds in the interests of alleged rationalisation without consideration for the great stake of the employee in an undertaking to which many have given their working lives? Should not their interests equally be considered with those of the shareholders? Should they not have a right to offer an opinion about whether an amalgamation should take place?
  Those who defend the so-called free enterprise system must remember that when a situation of this kind occurs, with its social consequences, questions about the right of the employees to have a say on whether an amalgamation should occur will be asked increasingly in the future. In any case it is not obvious that greater efficiency always comes to British industry from such amalgamations. There is no guarantee. Indeed, at times it can be shown that an amalagation or alleged rationalisation does not result in any greater productivity and efficiency but produces the opposite result.
  In this connection I end by quoting from a letter which was sent to me by someone I have never met. He is a retired management employee of BDR Machines. He says in his letter:
  "Since I retired I have had time to think, and I now believe Vokes never meant to make BDR "go" but were more interested in buying the assets of the company for capital gain. Unfortunately they did not have the brains in their organisation even to do this, and the people sent to advise us would have found it difficult to hold down jobs as office boys at BDR Ltd."
  9.18 p.m.
  Mr. Martin McLaren: I am glad that the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) has found the opportunity to raise this matter. Everybone in Bristol is sorry about the closure of the famous engineering firm called BDR or, as Bristolians know it better, Bricknell, Dolman and Rogers. As the hon. Member for Bristol, Central said, Mr. Harry Dolman was the moving spirit. By all accounts he is a brilliant engineer. He designed, for instance, the ticket machines which are in everyday use in London Transport stations. He is well known for other activities, including the chairmanship of Bristol City Football Club.
  There are some redeeming features in this sad story. First, generous redundancy
  864
  terms have been negotiated for those who are to be displaced. The skilled engineers who form a large part of the work force are not expected to find difficulty, in present conditions, in finding other satisfactory employment. That is largely because of the policies of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in promoting the growth of the economy. Only today I was speaking to the Department of Employment at Bristol. The Department was telling me that employers are already going to it and asking when the can engage some of the people working at BDR, which is to close down in June.
  I understand that a good many people have found other employment already. I do not think that many will find difficulty. I know that there is a problem for the older men in their late 50s. However, I know that the Department of Employment will give every assistance that it can. I am sure that my hon. Friend, when he comes to reply, will corroborate that. The truth is that whether under the system of private ownership or under a system of public control some firms or units of production will flourish and grow and others will decline.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol, Central that the trouble at BDR was that the order book became seriously reduced and that was why the firm incurred heavy losses, eventally leading to the closure planned for next month. If a firm is losing a lot of money, sooner or later it has to pull down the shutters. It would be a mistake to look at this as a plot by Vokes or by Thomas Tilling. I am sure that they are very sorry about the way in which matters have turned out, and they themselves have lost all the capital with which they originally bought the firm.
  Mr. Palmer: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that it is a coincidence that the losses started immediately after the amaglamation? The company was doing very well before.
  Mr. McLaren: I understand that at the time the company was bought by Vokes profits were about £400,000 a year and that the decline started from that time, although I do not have detailed figures with me. It may be, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, that it was a blow

  865
  to the firm to lose Mr. Dolman's services and that those who replaced him may not have been so expert in that form of business.
  Let us look for a moment at analogous cases in the public sector. How many collieries have been closed down by the National Coal Board merely because they were no longer economic? Immediately after the war the Government made great efforts to grow groundnuts in East Africa. They failed, they incurred heavy losses and the project was closed down. Those who worked for them no doubt had to find jobs elsewhere. In such cases it is surely better that the economic resources, including the skilled manpower, should be redirected into more profitable channels. These examples from the public sector show that it is foolish to say that there is in private enterprise an inherent tendency towards failure. On the contrary, private enterprise in Bristol is busy and prosperous.
  I should like to sound an optimistic note and say again that, while we all greatly sympathise with the anxieties which these events must inevitably have caused to the work force, nearly all the people concerned should easily be able to find other jobs. Indeed, many of them have already done so.
  9.24 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: I congratulate, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) on his persistence in raising the problem of Brecknell, Dolman and Rogers. I am glad that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) joined in the debate. He will not misunderstand me, I hope, if I say that I thought his speech was disappointing.
  In Bristol many of the 1,700 highly skilled workers have lost their employment in a firm which was producing goods— butter packing equipment, for example, and equipment that was affected by decimalisation—which this country needs. As criticism is often made in our debates on industrial matters about alleged failures on the part of trade unions, I put on record that in my view the collapse of BDR reflects on the management of that company under its various ownerships. This is a case where thoroughly bad management has brought a famous com-
  866
  pany to its knees and those involved in it to a position of redundancy.
  I welcome the debate because I believe that in the case of BDR there are lessons to be learned by the community and it involves a sufficient number of people to be of wider interest than merely in the city of Bristol itself. The shop stewards working there, whom I have met on a number of occasions apart from my visit as a Minister and the full-time officials, whom I have met with my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) and Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks), regard the closure of BDR, the way the men have been treated by the management and the way the case has been dealt with by the Government as a peculiarly bad example not only of management but of Government response. Without wanting to be unnecessarily controversial at this late hour in an Adjournment debate, I must put this on record because I regard the case of BDR as highly unsatisfactory.
  I have been in correspondence, as has my hon. Friend—he referred to his correspondence with Aubrey Jones and Ministers—with the Department of Trade and Industry. I wrote most recently on 2nd April to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry personally demanding that there should be an inquiry by the Government into this firm. I had previously written on 12th March. I have received replies not from the Secretary of State but from other Ministers in that Department.
  As we have a little time, I want now to draw attention to some of the unsatisfactory features of this matter. The first point concerns the way in which the employees were treated regarding their redundancy. Once they had been told that the firm was to close, under very heavy pressure from the management they were more or less obliged to accept terms which, as my hon. Friend said, could certainly have been improved upon. But at that late stage, due to other arrangements made by the management, some of them found that even the arrangements which they had accepted under protest were to be varied and others, when many of them had been considering their future, were to find themselves denied the opportunity of making a change and obtaining redundancy pay because some employment under certain

  867
  circumstances was to remain for them. That point mattered much to the union and should have mattered much to the Government. That was my first reason for asking for an inquiry.
  My second reason for asking for an inquiry—this bears more directly on the Minister's responsibilities—was to find out whether there had been adequate disclosure by Vokes, and subsequently by Tillings, in the transactions that took place.
  I have received a letter, signed by the Under-Secretary who is to reply to the debate, on page 2 of which he said:
  "Your reference to the degree of disclosure during the two transactions, first by Vokes and subsequently by Tillings, has been discussed with both parties. In both cases the takeover operation was necessarily to some extent at arm's length and both parties have admitted that the seriousness of the situation at BDR Machines only became clear after the takeover."
  That is a polite Civil Service and ministerial way of saying that two people bought what turned out to be pigs in a poke. If a transaction has occurred, as the Minister now confirms in his letter, with disclosure that concealed from the purchaser the seriousness of the situation, without regard, for the moment, to the rights or problems of the workers, it requires an inquiry. The Minister made it absolutely clear in his reply that it was only after the takeover that the seriousness of the situation became apparent.
  The next point which I raised with the Minister was that which my hon. Friend dealt with very delicately and which is now known as asset stripping. This is where a firm buys another firm not to keep it in business but to get rid of its assets for some capital gain for its own purpose. In my letter to the Minister I asked for information as to whether the machines that were sold by Vokes were machines that were necessary in order to keep the company going. I asked because one test of asset stripping is if a firm buys another firm and sells the tools that the other firm actually requires in order to keep in business.
  The Minister's reply is in my opinion unsatisfactory. He says:
  "On the question of sales of BDR machine tools, I understand that those sold consisted
  868
  of old, worn and obsolete machines. Other machines in good condition were transferred to the Vokes Group factory at Guildford and Burnley, as part of an overall production rationalisation programme, for which new machines were also purchased. Though this programme was not altogether successful, it was at the time compatible with the continuing operation of BDR."
  To use the phrase
  "compatible with the continuing operation"
  of the firm might be only to say that it could be just kept ticking over even if machines are sold. This is quite different from keeping all machines necessary for the continual health of that firm. Undoubtedly, the workers in the firm believe the sale of the machine tool which took place was part of a deliberate rundown.
  I also received a question about the extent of Government investment through BDR, through investment grants and training grants. I raised this advisedly because the workers involved had raised it with me. I got a reply from the Minister which I know is the normal reply. I have often signed this sort of letter myself in which similar things were stated, but in these circumstances the reply which I recived was not adequate. The reply read:
  "As you know, it is not the normal policy of this Department to disclose the amount of investment grant paid to individual companies."
  I know that Governments do not disclose dealings with individual firms.
  "However, you will wish to note that when some of the assets in question were transferred to Vokes Ltd. at Burnley, the company complied with the Department's requirement and signed an undertaking that the assets would continue to be used in a qualifying industrial process. It is the Department's policy not to pay extra grant when assets which have already attracted grant at the standard area rate are transferred to a development area."
  The point at issue here is that when these machines tools were transferred to Burnley they were still used in the industrial use in which they had qualified for the grant. With the Burnley factory closing and the Government involvement having been in the purchase of the tools in the first place, there is a Government interest in this company which ought to be accepted.
  I can also use parliamentary privilege properly in order to explain why I raised the question of training grants with the Minister. In the opinion of the employees

  869
  in the factory, the training grants were not properly used for the purposes for which they appeared to have been obtained. I cannot confirm or deny this. I can only report it as I should do, for that is what has been said.
  I received this reply:
  "The Department of Employment have been helping Voices Limited with the cost of training additional employees at Burnley and Earby. These grants were given under the scheme which assists with the basic skills training of expanding firms in Development and Intermediate areas, but as they only relate to those employees recruited from assisted areas, grants will not have been paid in respect of any workers transferred from Bristol."
  I am afraid that I do not regard that as a wholly satisfactory answer to my question.
  Finally, the Minister said:
  "The review of the situation we have carried out leads us to support the view that there are no grounds for mounting an official inquiry into this case, which is a purely commercial operation. It is a matter of regret that the Vokes management were unable to make a success of this firm following takeover, despite their efforts at reorganisation. We have found no evidence of asset stripping. On the contrary, our information is that the closure of BDR will cost the present owners more than the realisation of its assets."
  That is not a complete answer either.
  This was not a purely commercial operation based on proper disclosure at the point of takeover, and that is admitted by the Minister. Also, of course, the question of whether the owners have burned their fingers may be an incidental consequence of their bad management, but it does not follow that they were not intending to make some profit from asset stripping. The Minister finishes by expressing sympathy for those personally affected by the closure.
  The reason why I am speaking in this debate is not only to put on record my view that the Government should now have an inquiry, but also to try to draw some lessons from this episode. In my opinion, the need for further disclosure applies not only to one firm acquiring the assets of another; there must nowadays be an acceptance of the principle of much greater disclosure to the workers involved. That is the point that my hon. Friend has properly emphasised.
  It is absolutely monstrous that 1,700 workers who had been in what was acknowledged to be a successful firm
  870
  should find that the firm changes hands not only with inadequate disclosure to the purchasers but with inadquate disclosure to them so that at that early stage when what came to light the workers would have known about it. I say candidly to the Minister that the days have long since passed when workers can be given sympathy when things fail but are told practically nothing until the point of failure.
  My second point stems from the first and is a general lesson. In my opinion, the level of skill and the sense of responsibility of the workers at BDR would have enabled them to correct the losses and failures of management in that company if they had been allowed to know in time what was wrong—but they were not. This is where the whole question of the development of industrial democracy finds a direct relevance to people's prospects of earning a living and retaining their employment. I am glad that the TUC is now coming forward with firm proposals, or at any rate is discussing proposals, which will call for a sharing of management power with workers on a substantial scale.
  My third point has been touched on by my hon. Friend: indeed, he properly laid great emphasis on it. The day has long since passed when workers can find their firms sold over their heads without any rights in the matter. I know that we have accepted for a long period that the worker was a man who waited for the manager to tell him what he was to do: participation meant that the manager told him a bit earlier than perhaps he legally had to do.
  But these 1,700 men have seen a great Bristol firm transferred twice without any information to them, and they have had no rights in the matter at all. It is not fair to blame BDR, Vokes or Tilling for this. This is a defect in our law.
  The Minister will, I hope, tonight instigate an inquiry, for which there is an overwhelming case, and will also indicate the Government's thinking on fundamental amendments to the Companies Act when that comes forward in the new Session. Only then can we get away from the sort of serfdom that, candidly, is involved in the application of the present law and move towards a period when this country recognises that those

  871
  who create wealth and work in industry have a prime right to be consulted when the means by which they earn their living are so gravely affected as has happened in the tragic case of BDR.
  9.39 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I also want to congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) on having secured this debate, thereby allowing us to discuss the problems of BDR Machines Limited.
  Following the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) I do not want to be controversial, but he said that he was disappointed with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren). I do not agree with that, but I had some disappointment with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman himself.
  Before I cease to be controversial, may I say that the right hon. Member's speech contained a substantial element of humbug, because one would have thought from it that redundancies had never occurred under the previous Government of which he was a member, whereas his Government, and he in particular, presided over probably the greatest redundancies the public sector has ever seen.
  The right hon. Gentleman gave the impression that on every occasion a firm in the private sector had redundancies during the time of the previous Government there was an immediate inquiry, but there is not a shred of evidence of that.
  The right hon. Gentleman also used the occasion to embark belatedly upon a great philosophical contemplation of the reform of company law in this country. When he and his administration had the opportunity to reform company law, they manifestly failed to do it. I happened to be a member of the Committee when in Opposition which dealt with that Bill. I recall also all the time I have been in Parliament in opposition advocating the cause of wider share ownership and the spread of the wealth of our companies in this land, and a remarkably frosty reception I always got from the previous Labour Government.
  I sympathise with the employees who will lose their jobs as a result of this
  872
  closure. I understand that the local officials of the Department of Employment are in touch with the firm, and I am glad to say that there is reasonable hope that the employees concerned will be placed in alternative jobs without too much difficulty.
  I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West dealt with this. The level of unemployment in the Bristol area has fallen by almost 20 per cent. in the last year, and the current rate of 3·1 per cent. approximates to the national average, and the downward trend has been maintained almost consistently throughout that period.
  I have every hope that it will continue in line with the economic growth which the country as a whole is now enjoying as a result of the Government's policies. I am supported in this view by the number of job vacancies that are notified to the Department of Employment, which have risen from 2,420 in April 1972 to 5,374 in April 1973. This represents only a portion of the actual vacancies, as witness the local Press in the area, which carries a daily average of 50 columns of advertising for employees.
  Therefore, I think that the general picture is not one of depression at all. It is right that I should say so and should not allow alarm and despondency to descend on what is a prosperous and growing area. Officials of my Department have had extensive discussions in this matter with both Vokes and Thomas Tilling Ltd and we have been given all the facts and figures for which we asked. The Vokes takeover of BDR in 1969 did not come within the scope of the Monopolies and Mergers Act 1965 and did not, therefore, require the prior approval of the President of the Board of Trade in the previous Government. That is a matter of law. I may say a word further on that later.
  Although Vokes carried out an appraisal of BDR before making its agreed bid, it says that it was not able to do this as deeply as it would have wished. Vokes claims that BDR, being a public quoted company, could not without breach of confidence reveal to Vokes more information than had been made known to the BDR shareholders. Vokes

  873
  considered that the BDR management acted correctly and I am advised that there is no question of Vokes having been deceived by BDR. Vokes took a commercial risk based on the available information, but it was not until it was in charge that it realised that it had not identified many problem which it now believes contained the seeds of the firm's subsequent troubles.
  Mr. Palmer: In this analysis of what went wrong, will the Minister say something about the decimalisation programme?
  Mr. Grant: I will come to the question of decimalisation in a moment.
  I was about to say that BDR under Vokes' control lost money on converting existing vending machines to take decimal coins, and incurred heavy expenditure on research and development on new products such as butter-packing machines, for which the market subsequently proved to be limited or nonexistent. Its dependence on cigarette vending machinery exposed it to a shortage of demand which it could not fill when one of its main tobacco customers—Imperial Tobacco—decided to withdraw from owning vending machinery. My officials are satisfied that Vokes made stout but unavailing efforts to restore BDR to profitable trading.
  I should clearly state the figures for losses as we understand them. For the eight months to 30th March 1970—I ask the hon. Gentleman to note that date, because the takeover was only in 1969— the losses were £329,000. In the next 12 months they were £268,000, and for the 12 months after that the loss was £451,000. The estimated loss for the 12 months to 30th March 1973 was £400,000.
  The decline in demand meant that by the latter half of 1972 BDR was faced with a continuing loss of £400,000 per annum, which Vokes could no longer afford to bear. Vokes carried out a review of the orders which it expected to receive in the following five years, which showed an average annual output of only £1¼ million, about £1 million less per annum than would be required to maintain a profitable operation with 500 employees.
  874
  Vokes claims that some of the reasons why more orders could not be got were that certain designs were by then out of date; a major customer for vending machines had abandoned vending and it could not find anyone else to take his place; the manufacture of a range of special machines for one customer had been taken over by that customer; and some machines had only a limited market, which had largely been met.
  Moreover, the reduction in capital investment by butter packers did not help, nor did the need to concentrate a significant proportion of BDR's research and development and manufacturing effort on problems connected with decimal conversion of existing vending machines.
  Vokes therefore decided to try to sell BDR. In this connection I should explain that Vokes had taken its decision but not implemented it before Tilling appeared on the scene. After Tilling had taken over Vokes, towards the end of 1972, Tilling held its own inquiry, which confirmed the Vokes decision.
  No one could be persuaded to take over BDR as a whole, although some firms were interested in parts of the business. Vokes thereupon decided to notify its intention to close the business. It issued notices on 2nd March 1973 to the trade unions, customers and the Press to make sure that all parties were treated equally. In this Vokes claims to have followed the code of practice under the Industrial Relations Act 1971.
  Thereafter there were negotiations. Tough and hard bargaining went on, but eventually Vokes successfully negotiated redundancy terms with the trade unions. About 500 employees at Bristol and 80 service engineers spread throughout the country are affected. The agreed redundancy terms will give each qualified employee full redundancy pay under the provisions of the Redundancy Payments Acts, plus also an ex gratia payment of 50 per cent. and payment in lieu of notice.
  The closure of BDR is scheduled to be completed by the end of June 1973 and will certainly entail a loss of £1·6 million which will fall to Thomas Tilling Ltd. to finance. Vokes could not otherwise have found the money to pay such generous redundancy terms.
  I make a general observation here in answer to something raised in the debate.

  875
  It is only right and proper, in the interests of the employees, that there should be generous terms. Of course, inevitably there must be change in the industrial structure of our society. But I have always believed, and it has always been my policy and genuine belief, that this must be mitigated by generosity on behalf of those who have the power to give it to those so affected.
  Mr. Palmer: Does the hon. Gentleman really think these redundancy terms are generous?
  Mr. Grant: I think I can say so. I can cite considerably worse terms in my experience. I can certainly say that there are many examples which are far worse than that. The important thing is that they have been reached after hard, straightforward negotiation. They are considerably more satisfactory than some examples I have found in going round the country.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, Central asked why employees who have given their working lives to an enterprise should be at the mercy of takeovers. I have a great deal of sympathy for that point of view. It is, of course, one of the reasons for having a redundancy fund —so that employees can be given some measure of compensation where the loss of their job is due to no fault of their own. In the present case, Vokes has made strenuous efforts to make a success of the business. It and Tilling have tried hard to find a buyer for BDR as a going concern. When they failed to find a buyer, they gave priority to those bidders for parts of BDR who offered the prospect of continuing employment in the area. They have shown a reasonable sense of social responsibility in that respect.
  On the question of monopolies and mergers, the House and hon. Members will have noted that this merger did not come within the scope of the legislation, but, as a result of the Fair Trading Bill which is now passing through the House, assuming that the Bill passes into law, there will be a substantial tightening up of the procedure in that respect.
  It has been suggested by both the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East and the hon. Member for Bristol, Central that
  876
  my Department should hold a formal inquiry into the circumstances of the closure. Under the provisions of the Companies Act 1967 we would have power to do so only if there were misfeasance —that is to say, conduct by the officers of the company which led to the company having claims against officers for the loss sustained. That is a very different thing indeed from possible defects in disclosure, either because the law is inadequate concerning disclosure or because there was a civil defect which could give rise to a course of action. That is a different thing from a finding of misfeasance by officers of the company, and certainly this does not apply in this case. There is, in our judgment, no basis on which we could initiate an inquiry under the Companies Act.
  Mr. Benn: I appreciate the attention which the Minister is giving to this question of holding an inquiry. May I ask three questions? First, not being a lawyer, the exact meaning of "misfeasance" escapes me. I am not suggesting that any illegal act in this sense has occurred. Secondly, can the behaviour of the directors be properly assessed without an inquiry? Thirdly, is it possible for the Department to hold a more informal inquiry at any rate to see whether such an assumption might be made, and on the basis of that then be able better to tell whether a further and more formal inquiry was required?
  Mr. Grant: On the latter point, we have in effect been having informal inquiries because my officials have been looking into the facts, discussing these and collecting information from those concerned with the transaction. It is because of this that we believe that there is no prima facie case to warrant an inquiry under the Companies Act.
  It is a long time since I was a lawyer, so I hesitate to give a precise definition of misfeasance. It is something which is perhaps not quite a criminal act but is an act of misconduct. I can only suggest that we both study the definition. I am speaking now without the benefit of legal advice from within the Department, and it would be wrong for me to give my own definition.
  Both the hon. Member and his right hon. Friend expressed concern that asset-stripping might have been involved. As

  877
  the right hon. Gentleman will realise, "asset-stripping" is a slightly emotive phrase. I hope he will not mind if I say that it seems to be asset-stripping when he is in Opposition and rationalisation when he is in Government. The information I have shows that in the course of attempting to rationalise production and reduce unit costs Vokes sold some old BDR machinery and transferred some good machines to Guildford and Burnley. The sale of the scrap machines by competitive tender brought in £3,000, while the book value of the good machines was £75,000. A sum of £78,000 in cash was transferred to BDR in payment for these machines, and Vokes invested a further £500,000 in machinery for use in its workshops in support of this programme.
  When demand for BDR products declined and working capital was difficult to raise Vokes decided to sell the Bristol factory by competitive tender, for £400,000 as it turned out, and lease back half of it for a period of five years at an annual rental of £16,000. All this seems to reflect prudent management in a difficult situation rather than asset-stripping. By the end of the day the whole operation will have involved a loss of £6·8 million consisting of £5·2 million initial purchase price and £1·6 million closure costs.
  I turn now to the issue of training grants. It is true that the Department of Employment advised us that training grants have not been paid for any workers transferred from Bristol. The right hon. Gentleman made the rather sweeping statement—I do not blame him because he was acting on information—that in some way there had been misuse of these grants. If he can return to his correspondents and ask them to supply precise evidence, my Department or the Department of Employment will gladly look into it.
  The same is true with investment grant payments. Our investment grant division has said that where some of the assets in question were transferred to Vokes at Burnley the company complied with the Department's requirements and signed the undertaking to which I referred to the effect that the assets would continue to be used in a qualified industrial process. It is certainly the Department's policy not to pay extra grant when assets which have
  878
  already attracted grant at the standard area rate are transferred to a development area. This is a policy which we inherited from the previous Government.
  Mr. Benn: I was not suggesting that there was a difference. May I ask about the disclosure of the amount of money involved in a particular firm? I can see the case for this rule when a firm is trading. When a firm has closed and its books are therefore closed, is there any reason why the Minister should not tell the House how much public money went into it—BDR in this case—in the form of investment grants?
  Mr. Grant: It has never been the practice of other administrations so to do. I will apply my mind to that question further and give it some consideration.
  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. Joplin.]
  Mr. Grant: I want to assure the House that we have made no change in the practice which has gone on under successive administrations.
  This has been a longer debate than some of us had anticipated. I deeply regret the serious misfortunes which have dogged BDR since 1969 after its remarkable history before that, but I support, and all our evidence supports, what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West, that they are all due in our judgment to commercial vicissitudes on which it would not be appropriate for me to comment or to seek to apportion blame. I feel it would be much more helpful if my Department were to continue its efforts in co-operation with the Vokes management to ensure that as far as possible the sale of BDR should take place in such a way as to continue employment in the area. To that end, I understand that a number of firms are actively interested in acquiring parts of the business. We are keeping in touch with developments, and we have invited Vokes to take full advantage of our knowledge and experience. We are exploring the possibility of other British firms taking over part or all of BDR's capacity.

  879
  We are concerned that as much experience as possible should remain in the United Kingdom. We must be prepared for some attractive offers from overseas competitors for certain sections of the business. The latest position is that six sections of BDR have been sold, subject to contract, and one section remains unsold. I therefore repeat that the full resources of my Department and of the Department of Employment are available to help in this unfortunate
  880
  situation: but I hope we may all co-operate and be careful that anything we say does not in any way jeopardise the possibility of further sales. I am confident that the unfortunate people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency who have been innocently affected by this state of affairs will very soon be able to be placed in other employement.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Ten o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND
  Assembly Elections
  Assembly Elections
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Prices
  Prices
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Venison
  Venison
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Cod
  Cod
  International Sugar Agreement
  International Sugar Agreement
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Charities
  Charities
  Uncollected Fines
  Uncollected Fines
  Sunday Markets
  Sunday Markets
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Members of Parliament (Expenses)
  Members of Parliament (Expenses)
  Investment
  Investment
  Ministerial Salaries
  Ministerial Salaries
EMPLOYMENT
  Ilford Limited (Works Closure)
  Ilford Limited (Works Closure)
  Disabled Persons (London)
  Disabled Persons (London)
  Vacancies
  Vacancies
  Cardiganshire
  Cardiganshire
  Industrial Accidents
  Industrial Accidents
  Factory Inspections (Biddulph)
  Factory Inspections (Biddulph)
  Lost Working Days (Injury and Illness)
  Lost Working Days (Injury and Illness)
  Industrial Training
  Industrial Training
  Intermediate and Development Areas
  Intermediate and Development Areas
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Steel Supplies (Northern Ireland)
  Steel Supplies (Northern Ireland)
  Czechoslovakia (Bible Exports)
  Czechoslovakia (Bible Exports)
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  British Films (Exhibitor's Quota)
  British Films (Exhibitor's Quota)
  Commonwealth Imports
  Commonwealth Imports
  British Airports Authority (Profitability)
  British Airports Authority (Profitability)
  Sailing and Boating (Safety)
  Sailing and Boating (Safety)
  Companies Bill
  Companies Bill
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Consumer Credit
  Consumer Credit
  Advance Factories (Wigan)
  Advance Factories (Wigan)
  Iron Ore
  Iron Ore
  Prices
  Prices
  Investments (Protection)
  Investments (Protection)
  Celtic Sea Oil
  Celtic Sea Oil
  QUASHED CONVICTIONS
  QUASHED CONVICTIONS
ENVIRONMENT
  Kielder Reservoir Project
  Kielder Reservoir Project
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Council Houses (Sale)
  M4 (Signposting)
  M4 (Signposting)
  Road Casualties
  Road Casualties
  Pedestrian Precincts
  Pedestrian Precincts
  One-man Buses
  One-man Buses
  Mid-Lancashire Motorway
  Mid-Lancashire Motorway
  Rents
  Rents
  Duncan Terrace, Islington
  Duncan Terrace, Islington
  Operation Eyesore
  Operation Eyesore
  Driving Tests (Bolton)
  Driving Tests (Bolton)
  Pavement Width
  Pavement Width
  Roads (Turning-Heads)
  Roads (Turning-Heads)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Preservation of Rare Animals (Convention)
  Preservation of Rare Animals (Convention)
  School Dental Service
  School Dental Service
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Schools (Lancashire)
  Schools (Lancashire)
  Secondary School Projects
  Secondary School Projects
  Under-fives (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
  Under-fives (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
  Secondary Reorganisation
  Secondary Reorganisation
  Primary Schools (Westhoughton)
  Primary Schools (Westhoughton)
  METROPOLITAN AUTHORITIES
  METROPOLITAN AUTHORITIES
  PRESIDENT POMPIDOU
  PRESIDENT POMPIDOU
  NUNEATON
  NUNEATON
  MERSEYSIDE METROPOLITAN COUNTY COUNCIL
  MERSEYSIDE METROPOLITAN COUNTY COUNCIL
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER (MEETING)
  AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER (MEETING)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (UNITED KINGDOM DELEGATION)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (UNITED KINGDOM DELEGATION)
DEFENCE
  Low-Level Flying (Cardiganshire)
  Low-Level Flying (Cardiganshire)
  Restricted Sea Areas
  Restricted Sea Areas
  T&AVR and Central Volunteer Headquarters
  T&AVR and Central Volunteer Headquarters
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  India (Drinking Water Project)
  India (Drinking Water Project)
  European Assembly (Powers)
  European Assembly (Powers)
  Cuba (United Kingdom Subjects)
  Cuba (United Kingdom Subjects)
  North Atlantic Assembly
  North Atlantic Assembly
  MEMBERS' INTERESTS
  MEMBERS' INTERESTS
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Inter-European Telecommunications
  Inter-European Telecommunications
  Television and Radio Reception (Wales)
  Television and Radio Reception (Wales)
  Stamp Vending Machines
  Stamp Vending Machines
SCOTLAND
  EEC Countries (Ministers' Visits)
  EEC Countries (Ministers' Visits)
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Doctors' Lists
  Doctors' Lists
  Drugs (Cost)
  Drugs (Cost)
  Hospital Costs (Fuel Prices)
  Hospital Costs (Fuel Prices)
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Prison Officers (Assaults)
  Prison Officers (Assaults)
  Prison Service
  Prison Service
  Orkney and Shetland (Freight Charges)
  Orkney and Shetland (Freight Charges)
  Health Boards
  Health Boards
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Leek Parliamentary Constituency
  Leek Parliamentary Constituency
  Skelmersdale (Hospital Facilities)
  Skelmersdale (Hospital Facilities)
  Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis
  Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis
  Attendance Allowance (Handicapped Children)
  Attendance Allowance (Handicapped Children)
  Dental Treatment
  Dental Treatment
WALES
  Wrexham-Chirk Trunk Road
  Wrexham-Chirk Trunk Road
  Primary School, Felingwm
  Primary School, Felingwm
  Dentists
  Dentists
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Handicapped Persons
  Handicapped Persons
  Emigration
  Emigration
  Bronglais Hospital, Aberystwyth
  Bronglais Hospital, Aberystwyth
  Fishing Rights
  Fishing Rights

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

FUTURE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will initiate discussions with the Executive Council of the Virgin Islands regarding the future of the administration of the Islands.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that constitutional changes in a dependent territory should reflect the wishes of the population. Her Majesty's Government are willing to consider further constitutional advance for the British Virgin Islands on receipt of a formal request by the Legislative Council.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, is it not the case that there has been a Petition, particularly on the subject of a decision to execute someone guilty of murder?—and in that case I have sympathy with the Governor. But is there not a much deeper reason for giving them more autonomy? Would Her Majesty's Government be prepared to accept the proposal that there should be a Commission on this subject under the chairmanship of a Virgin Islander?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the Petition which was received calling for a new Constitution had about 1,500 signatures. It is hoped that the people who signed the Petition will make their views known to the Special Committee of the Legislative Council which was set up last year under the Speaker to consider possible constitutional reform, because public re-
506
plies to invitations for submissions to that Committee have apparently been very few.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that information.

POP FESTIVALS: REPORT ON CODE OF PRACTICE
3.7 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Department of the Environment have comimssioned a report on Pop Festivals and, if so, whether the report has been received and will be published.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the Advisory Committee on Pop Festivals were appointed in August, 1972, under the chairmanship of Mr. Dennis Stevenson to prepare a code of practice on the organisation and conduct of Pop Festivals. The Committee have recently submitted their report to my honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and this will be made available as soon as possible.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether the report will be made available before the season of Pop Festivals is over?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the general public will have to wait for the printing, which may take it beyond the date suggested by the noble Baroness, but I think Mr. Stevenson will wish to have a Press conference fairly soon. At that time copies will be made available to your Lordships, and of course any Pop Festival promoters or local authorities wishing to be consulted may be consulted and have a glance at a copy. The Press will give publicity to it.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, why should it not be published right away? Is it not in the hands of the Government? I may have misunderstood what the noble Lord said. This is a matter of great importance in libertarian

507
terms. Equally, it will be possible then to take a more balanced look at the subject. Since local authorities are confronted with problems of this kind, it is important that the report should be published very soon.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, as the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition will appreciate, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has given his consent; he wishes it to be printed, and it is being printed. It is merely a matter of the time of printing before copies will be available for the general public.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is it the intention of Her Majesty's Government that rules and regulations will be laid down centrally, and that no arbitrary decision will be reached by local authorities which override the Government's views on the matter?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, this is a code of practice.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Xerox machine two floors above might be used for the purpose?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I have said that publicity will be given in the Press. Noble Lords will be able to see copies. I am merely saying that it will take time to prepare the final document for the public. It will be a well done job.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, in view of the fact that I think the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, must have extensive estates in Wales, would it be possible, in view of his connection with the promotion of Pop Festivals, to locate them as far as possible on his own property?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend will take the noble Baroness's point.

HYDE PARK POP CONCERTS
3.11 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether or not Pop concerts will by banned in Hyde Park this year.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, last year the two Pop concerts in Hyde Park for which permission had been given did not take place because of competition from other similar events. This year, seventeen Pop concerts are likely to be held in London. In all the circumstances, my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction decided not to give permission for Pop concerts in Hyde Park this year, as there appeared to be no substantial public demand for them. He will review the matter again before next summer and will be in touch with the Advisory Committee on Pop Festivals.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord again for that reply, may one ask who it was his right honourable friend consulted to find out whether there was any demand? Surely there are many different opinions about that. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he realises that the 17 concerts which have been allowed cost something like £1·50 to enter, and the concerts in Hyde Park are free; and further, that the youth in this country feel that there is a great tradition for having the concerts in Hyde Park.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, my honourable friend is not under the impression that there is a substantial demand. Up to this morning there had been only 12 letters of complaint. This morning the thirteenth complaining letter arrived, from a Young Conservative group. The young to-day are affluent. The parks are places which have particular characters of their own, and while the majority of young people attending these concerts are well-behaved, anti-social action does occasionally cause concern. As I am sure noble Lords realise, one of the glories of the Royal Parks is that they offer comparatively large areas of peace and quiet in central London for the enjoyment of the public.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the report commissioned by the Department of the Environment the behaviour of the young people was

509
praised by the police, by the Church and by the official medical attenders?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I emphasised earlier that the majority are well behaved it is only a small minority who are not. But there is still a litter problem, and there is still a majority of people whose peace and quiet is disturbed.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I wonder whether your Lordships' House would permit a very old man to support his much younger noble friend in this matter? Is the noble Lord aware that in the adolescent days of my own generation we were very gregarious people indeed, and there was introduced to us a new kind of music called jazz—and we were just as enthusiastic and glad to get together about it as the modern generation is with their kind of music? I wonder whether the Government would look at this matter again.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate, there are other places, such as Crystal Palace, the White City, Wembley Stadium and Earl's Court, which are all in London. Although it would cost a little money if young people wanted to go to these places, they are there and they are available.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the number of letters received following the experience of the Watergate affair is little indication as to the real feeling which exists? I have certainly had letters from young people who are deeply disappointed and think that the attitude of this country is reflected in the way that certain noble Lords have reacted on this matter.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has said that if there is a continuing and substantial public demand for the holding of such concerts he will reconsider the matter.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, would my noble friend be good enough to ask his honourable friend, before he considers next year, whether he would take some steps to ascertain the views of members of the public who normally use Hyde Park at weekends?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, that is precisely one of the points that my honourable friend has taken into account.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise how disappointing his Answer is? After all, if the Government cannot provide cheap bread, why not give the public a circus?
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would be good enough to answer the Question. He still has not answered it. He has given two contradictory replies. In reply to my noble friend he said there had been no substantial demand, and then went on to say that the Park should be kept for peaceful and quiet events. What in fact is the real answer? Has there been a demand by any organisation for a Pop concert in Hyde Park?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I do not think I have contradicted myself. I accept that one of the characteristics of the Royal Parks is that they are places of peace and quiet. This is generally accepted. Equally, my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction accepts that if there were a large and substantial demand for these concerts and they could be held in reasonable security, he would consider this matter again. He has not been adamant.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, how do the Government measure demand? Were there not about 200,000 people present at the last Pop concert in Hyde Park, and has there not in fact been a demand from the same organisers this year to mount concerts? May I also ask the noble Lord whether it is the case that the Government have also banned an exhibition which the Arts Council intended to hold beside the old tea house in Hyde Park?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord's last question, I am afraid I cannot give him a very helpful reply. Perhaps he would like to put down a Question about that matter. On the other point, two Pop concerts were applied for by the present applicants last year, but the concerts were not held.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, whether Pop concerts are good or bad, is it not quite obvious that they are noisy?

511
Is it not equally obvious that there are literally hundreds of thousands of people who like to be quiet, and that their requirements are very seldom looked into? Is it not very desirable that there should be some places where silence can be enjoyed?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. My honourable friend the Minister does not wish to be adamant. He accepts all those points, and that is one of the reasons why he has taken this decision for this year. He is not adamant, but he likes the parks to retain their present character.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES or HASTOE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the first part of that reply, but could he not explain to his honourable friend and to his noble friend that it is splendid to have the parks quiet for all the rest of the year, but the request was made for only four concerts this time? Does the noble Lord not think it is reasonable for those who like that kind of noise to have it for four Saturdays out of the whole year?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, as I said, there are several other places in London. Last year the same organisation applied for two concerts, and they were not held.

THE MIDDLE EAST: SYRIA AND THE UNITED NATIONS
3.20 p.m.
LORD JANNER: 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 action is being taken at the United Nations to condemn Syria for sending troops recently into Lebanon to fight the Lebanese forces and to assist the terrorists who are being trained there for hijacking, the sending of explosives in letters throughout the world, murder and other actions for exercising violence.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, we have no evidence that Syria has sent troops into
512
into Lebanon. Her Majesty's Government consider that it is primarily for the parties immediately concerned to decide whether to take action in the United Nations.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, would the noble Baroness make further inquiries about this matter? It was established in articles and newpapers of high standing in this country and elsewhere that troops from Syria went into the Lebanon. Has she made inquiries about this? If she does so, will she see to it that something is done at the United Nations and that people who enter a land in order to help those who are carrying on these vicious actions are condemned, and not the Israelis for example, who go there in order to suppress them for the protction of themselves and the rest of the world?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR or BELHELVIE: My Lords, the exact nature of the Syrian involvement in the recent events in the Lebanon is unclear. We have no evidence that any Syrian troops have entered Lebanon. It is possible that some fedayeen based in Syria have crossed the border. I understand that it is expected that the Security Council will probably be convened, either at the end of this month or in early June.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, as fighting has taken place almost daily outside the perimeter of Beirut Airport, will my noble friend give advice to British subjects who have to visit that area on business and for other purposes?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, we have, happily, had no news of any casualties so far as any British subject is concerned. I understand that B.O.A.C. have re-routed their flights.

SPRING HOLIDAY RECESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, perhaps it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if I informed the House that, subject to the Progress of business, we shall rise for the Spring Holiday Recess on Wednesday, May 23, and return on Tuesday, June 5.
SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a;, and to be printed.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That in accordance with Standing Order No. 61 a Committee of Selection be appointed to select and propose to the House the names of the Lords to form each Select Committee of the House (except the Committee of Selection itself and any Committee otherwise provided for by statute or by order of the House) and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—

Lord Privy Seal (E. Jellicoe),

E. St. Aldwyn,

L. Airedale,

L. Amulree,

L. Beswick,

L. Byers,

B. Hylton-Foster,

L. Sandys,

L. Shackleton,

L. Strang,

B. White.

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PRESCRIPTION AND LIMITATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and the Prince of Wales (as Prince and Steward of Scotland) to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Bill, have consented to place their interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD POLWARTH): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a;.—(Lord Polwarth.)
On Question, Bill read 3a;.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass. (Lord Polwarth.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

LAW REFORM (DILIGENCE) (SCOTLAND) BILL
LORD HOY: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Hoy.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COLLEGE OF ARMS BILL [H.L.]
3.25 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the College of Arms Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by this Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In rising to move the Second Reading I have a minor interest to declare. I am a record agent and as such my work frequently involves me in genealogical research—though I am not a genealogist. I should say at the beginning that the House, having just heard Queen's consent signified, is honoured, but it does not in any way imply Government support for the Bill. I am sure that this is a point to which my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross will refer later, but I thought it would be helpful to mention it now.
Short and, I hope, simple though this Bill is, it seems to me that there may be some misapprehensions about it and about the intentions behind it, so before turning to what the Bill seeks to do I should like to say very briefly what the Bill does not

515
seek to do. The Bill does not seek in any way to take over the College of Arms; it does not seek in any way to make the College any more of a public department than it is already; it does not seek to cause the College to become a greater charge on the taxpayer than it is at the moment. Nor, except to a limited extent in the matter of records, does the Bill seek to alter in any way the internal running of the College or to extend or limit the rights and prerogatives of any officer of the College, whether the Earl Marshal himself or the newest Pursuivant.
One other thing I should like to make clear at the outset is that the Bill is in no way (as has been suggested) an attack either on the College or on any of its officers; and here, like all noble Lords, I should like to express my personal admiration for the noble Duke, the Earl Marshal. There surely will never be anyone like him who can organise ceremonials with such graceful precision. Equally, no moment could be more appropriate for me to pay tribute to the work of the present Garter, Sir Anthony Wagner. Sir Anthony has been Garter since 1961. He has been with the College of Arms since 1931, and during this time he has written and published a great number of learned books and articles on a wide range of matters concerning heraldry and genealogy. The debt that those concerned with these matters owe to his scholarship and learning, and to his gift for lucid exposition, is great. Indeed, for part of what I shall have to say I am indebted to Sir Anthony's own monumental book, Heralds of England, which has recently been my bedtime reading. The other Kings of Arms, Heralds and Pursuivants will forgive me if I do not name them and pay tribute to them personally, but if we must generalise about those whom I have met I can only say that they are a very knowledgeable and learned group of men, and I am sure many of your Lordships will have a substantial corner of your speeches devoted to praising the College of Arms.
I should perhaps remind the House that in 1867 an Act was passed to regulate the Court and Office of the Lyon King of Arms in Scotland. That Act, to put it simply, made Lyon's Office into a public department and laid down in two
516
Schedules the fees which Lyon's Court could charge. I had at one stage contemplated introducing a similar Bill into your Lordships' House, but on reflection, and for reasons which will I hope become clear during my speech, I do not think that this would be either necessary or advantageous. The only point I want to make is that the Bill we are now considering is infinitely less radical than the 1867 Act or, indeed, the suggestions in 1903 to make the College of Arms into a public department similar to Lyon's Court.
As I understand it, Lyon's Court had fallen into considerable disrepute in the middle of the last century. Happily that is not a state of affairs which applies to the College of Arms, which is a flourishing body. Of course, the Lyon Act applied only to Scotland, but in the past Parliament has not hesitated to concern itself with the College of Arms. Indeed, in 1863 following a debate in the House of Commons, the College was ordered to make a return to the House of Commons of the number of applications for grants of Arms, or to change existing Arms, the amount of fees arising therefrom, and the manner in which those fees were applied since 1850. This Order of the House of Commons was complied with and is provided in the Commons Accounts and Papers.
It might be worth while mentioning that in the preamble to the Report, which by order of the Chapter was signed by the Registrar, who was the Somerset Herald at the time, the role of the Chapter can be seen as being not dissimilar from the role which this Bill will attempt to give it, but rather stronger in that returns were laid before the Chapter of the earnings of the individual members of the corporation; that is to say, the College. I hope, then, I have made it abundantly clear that this Bill is not an attack on the College. Indeed, I would urge the House to accept the proposals contained in it, whether the College was the most ill-run or the best run of offices.
Before explaining the Bill to the House, I ought perhaps briefly to try to explain to your Lordships what this College of Arms is. The College is a body corporate set up by Royal Charter over 400 years ago. Its officers form a part of the Royal Household and are responsible to the

517
Earl Marshal who issues orders for their regulation, while at the same time they govern themselves through the Chapter of the College of Arms. The Chapter is analogous to our cathedral Chapters and it consists of 13 officers of Arms, the Garter Principal King of Arms, two Provincial Kings of Arms, six Heralds and four Pursuivants. The officers of the College are listed in the Imperial Calendar and Civil Service List, and the College has always been regarded as an official public body.
Apart from virtually nominal salaries paid from the Civil List, the officers of the College earn their living from the fees to which they are entitled. Certain of these fees arise from their Household and public duties such as waiting on the Sovereign, attendance at Royal weddings, State funerals, and proclamations that are made by the Heralds on certain occassions. Other fees arise from the monopoly which the College has—not in its corporate sense but through the Earl Marshal and the Kings of Arms in the grant of Arms, the issuing of supporters, the augmentation of Arms and so on; and this may well be a very large part of their work. Much of the work of this nature does not, and indeed often cannot, end in a grant of Arms. I have already referred to the Chapter which is, as it were, the executive body of the corporation, and to the College goes a proportion of the fees received by the officers. This money is used for the maintenance of the College's very beautiful and historic building in Queen Victoria Street and for the preservation and acquisition of archives, its collection of which is of unique importance. Apart, then, from very trivial sums of money from the Civil List and also from the Supply Estimates, the College of Arms is financially self-supporting and does not involve the public as a whole in any cost.
Finally, my Lords, in addition to the College itself as I have tried to describe it, there is also a College of Arms Trust which was set up in 1956 With the following among other worthy aims:
"the maintenance and embellishment of the building and the establishment of a museum and a students' room where scholars might work on the treasures of the College";
and active steps are being taken to achieve this.
Perhaps your Lordships are now wondering why I have thought it
518
necessary to introduce this Bill. If it is one of the greatest privileges of a Member of either House of Parliament to he able to introduce legislation, it is also, I think, his responsibility to introduce worthwhile and justifiable legislation. So I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I now go through the clauses of the Bill and attempt to show the need for each clause as I do so.
Clause 1 provides that the Chapter of the College of Arms shall within a year of the passing of this Bill publish a table of all fees which any officer of the College can charge in connection with the grant of Arms. However, subsection (2) of Clause 1 endeavours specifically to exclude from the table of fees any private genealogical work carried out by any officer of the College. I would suggest that this clause is desirable, not because there is any particular secrecy about the fees charged in connection with the grant of Arms, but because it seems to me that while undoubtedly nobody has to take out Arms, and therefore it could be argued that people do so, as it were, at their own risk, the fact remains they have no choice as to whom they can go in order to get grant of Arms. For the best and most justifiable of reasons the College has a monopoly in this matter, but I think it is only proper that any body of this sort of an official and public nature should publish in a straightforward manner details of all fees likely to be involved in connection with its monopolistic rights. I can think of no other comparable body who do not publish a list of their professional charges or fees—even, for example, your Lordships' House. Indeed, such open publication of its fees, which could be obtained, for example, from the Stationery Office or elsewhere, can only serve to protect the College from some of the criticism which is from time to time made.
This clause does not extend to the private genealogical work of members of the College, and this seems to me only reasonable because anybody may practise and charge for genealogical research whatever fee he may wish, and I can see no reason why the officers of the College should be singled out for special, perhaps unfavourable, treatment in a field where the laws of the market

519
place operate. If Heralds as a group were to overcharge for genealogical research the public would have recourse to a number of other reputable practitioners. The proposal to publish a table of fees is not new: it was a recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry into the College of Arms which was set up by the then Earl Marshal in 1869 and which reported in 1870. Though this recommendation never appears to have been effectively taken up, I think it as a proposal as well justified now as it was a hundred years ago, and that the time has come to give it effect. If, as is not the case, the fees of the College were secret, or if they varied significantly from case to case, the arguments in favour of publishing them would be different, but I would suggest hardly as strong as they are now.
Clause 2 is rather more difficult and I must admit at once that as it stands I am afraid I have drafted it defectively. I had thought that a calendar—and this was strictly from the interpretation of the Shorter Oxford Dictionary—would be a short and simple descriptive list, but I am now advised that this is not the current meaning given to that expression. So if your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading, I would propose to substitute the word "Guide", although that is not wholly satisfactory; that can be misinterpreted, but "guide" is more appropriate than the word "calendar". I have also thought that I would remove the time limit that I have suggested and merely ask the College to start work on the preparation of the "guide" with-in 12 months. This would entail a further Amendment to the clause as drafted, to ensure that the documents in the possession of the Chapter should be made available to the public, even though they were not listed in the "guide". I must apologise to the House for the defective condition of this clause; it only became apparent to me in the last few days. None the less, I feel that Clause 2 as it is drafted makes clear what I wish to achieve; namely, that this unique collection of records should be made public. The College is, after all, an official body, and many of its records which it obtained as a result of legacies concern matters of more than purely genealogical interest. To illustrate
520
the way in which the library of the College has sometimes been regarded as public, one has only to quote the way in which the records of the Order of the Bath were deposited. I quote:
"To deposit them in the public library of the College of Arms"
It is, I think, only right to make provisions to ensure that so notable a collection of records is made readily available to students, and this the clause seeks to achieve, though it recognises the financial charge put on the College by making provision for search fees to be charged, as in fact they are already.
Virtually all great archives are calendared in some form or other, and feel that this unique record belonging to the College should be treated similarly. In fact, I think that this clause does little more than to give legislative effect to the frequently expressed wishes of the College—wishes indeed embodied in the Charitable Trust to which I have already referred.
My Lords, the third clause is simpler. It makes provision for the accounts of the Chapter to be submitted to Parliament, and I should stress that these accounts relate to the body corporate and not to the earnings of any individual officer of the College. I should say straight away that though in the Bill, as drafted, the accounts are to be presented to Parliament by the Home Secretary, that is not strictly speaking necessary and I should be happy to consider amending this clause at the Committee stage so that the accounts may be either presented to Parliament directly by the Chapter without going through a Minister, or alternatively that the accounts should not be laid before Parliament but simply published.
Simple though this clause is, it is an integral part of the Bill. I think; is essential that a body corporate of the peculiar nature of the College should make these accounts public, the more so since by doing so I would suggest that it will be all the easier for the College, which is apparently not a wealthy body, to raise money for the many worthy causes with which it is associated. That has been one of the main misapprehensions of the Bill.
That then, my Lords, is the Bill that we are now considering. It is a Bill of modest aims. It is not a Bill to reform or regulate the College of Arms, but it is a Bill to

521
remedy certain anomalies and to place the College in a position which for more than one hundred years it has been intended it should be placed. I hope and believe that I have convinced your Lordships that this Bill if enacted will strengthen the College and protect it from ill-informed criticism.
May I conclude by reminding the House that, rather as the College is a hybrid institution, so is my Bill a hybrid Bill. That means that if the House is now good enough to give this Bill a Second Reading, there will be a petitioning period during which those affected by its provisions will be able to present petitions to this House. If such petitions are presented, the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee before which evidence may be heard for and against the Bill, and the Bill may be amended following the impartial and expert consideration of a Committee of this House. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a;.— (Lord Teviot.)
3.43 p.m.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, the noble Lord has introduced this Bill in moderate language and I am sure that all noble Lords will have been very glad to hear what he had to say in his opening observations about the noble Duke the Earl Marshal, and also Garter. I hope in the course of not too long a speech to persuade your Lordships that this Bill is unnecessary. Happily, it is a non-Party debate. It is also my duty to declare an interest as I am a Trustee of the College of Arms Trust, which was formed, as the noble Lord has told us, in 1956 for the maintenance and embellishment of the beautiful house in Queen Victoria Street, a house which was built very soon after the older house on the same site had been destroyed in the Fire of London in 1666. The second object of the Trust is to build and establish a museum. The College has long desired that its precious records and treasures should be seen and enjoyed by a wider section of the public than the present limited accommodation allows.
The City of London, which at one time I had the honour to represent in another place, has generously given an adjoining site, and funds were coming in well until a planning difficulty arose. That
522
difficulty, I am glad to say, has now been resolved and an appeal committee of distinguished men, under Mr. Jocelyn Hambro, has already produced generous contributions. I trust that this debate will encourage others to give when they learn the needs of the College and its desire to give London an important new place of study and, in addition, a delightful attraction for visitors both from home and from overseas. I have in my hand here the accounts of the College of Arms Trust and any noble Lord is welcome to see them, audited as they are by Messrs. Deloitte and Company.
The College of Arms, as we have been told, received its first Charter of Incorporation from King Richard III in March, 1484, though Heralds of course existed long before that time. In 1555 a new Charter was obtained from King Philip and Queen Mary, a Charter which is still in force. They also received at that time the site of the present College. The Kings of Arms, with the consent of the Earl Marshal, are empowered by the Sovereign to give grants of armorial bearings, and they have duties, as we have been told, which include the Proclamation of the Accession of a Sovereign; the ordering of State ceremonies such as Royal or State Funerals, Coronations, State Openings of Parliament, and so on.
Clearly, from what I have heard from other noble Lords, there is some misconception about the finances of the College and the Heralds. The salaries of members of the College are purely nominal. Garter gets £49 and some new pence a year, and the others substantially less. Their remuneration is really by way of fees. Each member practises on his own account in much the same way as one does in barristers' chambers. They also receive some very small fees from time to time from the Service Departments in connection with Service Badges. These men are dedicated scholars and experts in the art of heraldry and genealogy. Some of them, like Garter, whose beautiful book, published by the Stationery Office in 1967, has been referred to, have a great reputation. Many of the Heralds have a world-wide reputation in the field in which they work. The remuneration they receive, if I may say so, does not compare with that of professional men of similar skills. The fees to which Clause 1 refers are fixed by the Earl

523
Marshal and details are, and always have been, available to anyone who inquires. The noble Duke, the Earl Marshal, authorises me to say that he is planning to get them reprinted and they are available to the publishers of any work of reference who wish to print them, whether it is Whitaker's Almanack, Burke's' Peerage, Debrett, or anyone else. Out of these fees the College has to be maintained—and it is a very old building; the staff has to be paid; also the rates (no small sum), running into several thousand pounds; the insurance; the heating; the cleaning; and so on. The Earl Marshal himself draws no salary or fees.
The fee to-day for a personal Coat of Arms with a crest is £250. At the end of the last century it was £76 10s. Od., and as money has depreciated to an eighth of its value since I was born in 1901, that would be the equivalent of more than £600 to-day. So they have not kept up with the fall in the value of money. If your Lordships look at the Standing Orders of the House you will see stated in Order No. 5 that:
"No peer shall pay any fee to any Herald upon his first coming or introduction into the House."
I certainly paid none. No peer who lacks a Coat of Arms need pay any fee unless he desires to have armorial bearings. If he does seek armorial bearings he will pay a fee which helps to maintain an ancient institution and part of the great tradition which is our inheritance and which the noble Duke, the Earl Marshal, has worked so hard and so successfully to maintain. Clause 1, my Lords, is therefore unnecessary as information about the fees is already available.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord in his very interesting speech? Is it a fact that these fees always have been standard and have not been varied; that everybody has been charged the same amount?
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, I do not know that I can answer that question, but certainly the table of fees is published and is available to anybody. Certainly the noble Duke is willing for
524
them to be published anywhere they may be. They are, to my mind, very low.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I would only say three words in order that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, should be clear in his mind. There has never been any secret as to the fees chargeable in the College of Arms. Like other fees they have from time to time, varied, but they have always been available. As nobody ever asked for them, and not being a very rich body, we saved ourselves a very small amount by not publishing them: but anyone who wished could ring up and ask for them. Since it has been made clear to me that people feel that these things are not published I have arranged that they shall be (in fact they are being printed now): and as in the past they will always be available to anyone who wishes to have them.
LORD CLITHEROE: May I now come, my Lords, to Clause 2, which the noble Lord would also like to amend? Clause 2 says that after the commencement of this Act the College of Arms
"shall ensure that a calendar be made of all records and documents.…"
I think the noble Lord has accepted that it is impossible, impracticable, to do this in the time proposed. In 1952 Garter produced a book of about 80 pages, a summary of the records, and subsequently he persuaded the Marc Fitch Fund very generously to commit itself to spending money for this purpose; and they have provided some £3,000 a year. The College has given all the help it can to Mr. Francis Steer who was formerly the County Archivist in Sussex, and even if the money were available the task of doing this in 12 months is not possible, as the noble Lord has now admitted. Making a useful calendar necessitates an immense amount of scholarly work, and one volume alone can contain many hundreds of pedigrees of different families. I understand that there are between 200,000 and 250,000 different documents and volumes. Many of these documents are difficult to decipher and only skilled scholars can read many of the ancient manuscripts. I have looked at some of them myself; I am no skilled mediaeval scholar, but I can well believe that it is necessary to have very great skill and experience to be able to read them.

525
Clause 3 asks the Chapter of the College to keep accounts of all sums received or paid by them and that the accounts should be audited and laid before each House by the Secretary of State. The College of Arms is not sustained by the taxpayer, and I cannot see why the Home Secretary should be burdened with the duty of answering for it in Parliament; nor in fact do the Chapter, which is merely a meeting from time to time of some of the Heralds, fix fees or keep accounts.
A NOBLE LORD: My Lords, they do not keep accounts?
LORD CLITHEROE?: My Lords, the Chapter, as such, do not. Garter King of Arms receives a gross honorarium from the Treasury which your Lordships can find under sub-head E.3 of Miscellaneous Expenses Vote, Class 11, and that is a fee of £3,000 per annum for work done for the Government in the same way as other professional men receive fees for work done for Her Majesty's Government. Out of that sum, however, he has to pay very many expenses.
I am also authorised to say that the total received for official fees, as shown in last year's audited accounts, was £48,573·12. There was spent on maintenance—that is, the cost of maintaining the building and running the institution, including the cost of the production of the documents—approximately £28,000, leaving the members of the College a total of about £21,000 between them. Their secretaries are paid by the individual members out of these earnings and from such earnings as they are able to make from their private practice, occasional writings and so on. Some of them obviously do more of that than others. As there are about a dozen Heralds, the average income they received from these fees last year was something under £2,000 a year.
I have had the pleasure of knowing several Heralds in my life, from the great George Cokayne, grandfather of the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne. They have all been dedicated scholars, and most of them have had private means which help them to live. None of them in their work as Heralds earns an income which compares with that of men in other professions or professional men in the service of the State. They work
526
chiefly for the love of their job. I gather from what I have heard from certain noble Lords that some people grumble about them. But who does not grumble about lawyers, doctors, accountants and other talented men in every sphere of life —not even excluding football players?
This Bill, my Lords, is a hybrid Bill, and that means that if it is given a Second Reading to-day it will have to go, I understand, to a Select Committee. That would involve your Lordships in much trouble, and it usually involves much expense in lawyers' fees. I trust that my noble friend Lord Teviot, having with some courage raised this interesting debate, may see fit to withdraw the Bill. I know that the Earl Marshal will take note of all that is said to-day and if, after consideration, any improvements can be made, he will I am sure make them. I do not think this Bill will help at all. The first clause is unnecessary; the second is impractical, and the third, which is not very easy to understand, is in my judgment undesirable. Let us, my Lords, go ahead with the building and equipping of our museum, providing scholars with greater facilities for their work, and the public the chance to see some lovely things.
I hope that I may have persuaded your Lordships, including the noble Lord who introduced the Bill, that this Bill is unnecessary; and, after all, we have a lot of important work to do this Session.
3.58 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, may I first pay my tribute to the debt which the House, and indeed the country as a whole, owes to the College of Arms for the valuable public services, which it has rendered, literally, for centuries, and also, if I may respectfully do so, pay my tribute to the noble Duke, the Earl Marshal, for his stewardship. I do not for a moment regard this Bill as an attack on the College. The College does suffer from a certain amount of criticism, and I believe that this Bill, and even this debate, should do a great deal to get rid of this criticism.
In view of the list of speakers I propose to deal only with Clause 1, which after all deals with a very simple point, a recommendation made by a Committee 98 years ago that the College's scale of charges should be published. So far it has admitted that it has not been. Lyon

527
King of Arms, who performs the substantially similar function in Scotland, has for long published his list of charges, and I should have thought this was a very reasonable requirement. After all, on the Second Reading of the Bill that we have to consider is whether there is anything in the Bill which we think ought to pass into law.
I think the first of the two points on which the College has been criticised—it may be quite unjustifiably, but as I say I think this debate may help at least to clear the air—is that there appeared to be no scale of charges. I am not quite clear even now about an existing scale. I know noble Lords who have told me they have been charged, for example, entirely different sums for supporters, not as a result of a process of bargaining, although that also, I understand, happens. The impression is about among many Peers that each Herald asks what he thinks he can get.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord on that one point. At the time when Life Peers were created for the first time, apart from the noble and learned Law Lords, I think there was a short period during which the question of the fees for supporters of noble Lords who were Life Peers had perhaps not been fully considered. It was decided after consideration that the fees for supporters for a Life Peer should be less than the fees of supporters for an hereditary Peer because a Life Peer, let us say, a Knight Grand Cross, is created only for his lifetime, whereas the hereditary supporters go on for ever. There might have been a little confusion at one time when Life Peerages were first introduced.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. That rather confirms my impression, that misunderstandings are caused when things are not published and these explanations do not occur to people.
The other point on which the College has been criticised, and again this debate may help, is the atmosphere of mystery which seems to surround the work of the College. My father had registered our family Arms with the College. I was only a Life Peer, so I anticipated no difficulty, and did not expect to pay anything, though, if there was anything to pay,
528
naturally I was only too happy to pay it. When I attended at the College I was a little surprised to be told, "You cannot be Lord Gardiner", and the reason I was given was that there is a dormant Gardner peerage. The peerage lapsed in 1883, which is rather a long time ago. The last Lord Gardner went off to India and I think married one or more Indian wives. I pointed out that this was all a long time ago, that I was only a Life Peer and I was not going to live very long, and in any case the name was spelled differently. I was told, "First of all, how do I know that a claimant has not been working on this matter with his solicitor for the last five years? By the first post to-morrow I may get a claim. Secondly, it does not matter how it is spelt, but how it is pronounced". I was told there had already been enough trouble about Lord Robens and Lord Robbins. I pointed out that nobody who spoke properly pronounced "Gardiner" in the same way as "Gardner". That had no effect. I also pointed out that it was very awkward for me, being a practising barrister, as solicitors would not know who to brief.
After something of a battle they relented and said, "You can be Lord Gardiner as long as your geographical appendage is part of your title". So we examined what that geographical designation should be. Nearly all my family since the time of Queen Elizabeth have been minor clergy in two villages in Somerset, Kittisford and Langford Budville, and I plumped for Langford Budville because I thought it sounded well, rather like one of the railway stations the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, abolished. I was told: "You must remember that every cheque you sign has to be signed Gardiner of' and you had better have one word instead of two" I thought that was very sensible and I chose Kittisford. It was announced in the Press that I had assumed the title of Lord Gardiner of Kittisford. Then I was told that I ought to have supporters, and that would cost £70. As a Life Peer I did not see much point in having supporters, the Arms being there. However, I thought I had better keep in with this chap, so I said, "All right, I will have supporters", and I paid my £70. Then there was some change in the atmosphere, because just before I was introduced

529
Garter was good enough to tell me that he had thought the matter over again and had decided that I could be Lord Gardiner, tout court, after all. This seemed to me to be a bit odd, because one would think that rules must apply to these things. He said, "Of course, I do not decide I only advise". The situation, as I understand it, is that he advises the Earl Marshal and there is a right of appeal to the Queen, but of course you are not told that.
It seems to me that if the list of fees was published it would clear away these criticisms which have existed and would expose the thing to rather more open dealing. It seems to me a very simple thing to ask for. Perhaps one of the 17 speakers who are to follow me—and I certainly intend to hear every speech—may be able to tell me whether the publication of the scale of fees by Lion King of Arms has resulted in any unfortunate circumstances or consequences in Scotland, or whether there is in Scotland some move at the present time that, for reasons which can no doubt be explained, instead of the list of fees being published it should in future be made secret. Clause 1 to me seems to be perfectly reasonable. Not until I have heard the whole of the debate shall I decide whether or not to vote for the Second Reading, though at present my inclination is to do so.
4.7 p.m.
LORD ADEANE: My Lords, I crave the indulgence and forbearance of this noble House for a maiden speech. Noble Lords no doubt remember their own maiden speeches with satisfaction or a shudder, but for me those maiden speeches that I have read or recently listened to were lucid examples of what such speeches should be, examples of which the present effort is only a pale shadow, undertaken, I can assure your Lordships, with the most serious misgivings. I make no excuse, however, for speaking about the College of Arms, simply because I have had some personal experience of parts of the Herald's work, and also because this work, which is done extremely well, is not always widely understood. Nevertheless, noble Lords who have already spoken have done much to illuminate the subject, and I apologise if I repeat all or part of what they have said about it.
530
I do not refer specifically to the advice and help which Garter King of Arms and his assistants give to a Peer when he takes his seat for the first time in this noble House, because that is common knowledge to your Lordships. We have heard of some noble Lords having temporary difficulties over their titles—
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: Hear, hear!
LORD ADEANE: —but these difficulties have evidently been resolved in the end to their satisfaction. I would only say that in my own case what had to be done was done speedily, efficiently and with dignity.
Nor do I dwell on the College's genealogical researches, many of which are carried out for clients from overseas at their own expense. Research into the deeds of one's ancestors can be a mixed blessing, but there is no doubt that there are still many people who are ready to take this risk, to come to the College for such services and to bring with them dollars and other foreign currencies to pay for them. What I should prefer to stress, if I may, as other noble Lords have done, is the work which the College does on great occasions of State. Of course, I am well aware that the Bill we are discussing to-day contains no shadow of criticism of the manner in which these duties are performed. Nevertheless, other criticisms are implied, and, as it is my duty as well as my aim to avoid controversy, I think it is just as well to mention both sides of the medal. Foreigners who come to our country officially or as private visitors and who take an interest in our customs find some objects for criticism and others for approval, but they seldom fail to admire the manner in which the great State ceremonies are carried out.
Perhaps I may be allowed to refer to the State funeral of the late Sir Winston Churchill as an example of this. That was a day in which the country was united in mourning one of its greatest citizens and on which the rest of the world was watching to see how we honoured his memory. The ceremonial which marked it no one who was present is likely to forget. It is not vanity to claim that no other country could have attempted anything of the sort, and foreign guests, including the late General

531
de Gaulle, were the first to say so. It was a day worthy of the Commonwealth and of Britain and of the statesman who was being laid to rest. If such things are to be done they must be well done, and this was done superbly. Many people worked together to bring about this result. It was certainly not the work of any one person or of any one body. Nevertheless, the College of Arms, under the direction of the most noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk the Earl Marshal, were very important contributors to its success, as they are to that of other public ceremonies which have already been mentioned in this debate. So when the Heralds' affairs are being considered this aspect of their work ought not to be overlooked.
The Bill which is being debated this afternoon seeks three objects, and perhaps I may comment very briefly on each of them. The first is that a table of fees connected with the grant of Arms should be determined and published. As your Lordships have heard, this table has been determined. It exists and can be read by those who ask for it. Whether it is of sufficient general interest to warrant publication is a matter of some doubt. It may be that some people may consider these charges too high. In money terms they have certainly increased since the Middle Ages, but the services given demand scholarship, experience and research, and these, my Lords, have never been cheap commodities. Secondly, the College is to make within a twelve month a calendar or guide of all records and documents in its possession, and all the documents in this inventory are to be made available in the original or as copies to the public. Such an inventory is already in preparation and has been for some time and costs a substantial sum each year. I do not believe that any amount of legislation could have any practical effect on the speed of this process.
Thirdly, its accounts are to be audited and submitted annually to the Secretary of State for him to lay before Parliament. I confess that I do not know much about this part of the business. No doubt the College keeps its accounts, but why it should send them to the Home Secretary or why lie should wish to see them I do not quite understand. The College is not
532
maintained by Her Majesty's Government but by fees paid to the Heralds for work done. The Earl Marshal authorises the scale of fees which Heralds are allowed to charge and they charge them accordingly to those who wish for Arms. It is from this source that the income of the College is derived.
My Lords, I do not wish to make too high a claim for the College of Arms. The College of Arms or the College of Heralds, whichever you please, has existed through a great many years of English history and still occupies a dignified and useful position in the community. But perhaps it is not one of those institutions about which it may be said in the year 1973 that if it did not exist already it would have to be invented. Perhaps that would be going too far. Nor would it be wise to say that its ways of going about its business could not be improved. Even the most august institutions may benefit from an organisation and method study. Constant attention to public relations is never a waste of time. It may be that some of these things are ordered better in Scotland—I do not know. North of the Tweed—and of its noble tributary, the Teviot—there is a great deal of solid efficiency. But what I do know is that to compare the College with the Court of the Lord Lyon is not to compare like with like. The Lyon Court is a court of law and neither their histories nor the circumstances surrounding the two bodies are the same.
Of course there are lines on which the College of Arms might be improved and kept in touch with modern conditions. Are there many institutions of which the same could not be said? Some of these lines are being followed already; others no doubt will be. But, my Lords, I do not believe that such changes are best to be secured through legislation and therefore I am bound to say that I am unable to support this Bill.
4.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I am privileged to have the opportunity of congratulating my noble friend Lord Adeane on his maiden speech. I have known him for many years and I suppose few Members of your Lordships' House have had wider experience of all kinds of political problems, although from a somewhat particular angle. I am sure, my Lords, that

533
whenever my noble friend Lord Adeane sees fit to address your Lordships' House we shall all pay the greatest attention to what he has to say.
My Lords, I propose to speak for only a very few moments on this Bill. I think that my noble friend Lord Teviot made a cogent and sensible speech, but having made it I hope, with the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, that he will be persuaded to withdraw the Bill. I say this because I cannot see how the Bill can be enforced or what sanctions can be used without doing what he says he does not want to do; namely, attacking the Earl Marshal and the College of Arms. Let us suppose that the Bill is passed and that these complaints we hear of are continued; what happens? I suppose it is possible that some writ of mandamus—I am not a lawyer—could be issued against the Earl Marshal, but it seems a clumsy and peculiar way of going about things. I feel that we either have to work in with the College of Arms and with the Earl Marshal, or replace it and have a Bill for nationalising the whole of its work. I consider that it would be almost ridiculous to consider that, having regard to the present state of our legislative process.
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Teviot has succeeded in getting certain assurances from the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, and from my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, and I hope that he will be satisfied with that. I fully appreciate that at times in the past the College of Heralds may have shown a certain arbitrariness, and this debate may have done some good in making them less arbitrary. I hope my noble friend will be satisfied with what he has achieved in this debate and will not attempt to have a battle which he has said he wants to avoid.
4.20 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for raising this most interesting subject, and the large attendance to-day shows how much interest there is in it in your Lordships' House. Whether, if the Bill gets a Second Reading, there will be a similar interest later in another place remains to be seen. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, a notable defence of the College which would perhaps have had a little more substance had the College been attacked, which, in my view, it has not been. We
534
have also had a notable maiden speech, which I am sure we all very much appreciated, from the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, who obviously speaks on a matter of this kind with great knowledge and authority. He also, however, came to the defence of the College, which, as I said, in my view had not really been attacked.
Perhaps I ought to declare a kind of interest, since I am what I term a "do-it-yourself" genealogist, helped very greatly by tuition from the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, who has taught me most of what I know on the subject. My very interesting researches into two families in the last two or three years have led me to, among other places, the Public Records Office in Chancery Lane, where there is no research fee of any kind and one can easily determine the kind of documents that are there; to the Census Office in Portugal Street, where conditions are similar; to Somerset House for births, marriages and deaths since 1837, and also fen wills in a similar period; and to the records of the Guildhall, which are open and free to all who may require to use them. Only this morning I visited the Library at Lambeth Palace, where I was greatly helped by the Librarian in a little search which I was trying to make but which was not successful; and of course no fee of any kind was charged.
In the course of my inquiries, I have also been to Coutts Bank, to Drummonds Bank, to Barclays Bank—the old Goslings Branch—and to the Bank of England, two of which turned up without any difficulty interesting records of some of the people whom I was trying to trace. I asked beforehand if they would kindly let me know whether there would be any substantial fee for this research, but they all replied that no fee of any kind was charged. I have also been in touch with the Queen's Librarian at Windsor and with the Royal Commission on Historic Manuscripts and my inquiries in both cases were free of charge. I am at present in touch with the Inns of Court, and I have also consulted the archives section of the Westminster Library, which is also free of charge. I have, too, been in touch with the Society of Genealogists, which is not supported by any public funds, and, therefore, as a non-member, one has to pay—and one expects to pay—a search fee which is determined in advance.

535
I am not saying that the College of Arms should be, or could be, conducted on the same lines. It would be a great pity if anything we did by legislation changed the essential nature and purpose of the College, which I suppose is unique in the world. But, as I said, I am a "do-it-yourself" genealogist and I very much fear approaching the College of Arms, which seems to conduct its affairs in a rather secretive manner. One has no idea what one would be up against in the way of charges. It would be a great advantage to people like myself—and there must be many thousands—if the College of Arms could come a little more into line with these other bodies which carry such interesting and important records. It would be a great advantage if one knew exactly what to expect there, if one knew that some kindly person—of course, one would expect to pay a reasonable fee—would help one to find records for oneself, so that one could go through a lot of the donkey work which is required.
My own very minor dealings with the College of Arms have been entirely happy and congenial. I have no personal complaint of any kind to make, and I am not speaking in any way in criticism of the College. I am merely supporting what I see as the motivation behind this Bill, and expressing the hope that they might find some way of making their extremely interesting and important records more easily accessible to people like myself, who do not wield the very large numbers of dollars which were rather obliquely referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, in his maiden speech.
4.27 p.m.
LORD HEWLETT: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to all that has been said thus far in the debate and for the life of me I cannot find a case for the Bill made. Are we seriously to consider that the changes suggested in this Second Reading debate would be entirely for the better? I submit not. Members of the Government, such few as are left in the Chamber, may have noticed that I am not always an Establishment Peer. I regard these Back-Benches, and those that are almost totally unoccupied on both sides of the
536
Chamber, as being places where one should be at liberty to criticise and perhaps to change; or, indeed, as places where one should be at liberty to stand for the stauts quo. We all know that change for change's sake is unacceptable to this House.
I submit that the College is not the quintessence of democracy nor, with respect, is this House. I think that if one uses the services of the College—and I have found them to be excellent—one should be prepared to pay for those services; and I welcome the fact that there is to be a published list of fees available, though I think we ought to market our affairs a little more judicially. There may be those from other countries who are prepared to pay a great deal more than the running charge, so do not let us necessarily lose for this country the opportunity of doing some good business in foreign currency. Perhaps that is a little cheap and peevish; I hope not, but, as we know only too well, that attitude has been taken in other fields, such as antiquities. What I am anxious to preserve is the essential quality and individuality—indeed, the very uniqueness—of the College of Arms, no matter how laudable some of the objects of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, may be. As your Lordships have heard, the College is almost self-governing and it is also self-supporting, and I hope that it will remain so in the future.
If I may so submit to your Lordships, I think this country demonstrates its own unique quality, partly through the massive support for voluntary associations and not least through some of its almost ancient, if not downright archaic, institutions, like the College of Arms. I speak in favour of the old tradition. I speak in favour of proper pomp and circumstance; and I think, if I may say so, that some of the greatest attractions to the overseas visitor to this country must be the immense quality of such great daily events as the Changing of the Guard or such massive demonstrations as Trooping the Colour or Beating the Retreat on Horseguards. To us, these things may be just matter of fact, day to day. We get in a taxi and we are inconvenienced by them for a brief moment or two because we think our own work very important—and probably

537
it is. But to thousands and thousands of people it makes London. It brings a sense of history and pageantry into their lives; and I have met many Americans—some very recently, at a big electrical contractors' convention at the West End—who were thrilled to bits just to see the Changing of the Guard and to walk through St. James's Park, very beautiful as it is at this time of the year; and then to see the excellence and quality of the clean buildings in Whitehall and the pageantry, as I have said, of some of the affairs of State.
Frankly, my Lords, I am wondering what the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, is really frightened about. Does he think that inside the College of Arms there is some multi-century Watergate affair? I cannot believe that the noble Duke is the arch-robber—he cannot be "robber Baron", but he might be making out like a powerful bandit. But I do not believe either, and I wager that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, does not, either. I would say that those who know these Offices of State are in fact—
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I hope I will be forgiven for interrupting my noble friend, but I should like to say that I made it clear, and stated at length, that the Bill was nothing to do with an attack on the College or the Earl Marshal or anybody at all.
LORD HEWLETT: My Lords, if my remarks were taken seriously, I apologise. I thought that a light reference to Watergate would not be altogether amiss. But we will leave it there, shall we? I beg your Lordships' pardon. Perhaps I may say to your Lordships that I consider that the Office of the Earl Marshal and the other great Offices of State are really callings. Enormous sacrifice is made by the noble Duke, and indeed by Garter King of Arms and by the other officers, the heralds and the pursuivants; for your Lordships have heard from the noble Lord who was first to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Teviot—the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe—that in fact the fees paid are essentially reasonable and scarcely up to the standards of the kind of fees that might be charged professionally outside. I submit to your Lordships that we ought to be intensely grateful for the dignity, skill, assiduity and attention to minute of detail which the Earl Marshal
538
and Garter King of Arms, and his officers, give; and to the artists and researchers of the College. I have broken another rule of the House in bringing arms into the House, but not in the accepted sense. This represents, if I may say so, the work of the College of Arms in 1964 for me as a Knight Bachelor.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord cannot do that.
LORD HEWLETT: I thought I could not bear arms of the sort that explode.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord cannot do that either.
LORD HEWLETT: I cannot do that, either. I apologise to your Lordships and to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. At least your Lordships have had a chance of seeing it quickly. May I say to your Lordships that the quality of the work of the College of Arms is really exemplary—quite excellent. If one has to wait some time for the work to be completed because there is a tremendous pressure of business in the College of Arms, then, frankly, I think one must be patient if one wants to have the quality of work which is in every essence carried out by them—and I have never at any time seen poor work.
The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, suggested that the Bill may not seek to make various changes; but, with respect, I think that if we give it a Second Reading and pass it, various changes may unfortunately result. I waited with all respect, but in vain, to know why the proposer of the Bill really brought it forward. On the assurances that were given after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, had spoken in regard to the release of the information in regard to the fees and the cost of supporters, it seems to me that the case for a Second Reading of this Bill has not been made out.
In summary, my Lords, may I say that, as a customer, I feel that the work of the College of Arms is excellent, and that I hope very much that nothing will be done to change the unique quality of that work and the unique standing of the College of Arms internationally. If I was a little put out at first in being asked to produce my own pedigree, I have never at any moment had the slightest doubt that all the work which has been undertaken has been

539
carried out excellently. It has been undertaken, it is true, in the form of a monopoly—and the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, mentioned the word "monopoly". I cannot believe that there can be an authority of this sort which is not a monopoly. It is not the type of work which in my view can be submitted—I give way again.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I am very sorry to interrupt my noble friend again, but I do not think I said that, either. Quite properly the College of Arms has a monopoly.
LORD HEWLETT: And how much I think it essential, my Lords, that there should be one authority, in this case under the Queen's Household, for this type of work. Personally, I should much prefer it to remain in this form than for it to move into a Government Department or some other separate entity. I echo the sentiments already expressed in the debate by noble Lords, that the wonderful archives should be made available to public view as soon as possible and as soon as the finances of the College will allow this to be done.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? I did not quite hear him. Did he say that he had to produce his pedigree?
LORD HEWLETT: Yes, my Lords.
LORD SHACKLETON: That has nothing to do with the Bill, but where does his pedigree come into this?
LORD HEWLETT: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition prevents me from showing him that, in order to have a grant of arms, one must first have a pedigree, and if one's pedigree is not established one's legitimacy is in doubt, and then the College of Arms, quite properly, will not give a grant of arms, in my case as the son of a former bearer of arms and a gentleman when I was a knight. I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, may I raise a different point with the noble Lord? I understood him to say that he preferred the College of Arms to
540
be where it now is—"under the Queen's Household". Is it?
LORD HEWLETT: I am led to believe that it is, my Lords.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: By whom?
LORD HEWLETT: In the course of the debate and, indeed, in the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Clitherce, I was led to believe that the College of Arms comes under the Earl Marshal, and he is in office as a member of the Queen's Household as Earl Marshal of England.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, when I was having a little bother myself with Garter King of Arms the question arose as to whom I should appeal, and on the noblest of advice I was told it could not be to Her Majesty, because it was not to her; it could not be to the Prime Minister, because it was not to him; and it turned out to be the Earl Marshal. But we never found out how it came to be to him. So if the noble Lord has done some more researches, will he please tell me where the Earl Marshal gets his authority from?
LORD HEWLETT: My Lords, I believe that the Statute established in the reign of Queen Mary I of England, is my answer to the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown. But I do not stand here, my I Lords, as an authority on the College of Arms, merely as a Back-Bencher. I recall, and noble Lords will recall, the difficulty which the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, had over his title. We felt very much for him, and we are very glad that a satisfactory solution was found to the problem to preserve his unique identity in this House. Perhaps noble Lords will forgive me if I try to preserve the unique identity of the College of Arms in like manner.
The noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, has said that he feels the Bill to be unnecessary, and I think that summarises the situation in the light of the discussion that has thus far been held. As for being able to control the College, may I say to noble Lords that I do not think we should be in a position to compel the College to do one thing or another, any more than we should be able to order the Tate Gallery or the National Gallery to put on a particular exhibition of this

541
or that at some time or other. I think that the individual governorship by the Chapter of the College of Arms of the affairs of the College of Arms is proper in every way. Before the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, interrupted me for the second time I was going to venture to comment on the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Platt, from the Cross-Benches. He spoke of the Public Record Office as charging no fees and of Somerset House charging almost no fees, although I think on company matters there is a fee of a shilling; but noble Lords must recall that these are subsidised departments while the College of Arms are not; they must pay for their own affairs from the fees which are levied. One must respect the fact that they do everything they can to make readily available to the public the wonderful archives that they have.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I thought I made it quite clear that I recognised that neither the Society of Genealogists, which I quoted, nor the College of Arms had support from public funds and that therefore it was only right that they should charge fees. I made that perfectly clear in my speech.
LORD HEWLETT: My Lords, with respect, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and I are in any kind of disagreement. I merely underline the fact that Somerset House and the Public Records Office, being Government-subsidised departments—and in one case a Government department completely—should not charge fees because taxpayers' money is used to maintain those services. As for the joint stock banks being kind enough to make available certain information for the noble Lord, Lord Platt, I think, with respect, that they are in a position to afford to do so without making a charge. But I can understand how the College of Arms must make a reasonable charge—and I have never heard of their being unreasonable—in respect of Lilly individual research which any member of the public or any noble Lord in this House may require.
My Lords, I would summarise by saying that I am sure we are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for bringing forward this Bill and for giving us the opportunity to exchange views and to clear up a considerable number of misunderstandings (and points of order,
542
too). I hope that after all that he has heard from all sides of the House, and particularly from the Cross-Benches, he will withdraw his Bill at Second Reading.
4.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, I feel like a ballerina on the sidelines, waiting to come on stage, while every time I try to do so somebody else comes on. The noble Lord, Lord Hewlett, has had his criticism within your Lordships' House this afternoon. I hesitated to intervene in this debate because of its technical nature and, in doing so, I reflect on the old saying that fools rush in where angels fear to tread; but I may say it is also a subject with great tradition behind it. Some of us must be feeling that on this subject we are skating on very thin ice; we are probing into the darkness to learn more; we want to be more interested in the subject, yet it appears to be something of a "sacred cow", not to be taken from its stall, not to be held in question or seen other than from a distance. I heard that there was a very strong atmosphere of opposition to the noble Lord's Bill; and I noticed a week ago a very cold wind blowing in the corridors from the direction of older Members of your Lordships' House who feel that we are dealing with something very sacred and that no one should be allowed to look at it, let alone interfere with it or question it. But we have already witnessed the Earl Marshal—and I am not attacking him in any way—saying, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that from now on the fees are going to be published. I agree that it is about time that this was done. So the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has, by his Bill, already achieved a great deal; and I congratulate him. On the other hand, I said to the noble Lord that I would not take part in this debate except to protect the Royal College of Arms; for it is something about which we younger Members of the House can get rather too agitated—like the "Angry Young Brigade" that we used to hear of —and it is something on which much destruction could be wrought without the possibility of reconstruction.
I have also heard it said—and I appreciate its importance—that many of us have family histories pigeonholed in the archives of the Royal College of Arms, and that in this Bill we are asking

543
the Royal College of Arms to allow the public to be able to see or to get hold of the documents of those family histories. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, that while I go along with this proposal so far, I think it could be dangerous, because certain rare documents—and I am sure that the Royal College of Arms has many rare documents—might get into the wrong hands and perhaps some awful family stories would "leak out" to the effect that a Member of your Lordships' House was really not entitled to be a Member owing to his being born on the "wrong side of the blanket". With the public free to have access to the documents referred to in the Bill, we must be careful how we tread in that respect.
I would rather that we looked at this subject more seriously. I allowed my own family papers to go to the Wiltshire Archives Department, knowing that each document and letter would be sealed in a plastic sheet so that those who wished to look at a letter or document would not destroy it. I do not want to tell the Royal College how to run their business, but I am sure that this is already their practice and if it is not, I hope it will become so. At this point I should like to congratulate the Earl Marshal. I understand he has 40 years' service here. No one can have done a greater service to his Monarch or to his country on the many State occasions which he has had to organise. I should also like to congratulate—and I do so knowing him only through correspondence—Sir Anthony Wagner, and the Heralds, for the standards they have kept up, not only in this country but throughout the world and in America specially. And I extend the congratulations to their staff. We have heard this afternoon that they are not paid a great deal but that they work for the love of the job. May that continue! I am sure that the Royal College need congratulating. We do not know how much they export: it must come under the heading of invisible exports.
I support the noble Lord's Bill. We want to know more of what the Royal College are doing and of how they earn their money, because at the moment we do not know how good at exporting they are, or the marvellous job they are doing in bringing in the dollars. I have attacked
544
the Earl Marshal and others and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton, on extracting information from the Earl Marshal so early in the debate. I think that is the greatest point that has been made in respect of the whole Bill. To write to the Royal College and ask a question costs 15 guineas, or whatever is the sum, and you have to supply the money in advance. I suppose that is all right. If you want anything else, you are given another figure, and so it goes on. I dealt with the Royal College in 1967, and I felt that I could not go on with them because it would have been far too expensive for me to do so. I did not understand how they costed the matter. Surely it would not be difficult for the Royal College to break down the cost of a particular job. If that can be done in a factory in respect of hours, surely it could be done with a job card in the same way by the Royal College. Probably it is done already, but we do not know. So I would go a long way with this Bill, my Lords, and with the fact that the Royal College should publish their fees. There is no harm in that. But in future do not let us have to force such an issue in a debate like this. I agree with the provisions in Lord Teviot's Bill and so I shall support it.
4.52 p.m.
LORD DIPLOCK: My Lords, may I express my apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for not being able to be present when he introduced the Bill. I was engaged on the work of the Judicial Committee. Fortunately, I was back in time to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, and I would add my congratulations to those of others which have been extended to him. The noble Lord knows a great deal more about the College of Arms than I do. The only point that I wish to make is a short one, and perhaps I should confess that I have some sort of personal interest. Legislation passed by the Houses of Parliament in 1972 is contained in rather more than 2,500 printed pages and, what is almost worse, ten inches of the rapidly diminishing space upon the shelves of my legal library. I am supposed to know it all; and so, for that matter, are all your Lordships, the difference between us being that I am paid for it. So that when a Bill is presented before this House, however tiny it may be, I do not ask myself first the

545
question, "Is it harmless?" I ask the question, "Is it necessary?" and if the answer to that question is, "No", then I am inclined to think that it is a bad Bill.
My Lords, the commodity which the College of Arms supplies is not one of the primary necessities of life. It does not rank high in any cost-of-living index. I speak as a brief but satisfied customer of the College. When I went there they had no hesitation in telling me the cost of providing me with what I wanted to know. I did not, in fact, ask the cost, the very thing I did not want or would not have been entitled to. But I have little doubt that had I done so, they would have been only to willing to satisfy my idle curiosity. I understand that now it has been said that these fees will be published, so that those who wish to satisfy their idle curiosity will have only to ask for a piece of paper. So I ask myself whether Clause I of the Bill is really necessary. I would point out that subsection (2) of that clause does not require the College to publish the kind of fee in which the noble Viscount, Lord Long, appears to be interested. It requires it to publish only the fees for the grant of Arms. Those are going to be published; moreover, you could have found them out previously by asking for them. So I respectfully submit to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, that Clause 1 of this Bill is quite unnecessary.
Clause 2 raises rather different difficulties. It requires the College within twelve months to,
"ensure that a calendar be made of all the records …".
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord forgive me for intervening? He said that he was unable to be present to hear my opening remarks, but I did inform your Lordships that Clause 2 was in a way ineffective, and I have intimated an intention not to put in a length of time in which to make a calendar. That wording will be changed. Also the College will be given one year in order to prepare to start the work. That is the course of action I propose.
LORD DIPLOCK: My Lords, I am sorry that my absence did not enable me to hear that explanation before. If that be so, and since, as I understand it, the work of preparing such a calendar has already been going on for the last four
546
years—since 1969, when funds were obtained from a charitable trust—it does not seem to me, with respect, that it is necessary to place a Parliamentary sanction on the College of Arms to do what it is already doing. I say "Parliamentary sanction" because there are no other sanctions in the Bill. I suppose that if one wished to enforce it, one would have to apply to the courts for an order of mandamus and I am in some difficulty (perhaps these are really Committee points) in seeing who decides what would be a reasonable fee for inspecting and copying the documents.
Finally, my Lords, I turn to Clause 3, which requires the Chapter of the College of Arms to keep properly audited accounts. They already do so, my Lords. Subsections (3) and (4) require those accounts to be transmitted to the Secretary of State and laid before Parliament, and they provide for nothing else. My Lords, it might satisfy our idle curiosity to see the accounts of the City Livery Companies, or even those of the Athenaeeum Club. But it hardly seems necessary, as distinct from being merely harmless, to require everyone whose accounts one might be interested to see—but about which one has power to do nothing—to lay them before Parliament. What is Parliament to do about it? Should it read them? Should it ask questions about them? And if so, of whom?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble and learned Lord? It really is very unfortunate that he should debate, clause by clause, a Bill which has been carefully explained. The reasons for it were given by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and at any moment now the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will have to get up and make another speech explaining what he meant and the particular reason for it.
LORD DIPLOCK: My Lords, I again express my regret. I shall be very interested to hear the reason because I find it difficult to conceive that there can be any reason, other than idle curiosity, which would require the College of Arms to lay their accounts before Parliament. And I would respectfully suggest that this is a Bill to which the question "Is it really necessary?" cannot be answered.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord this question? He seems to be advancing, as a member of the Judiciary who pronounces on many things, if I may say so, a very curious doctrine, which is that nobody should ask to see the accounts of any body which is publicly accountable. I am assured that the College of Arms is part of Her Majesty's Household, so it must be somehow publicly accountable. The noble and learned Lord, who addresses trade unions regularly, is saying that it would be idle curiosity to want to see the accounts. May I ask the noble, judicial and learned Lord to explain to us how that fits with the doctrines of judgments that he regularly hands down in other cases?
5.1 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, it is with some diffidence that I rise this afternoon, since my mail to-day included a letter from Windsor Herald, whom I have never had the honour to meet, inviting me to dinner—nothing to do with the passage of this Bill, but simply to dine with his territorial battalion when it is in camp near my home.
Leaving this on one side, no one could be more reluctant than I am to advocate any form of change just for the sake of change. But I feel considerable sympathy for the thought behind this Bill, even if the wording of the clauses may invite justified comment from some who say that certain proposals are unnecessary. It seems to me a pity that some of those speaking in opposition to the Bill should reveal a feeling that the purpose is some form of an attack—and the phrase "sacred cow" has been aptly mentioned. It could be that the whole situation has been changed by the assurances that have been given in this Chamber this afternoon, but in my view that does not in any way show that there was not a good cause for us to discuss this subject to-day and to have a closer look, if not to-day at some other time, at the general functions of the College and the services they provide for individuals. I was going to say what the noble Lord opposite has just said. What is really wrong with a public body publishing its accounts? Are we to suppose that whenever we ask for any public accounts to be published and laid in some form or another we do so
548
from idle curiosity? That seems to me to be a strange interpretation of the functions of Parliament.
My Lords, very few individuals, if we take this country as a whole, have in the course of their lives much to do with the College of Heralds. I presume that the proportion of Members of this House that does is much larger than the proportions of almost any other body, for one reason or another, and not least because there will be a number of Peers of first Creation who will have had to augment their Arms in some way or to petition for a grant. From my own experience the individuals with whom I had to deal were absolutely charming, if a little vague, and especially vague about the final cost as we went through various stages step by step. The bulk of the work that I was asking them to do was no more than to add Supporters to my family Arms. I remember at the time comparing the Heralds' advice in my mind with the sort of advice one might have had when consulting a firm of eminent solicitors. The former were much more vague about the outcome and the cost. I was hence pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Long refer to the habit of suggesting in the last paragraph of the letter that they will be pleased to go on with the job suggested, but they would like a sum on account first. I should have thought that the normal routine of any firm of solicitors would be a better one to follow.
In my case, my Lords, it did not seem so difficult to add these Supporters, having justified my claim to the family Arms, since my uncle in 1891 had established his claim to the Barony of Barnard before the Committees for Privileges of your Lordships' House after a very long hearing. I should not have thought that, starting from 1891 would have been a very laborious business, and I had just to show that I was the son of that noble Lord's younger brother. But that seemed too simple. Since I am descended from somebody who had had his head cut off though a long time ago, but without, as it is claimed, forfeiting the family's right to bear Arms in the process, a complicated situation exists where research seems necessary every time there is any suggestion in the family of change in the Arms we are entitled to bear. I thought they made rather heavy weather

549
of this, and it perhaps results in a rather heavier bill.
But, my Lords, I should not like it to he thought that I am arguing a general principle from an individual case, and I would not wish to pursue that further. I would, however, submit that if there is not a case for this Bill as drafted, particularly after the assurances that have been given in this House this afternoon (and I must admit that I was not here when they were all given), I think there is a case for us to have more information readily available about the rôle, the actual work and the cost of this venerable body which we all admire so much.
5.7 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, I think this Bill is an impertinance, and I hope in the course of a short speech to explain why. Clause 1 asks for a table of fees. Well, you can already get it, and, like the Light Brigade, it is over-charged. I have been "stung" for a wad in my time. Clause 1(2) we have all agreed is unnecessary. Clause 2 has been adequately dealt with. Five years' work has already been done on the documents, and I am told that it will take another five years to complete. I like the bit about "a reasonable fee", but I am more than cynical when it talks about "being made available to the public": that every self-appointed tin-pot investigator should be able to advertise in the Australian and American Press and get some information on the cheap and then flog it to his customers on a more expensive basis. What is proposed in Clause 3(1) and (2) is already done. Clause 3(3) is, I think, dangerous, because no matter what the noble Lord denied to-day, and also in his letter to The Times, I do not think he can deny that it gives the impression that this could only lead to a Minister eventually having to answer Questions in Parliament; and from that it could be seen to lead to the College of Arms becoming an extension of the Civil Service. I know that the noble Lord has denied it, but I say that the Bill, in the way it is presented, gives that impression to other people.
Again, my Lords, many of the documents include details of families which are or have been deposited on a system of trust. To give the Bill a Second
550
Reading, to my way of thinking, and to quote the words of one of the most erudite servants of your Lordships' House, would be "the same as ordering a family solicitor to disclose your personal affairs." I understand that the College is, through the help of charity, wading through something like 250,000 documents. As public funds do not assist the College of Arms (and be it noted that the Bill does not suggest that they should), it would, if carried to its logical conclusion, make it subject to a Minister answering Questions in Parliament. If that had to be done, one can imagine what a field day a certain Republican would have on some of the Questions that would be asked. I do not suggest for a minute that the noble Lord wants that, but this is a danger that I think could arise. It seems to me that the College's very independence is part of its strength, especially in dealing with places like Commonwealth countries and the United States. I do not like the idea of having it nationalised. Of course we all know, especially in your Lordships' House, of the public duties that are performed.
It has been denied that the Bill is a criticism of the College or of the Earl Marshal, but it cannot be denied, I think, that the first impression of the Bill was that such a criticism was implied. In my view, the College and the Earl Marshal should be congratulated, and not criticised. Their article for sale is their records and expertise—hence the complaint about the mystique. But, as was pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, these are not articles on the costof-living index. I cannot help feeling that the reason lying behind this Bill is to make information more easily available to people who can make use of it by way of business. I get many letters, especially from the United States, asking whether, because the name of one of my farms is such-and-such, their family name is related to it. If my archives can supply the answer I tell them—without charge, be it noted.
I have genuine sympathy with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, who has just left the Chamber. But the College have to be careful about the names that people take. For example, my brother-in-law is the noble Lord,

551
Lord Fisher, and when the late right reverend Primate became Lord Fisher of Lambeth, many invitations intended for him were sent to my brother-in-law. The invitations were duly sent on when the mistakes were discovered (incidentally, they were never acknowledged), until one day they thought, "This is enough". So one day they accepted an invitation (which obviously was not meant for them) to some rather important ecclesiastical function, and when Lord and Lady Fisher were announced everyone expected to see gaiters, and so on, instead of which my rather agricultural brother-in-law and his wife arrived, to the distress of the people who had sent the invitation.
I should rather like to see a Bill to control these freelance people, some of whom—though not all—are not above suspicion. They advertise as researchers and expert genealogists. I have seen their advertisements in the United States and Australia, and have had overseas visitors coming to me quoting these people as being absolutely official. Having seen how some of these innocents have been had for "suckers" makes me all the more irritated that this Bill should be introduced by—but I will leave that where it is.
I wonder whether your Lordships have seen the April issue of Which? It contains an article which I believe shows these people up for what they are worth. Page 120 and subsequent pages give the thing away. I will just mention two cases which they quote, and there are many others. A man called Bibby was issued for £5·50 a coat of arms which was once given to a John Bebb in 1801. A man called Sandringham was given the coat of arms of one Sander, and, as Which? points out, the name "Sandringham" was invented by a Dutchman when he applied for nationality in 1930. So I would much rather see a Bill directed against such people rather than against the College of Arms. Perhaps I may quote just a sentence from the article in Which? underlining this. It says:
"The Heralds at the College of Arms will research your ancestry for you and are the only people with access to some sources of information.'
My Lords, I would keep it that way. Though personally I object to the height of their charges, I object even more
552
strongly to what I consider to be the import of this ignoble Bill.
5.16 p.m.
LORD CROFT: My Lords, as I see it, the College of Arms or the Heralds College, first incorporated in 1484, and again in 1555, is an interesting example of an ancient institution with its roots in the Middle Ages which has, by adaptation, survived into modern times. Although no longer used for the purpose of personal identification in battle, heraldry is still very much a live subject. Arms are frequently granted to individuals and corporate bodies throughout the Commonwealth, and honorary Arms are granted to American citizens of British descent.
Already before the outbreak of the Second World War there had been a revival of heraldry in this country; and since the end of that war it is common knowledge that there has been an enormous increase of interest in heraldry and family history, both in this country and in the English-speaking world generally. The College of Arms, under the direction of the noble Duke the Earl Marshal, has played a major part in this revival and may be said to have become a national asset. It has always been self-supporting, as other noble Lords have said, and since the war I understand it has become a substantial earner of foreign exchange. In dealing with customers abroad it must surely be an advantage for the Heralds to say that they are servants of the College and not of a British Government Department—though I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, did not, and does not, intend this Bill to have that effect. I also appreciate that the noble Lord bade no attack on or strong criticism of the College of Arms, though I feel that the very fact that this Bill is being moved does imply a certain criticism.
Apart from the public aspect of the work of Heralds at important State ceremonials, such as Coronations, State funerals and the Openings of Parliament—which is widely known—there is their private work as consultants for heraldic and genealogical research for individuals, which not only adds to the volume and range of their records but also provides considerable financial support for the College. One can only speak from experience, and from time to time I have

553
had occasion to employ the services of the Heralds for research. The results have been very satisfactory. On one occasion I commissioned a summary of pre-16th century heraldic references to my family, and among the manuscripts in the College was found a description of a standard borne by a direct ancestor who had been made a Knight-Banneret at the Battle of Stoke in 1487. I had this drawn out and coloured by one of the College's heraldic artists. This kind of work is not particularly cheap—it is in fact a luxury—and one has to think in terms of a year or more rather than months before such work is done. However, I find this applies generally to work which is done by genealogical agencies. The great advantage of the College of Arms in doing this kind of work lies, of course, in their enormous collection of early manuscripts and records, and also in the very high standard of their scholarship.
My Lords, I see no real reason to justify the introduction of this Bill, and I should like to identify myself completely with what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, in that regard. I see no reason why the College of Arms should be compelled to publish their table of fees. Anyone who is applying for a grant of arms would presumably he told the fees on presentation of his application, though I understand that now the noble Duke has made a concession and the fees will in future be published.
Clause 2 would seem to imply a criticism of the speed at which the cataloguing is being done. But in view of the vast number of documents involved and the time necessary to accurately describe and appraise many of these documents, one would expect such a work to last for decades. I understand that more than a quarter of a million documents are concerned. The answer to any criticism that there may be about the speed of cataloguing would appear to be the employment of additional experts to assist the work under the direction of the Herald in charge. This will require more money.
I have no doubt that the College of Arms which has done so much already to raise money for this object from a generously disposed charitable founda-
554
tion, the Marc Fitch Fund, will be fully capable of raising more money for the purpose by public appeal or otherwise. Already, in 1954, the public subscribed a substantial sum towards the repair of the building, and subsequently considerable funds have been subscribed by private appeal towards the proposed museum for the display of the College treasures.
Finally, I believe that the proposed Bill is unnecessary and serves no useful purpose. The College of Arms is very much a going concern which has made remarkable progress over the past 50 years under the extremely able direction of the noble Duke the Earl Marshal.
5.22 p.m.
LORD SNOW: My Lords, I, too, am opposed to this Bill and shall vote against its Second Reading. I accept completely Lord Teviot's assurances that he means no attack upon the College of Arms and the Earl Marshal's domain. I should have thought that he had done enough for honour and had such assurances as he might reasonably have asked, and we should all like him to subside at the end of the debate. I should also like to say how much we enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, with every word of which I agreed; in fact, I was going to use one or two of those words myself.
My reasons for being opposed to the noble Lord's Bill are simple and two: the first is the old Whig maxim, that if it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change. Although I would not extend that maxim to all fields of life or public activity, in fields of social manners, such as this is, I suspect it is a better guide than many. Curiously enough, it is a guide that is always deep in the hearts of the strongest progressives. It was the type of maxim which Lenin or Mao Tse-tung always acted upon. People who are really interested in progressive thought cannot afford the energy—or even the frivolity—to spend their time "dickering" with things which need not be "dickered" with. That is why I am always suspicious of what you might call the "fringe left" which is attempting to make commotions on things which do not matter, and thus take all our energies away from concentrating on the things which do matter.

555
My second reason is even more simple. This happens to be one of the things we do very well. Those of your Lordships who have foreign friends who travel widely will know that they are not bemused by the English conceit, which is very real, and are not taken in by all our self-congratulations. Usually they find two things to admire passionately about this country. One is our pure science; I say "pure science" and not "applied science", which we do per head as well as anyone on earth—I will not go farther than that. The second is our public ceremonial, and anything which falls under the domain of the noble Duke the Earl Marshal. As the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, said, this is one of the things which profoundly impresses foreigners. There is no other country which can put on a show like this country. The example which the noble Lord gave of Sir Winston Churchill's funeral is a good one, particularly if you compare it with other funerals of eminent persons which happened at just about the same time. I sometimes think that the noble Duke was slightly wasted as Earl Marshal; he might have had a reviving effect upon large spectacles on the English stage, where we have never been especially good. The Americans are very much better than we are at that.
Similarly, the College of Heralds has done admirable work in things which are not so near the public eye perhaps as giving grants of Arms. Garter has made genealogy a tool of sociology; that is a very difficult thing to do, but extremely valuable. No one has ever thought of doing it before; it is entirely original. He has used the skills he has picked up in his job to be a real guide to things which have been left in doubt by historians for two or three hundred years; for instance, the extent of nobility in English society. There he has given answers of great value which could probably have been produced in no other way. Similarly with his colleagues. I therefore think it would be entirely folly either to disturb them, or to give the impression that we want to disturb them. Let us have these accounts, let us have these scales of fees, if anyone wants them; we have already had a guarantee of that being done this afternoon. For the rest, let us waste no more time and leave the matter here.
5.28 p.m.
LORD HELSBY: My Lords, very early in this long debate (I think after Lord Clitheroe had spoken) I began to feel some doubt whether there was much that I could contribute. I felt that even more clearly after the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, made his plain but none the less eloquent maiden speech, on which I should like to congratulate him, as other noble Lords have done. Now that the noble Lord, Lord Snow, has sat down after clearly expressing, as it seems to me, the essence of the matter, I find myself unwilling to trouble your Lordships for more than a moment or two.
This is a Bill which is not necessary, and it would be a pity to add to the great bulk of Statutory Instruments which we in Parliament are bound from time to time to add to rapidly. Moreover, I do not think that this Bill would achieve any of the things that those who think well of it would wish it to achieve. Certainly it would do nothing to help newly-created Peers in their choice of titles. I see nothing in the Bill which bears on that at all.
The noble Viscount, Lord Long, said it would be nice to know more about the important export trade for which the College of Arms is responsible. I do not think we would learn much about that even if the accounts were published in the form suggested in the Bill. Those accounts would be only the accounts of the College as such, and the Bill is at pains throughout to point out that the private work of individual members of the College, which accounts for a lot of the export trade, would not be included in the matter of publication of fees nor, presumably, in the accounts of the Chapter of the College as such. So I end by adding my plea, if I may, to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, to be content with having ventilated the matter and not to press the Bill further.
5.30 p.m.
LORD CULLEN OF ASHBOURNE: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, who has just sat down, I have little to add to the many speeches which have been against this Bill. The reason why I wanted to speak to-day, very briefly, is that, although I have no personal interest to declare, I have an inherited interest, as my noble friend

557
Lord Clitheroe mentioned, in that my grandfather spent all his working life in the College of Arms. Many of your Lordships will be familiar with his magnum opus, The Complete Peerage, of which there is a set in the Derby Room. Since he is reputed to have compiled all this information entirely single-handed I feel that this is an impressive example of the devoted, even dedicated work which is done by the Heralds.
What seems to me surprising about this Bill is that there has not been, I think, any consultation with the College of Arms. I believe that had there been such consultation (perhaps I am wrong in saying this) this Bill would probably not be before your Lordships to-day. Clause 1 would, I think, have been settled in a few weeks. Clause 2, as we have heard, is to be entirely changed because the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has withdrawn the 12 months date. Clause 3 I personally do not agree with, and could not, I am sure, have been dealt with just in consultation. As I say, Clause 1 no longer seems to apply; nor does Clause 2. Clause 3 I do not think is reasonable, in that the College of Arms has been a self-supporting organisation for nearly 500 years and, so far as I know, has had no financial support from State Departments of any sort. That being so, it seems to me quite unreasonable that one should now ask that it should produce its accounts before Parliament. So, my Lords, I think I am with most of the speakers to-day against this Bill.
5.33 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, may I first of all add my tribute to those of noble Lords who have already spoken and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, on his thoughtful and weighty maiden speech, which I think we all agree has been a valuable contribution to our deliberations. I have myself admired the noble Lord since I first knew him as a company officer at Sandhurst in, I think, 1939; and to-day he has certainly lived up to my highest expectations. We all look forward to hearing from him in your Lordships' House on many future occasions.
This is a Bill which nobody should logically object to. Some of your Lordships may feel, and obviously do feel, that the subject would have been better
558
dealt with outside the glare of public debate, or even in this House by an Unstarred Question. But since the Bill has been introduced we must treat it on its merits. There certainly is a case to answer and a situation which obviously can be improved. It would be wrong to refuse, or defer, a Second Reading of a Bill which attempts to initiate such an improvement. It has been suggested that this debate has already achieved all the desired objectives. I should prefer to reserve judgment on this until after all petitioners have been heard by a Select Committee and the Bill is then returned to your Lordships' House.
Clause 1(1) covers a grant of new Arms and the confirmation of existing Arms. For the first there is to be a stated fee, and for both, the first and the second, there will be charges on an agreed scale for any necessary historical and/or contemporary research. The fee for a grant of new Arms will of course embrace all necessary formalities as to registration and also ensure (we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, on the subject) that no sensitive toes were trodden on. This is a moment in time when, as we know, toes become very sensitive. The confirmation of existing Arms would not be very far from the procedure now ruling North of the Border, where each successive holder of a Scottish title has to re-matriculate his or her Arms at Lyon Court in order to established his or her right to succeed. This is an aspect to which I shall return a little later on. Clause 1(2) has been dealt with and need not detain us. This gives the College of Arms a free hand in their dealings with the merely curious, and especially those who have no specific interest in past, present or future grants of Arms to justify exercising their curiosity at the expense of the College.
Clause 2 is a logical step. As applied to the past it might take some time and some effort to find, straighten out, file and cross-reference all the historical records of the College, and we have heard about that this afternoon. I think that perhaps the difficulty has been exaggerated. Not only is there a great deal of stuff there but also, of course, there will be many large gaps. I think for the future it might be made obligatory that, once a grant of Arms is recorded, the College must also record all subsequent

559
events which might possibly affect the right of others to come who wish to bear those Arms and/or any related title or titles. As guardians and as trustees of honours conferred by, or in the name of, the Sovereign, there is surely a duty here which the College should not refuse. If it is objected that the volume of records is too large—and I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, made this point—then I suggest that the College should adopt, or at any rate examine, the Micro-Fiche technique which has already revolutionised the information retrieval systems in the United States and is beginning to do so fairly rapidly in this country also.
Clauses 3 and 4 are not very demanding. Much has been made of them this afternoon but I should not have thought that they were very demanding. The College is, we have heard, incorporated by Charter and therefore it must obviously keep corporate accounts. These are naturally subject to some form of audit and inspection, however private this may be. I feel that the service supplied by the College is to the public. We cannot get away with this idea that it is like being a club such as the Athenæum. It is not so. It is a service which is supplied to the public and we cannot get it anywhere else. So if the service supplied by the College is to the public, it is only sensible, it seems to me, and indeed desirable that the accounts and the audit should also in some form—I do not refer to the Home Secretary or lying on the Table—be accessible for inspection by the public.
What I myself am most concerned about, and the reason I have been emboldened to intervene in this debate, is the curious procedure whereby a successor to a title has to set about proving his right to succeed. Your Lordships may think this is slightly outside the scope of the debate on the particular Bill that we have before us this afternoon. However, as it seems that on occasion the College of Arms may be drawn into this procedure, its methods and its charges are inevitably involved, and I therefore submit that what I am about to say is relevant to the subject before your Lordships' House. I speak from personal experience and I am arguing from the particular to the general.
560
Approximately ten years ago my father died and I succeeded as Lord Killearn in your Lordships' House. As I recall, in order to prove my right of succession to the satisfaction of the Crown Office, it was necessary for me to produce not only my own birth certificate and my father's death certificate but also some acceptable first-hand evidence that my mother was his first wife and that I was their first legitimate male child. As my father was 40 when I was born and 84 when he died, this was no easy task; but happily I was able to find one such person and, happily more so, his affidavit was accepted by the Crown Office. I do not know what the position would have been had nobody been still alive who could so testify from his own knowledge or had such knowledge been held by the Crown Office to be insufficient to be accepted as fact.
About two years ago I succeeded my father's first cousin as fourth Lampson Baronet. My kinsman, whom I never met, was born in 1890 and succeeded his father as third Baronet in 1899. Since that date all the reference books have carried as "heir presumptive" first of all my uncle, then my father and finally myself. Yet, to establish my succession to the satisfaction of the Registrar of the Baronetage at the Home Office, acting under some rigid regulation laid down in the reign of King Edward VII. I now have to prove beyond peradventure, and over three generations, not only what legitimate male births have happened—which would not be very difficult—but what legitimate male births have not happened, which is clearly an impossibility.
I feel strongly that official watchdogs such as the College of Heralds and the Registrar of the Baronetage should have an obligation to ensure not only that honours conferred by the Sovereign are protected from usurpation by false claimants, but also that they are not allowed to lapse if they are still alive. It seems to me logical that any claimant should give details of his own claim, but not that he should be required to disprove all possible claims of all possible other claimants—known or unknown, existent or non-existent. If any doubt exists, then the authority concerned, acting on behalf of the Crown, should adopt the same procedure as that adopted by executors and trustees of wills; that is to say, to

561
advertise the known facts in the London Gazette, and The Times. If no objection or better claim is received within a given period—which may well be one year—then the apparently best claim should be confirmed.
In my own case, in an obviously hopeless quest which I could obviously never prove to the satisfaction of the Registrar, it was suggested that the College of Arms might be able to help, though to my simple mind it was not clear how they could prove the unprovable any better than I could myself. It took me £15 to confirm what I already knew; namely, that they had nothing of relevance on their files. To pursue the hopeless quest further, I was invited to put down £250 "on account"—at which point your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that I decided the game was not worth the candle. So at the moment Burke and Debrett have me recorded, but the Registrar does not.
I adduce my own experience not only to show how impossible and indeed ridiculous is the present procedure in such cases, but also to suggest that the College of Arms itself is rather less than clearheaded about its obligations. How could it otherwise lend support to such a half-baked demand and offer to undertake a financially open-ended quest for something which, by definition, could and can never be achieved.
May I for a moment develop this last point? Your Lordships will at once perceive that to establish with "cartesian" certainty what I am required to establish would require that a continuous, 24-hour, life-long watch had been kept not only on my great-grandfather, my great-uncle, my distant cousin and on my uncle, but of course on my grandfather as well. I am assuming that, as I had succeeded my father in your Lordships' House, he may be considered as hors concours. This continuous watch would have had to start from the age when a young man might then legally wed, and this would of course depend on the jurisdiction concerned. The first Lampson Baronet was a citizen of the United States until the age of 43 and during that time, I suspect, he was subject to the jurisdictions of at least two of its component sovereign States (as well as perhaps of one of the provinces of Canada), while the second
562
and third holders also spent much of their time outside the United Kingdom. That is not all. It occurs to me that perhaps it is as well that we are not concerned here with a Scottish honour, otherwise the vigil would have had to start not at the legal age of marriage but at the onset of puberty. As your Lordships will be aware, not only are Scottish males more virile than others, but under Scots law a subsequent marriage has always legitimised all previous illegitimate births for all purposes, including the succession to titles of honour.
To summarise, my Lords, judging from my own experience, it seems that the College of Arms is rather other-worldly and unrealistic in its approach to some practical problems, and for that reason I believe it desirable that it should now conform in some limited degree—I do not know what is the degree, but the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, told us what his ideas on that subject are—to the accepted norms of management and public accountability. For that reason I believe that this Bill should be given a Second Reading.
5.47 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, your Lordships will be relieved to hear that Garter showed not the slightest interest in my poor old grandfather and in consequence I shall occupy only two or three minutes of your Lordships' time on this Bill. But before doing so, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, must declare an interest in that I am Chairman of an Heraldic Trust designed to encourage heraldic design, the Wrythe Heraldic Trust, named after John Wrythe who was the first Garter about 500 years ago. I should like to oongratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, on achieving two considerable victories this afternoon. First, he has made it unnecessary for us to pass judgment on his Bill because he has already achieved almost everything of importance that he wants. And secondly, he has aroused considerable interest in a subject in which I, naturally, am interested but which does not occasion much excitement outside.
The two parts of his Bill which really matter concern the subject of fees. I have listened to the whole of this debate and I am sure the Heralds will have listened carefully, too, and will be assiduous in their attempt to see that all the

563
mists of uncertainty are blown away and that in the future everything that should be known about fees is in fact known. I am certain that will happen. I am certain also that those bona fide scholars who wish to inquire into matters on which the Heralds can help them will be given all possible help in the future; and if a legitimate fee is to be charged for complicated work, then it should indeed be charged. I know enough of the work of the College, of Garter, and indeed of the Earl Marshal to add my words of tribute to the great work they have done, some of it literally unheralded; and I am certain that this debate will enable them to give even greater service in the future.
One point has been touched upon which is not directly germane to the Bill and that is the rather vulgar question of earnings from invisible exports. I am just finishing a ten-year stint as President of the London Tourist Board and it has been most noticeable during that period how the number of genuine inquiries from all over the world concerning heraldic and genealogical matters has increased beyond recognition. Your Lordships may remember a little function called "Fanfare for Europe" in January with which I was not unconnected. We staged an exhibition in Leeds, illustrating the heraldic connections between this country and the other countries of the Common Market. We were told that was far too academic and would attract no interest. On the contrary, it attracted an enormous interest and we are still getting questions from all over Europe of the most obstruse kind which we are naturally passing on to the College of Heralds, showing that heraldry is by no means a dead or archaic interest but a very lively one indeed. And what better place to debate it than in your Lordships' House, with so much evidence all around of the Heralds and historic art.
So I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, on introducing this Bill. I am sure he will agree with me that there is no need for him to put it to a Division, because he has achieved all the admirable things he seeks to do in his Bill and has succeeded in arousing an enhanced interest in the art and the science of heraldry. This is needed because too often a certain amount of
564
prejudice seems to creep into those who deal with the matter without knowing what they are talking about. Have your Lordships noticed, for instance, that in certain of the gossip columns whenever a Peer is mentioned his motto is always given after his name, not always to his advantage? If a certain noble Lord should have the misfortune to be found by the police travelling up the wrong side of a motorway at 100 miles per hour in the small hours of the morning, we can be absolutely certain that his motto will prove to be "Safe and sure". And if one of your Lordships should equally have the misfortune to feature for the fourth time in some particularly murky divorce case, then indeed your motto is bound to be "Faithful unto death". Lord Teviot's motto is "Sero sed serio"—"Late but in Earnest", if I have translated it correctly. As this matter has not been debated in a Bill before your Lordships for 109 years I think his motto is well chosen. But I would also commend to him, if I might, with all diffidence, my own motto: "Courage, patience"; because if he desires to take his Bill to a Division he will need both of those in abundance.
5.53 p.m.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, it was not originally my intention to take part in the debate, but I have been interested in it as it has developed. My first, not quite meeting with but cognisance of the presence of Garter King of Arms, and therefore the College of Heralds—I had, of course, known of the Earl Marshal since long before, because, with some years between us, I also became a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Ministry of Agriculture and he had left Minutes all over the placewas the receipt of a letter which came after I had had a letter from the Queen, and Garter King of Arms cast doubt upon the legitimacy of the letter from the Queen, because the Queen had told me she had been graciously pleased to make of me a Peer. It took a little bit of explaining to my family, but we can cut that. But Garter King of Arms said that he had heard from the Queen that I was to be a Peer Designate and that he would be very pleased to see me and legitimise me as a Peer; but since this was the end of July, he normally retired to his fastness in East Anglia for

565
the heat of the summer and would not be coming back until about September, and if I did not mind, could I stay in this air of limbo to which he consigned me until he got back? He then wrote me another note, if I remember aright, and said that he had heard that a number of us had been made designates, and if a suitable number of us could agree to get together on an appropriate day he would cause himself to be put to the trouble of returning from his fastness in East Anglia to legitimise all of us.
I took some trouble to find out where his fastness in East Anglia was. It turned out to be almost next door to the Brentwood L.N.E.R. station, so I wrote him a note saying that I thought there was some misunderstanding; the last time I saw the Queen the impression I got was that the Lady thought she had made me a Peer and she did not mention anything about Garter King of Arms; and would not he just like to have a word with her to confirm. So in the end we had what I think was one of the most hilarious exchanges of correspondence. He did come up from his fastness in East Anglia, he did in fact legitimise, as I understand, a number of my colleagues; but I was then busy in my then fastness in Derbyshire, a fastness from which I was shortly afterwards ejected, evicted, cast out. So I could not come down from Derbyshire when he was coming up from East Anglia and I did not therefore get legitimised at the same moment.
Then there was a question about what I should be called. He asked me to go to see him in Old Jewry—whether that has any sort of relevance to this Bill, which has to do with change, I do not know; but however, I pass on quickly. I said my name was George Brown; I thought it should stay George Brown, and could we arrange it so? He then wrote me a pathetic or an appealing letter, describe it as you may, and said that even the Duke—not, of course, the noble Duke we have here, but a rather later made Duke, Prince Philip—when he was created a Duke, came to see Garter. I said, "I'm jolly interested, but there's no reason why I should come to see Garter: I'm not changing my name. I just want to be called George Brown." And so we went on and we went on and we went on, and I letters passed and letters passed. Then at some point in all this ridiculous
566
charade, because I thought I might move up a bit, I asked: "On whose authority? Which Minister?" And I was told, "No Minister." So I said "What about the Prime Minister?". And I was told, "No, not the Prime Minister". "Well, which Minister?" Then somebody whispered that it was the Royal Household. "Is it borne on the Vote?" "No, no, no, no, no." So I then took, as I said earlier in the debate, the noblest advice I could get.
I think that what has not been answered this afternoon is: are we dealing with a public body which has rights enshrined in our laws, or are we dealing with something which got born or invented centuries and centuries ago and is not answerable to anybody? Because finally, when I wanted to get my name established as George-Brown—for no better reason than that I did not want to change my signature—I spoke to some chap (and he shall be nameless, although he is not all that many miles away from here, who said, "Well, I can't do anything because he isn't really responsible to us, you know, but I will give the fellow to whom he is responsible a nudge, and if you get a letter deal with it politely and kindly; don't make him feel upset". Everybody knows that is an admonition not necessary in my case; I deal with everybody in that way. So somebody got a nudge, and I got a letter saying, "It goes very much against the grain, all against my instructions, that you should be called George-Brown, but I agree to it." I then wrote him a polite and kindly little letter saying what a nice fellow he was, but that I thought there was already a Lord Ritchie-Calder, a Lord Francis-Williams and I do not know how many other Lords something-hyphen-something.
Then I started trying to ask again: who is this fellow who gets in our way? I still do not know, and I say it in the presence of the Earl Marshal, has the College of Heralds, has the gentleman who signs himself "Wagner, Garter" any public authority, or has he not? If he has, then Lord Teviot's Bill is most apposite, and it has been most interesting this afternoon, as the debate has gone on, to see how all the defenders of the Establishment have been withdrawing a little, bit by bit, to the point where they are begging him not to take it forward. If the argument is that the College of

567
Heralds and Wagner, Garter is a public servant in some form, is borne on some Vote, is getting some public money in aid, then this Bill is absolutely legitimate, valid; and if it is long overdue, as I thought the previous speaker said, that does not make it any the less necessary now; it only makes it the more necessary. It would also help us in Committee to probe a little further into what these fellows do.
When I had won my battle about what I should be allowed to call myself, there was then the question of whether I wanted this Coat of Arms and so on. I did not myself particularly think so, but the gentleman did, and there was a lot of discussion and correspondence about that. Then I was saved by a Member of your Lordships' House, the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, who read about all this somewhere and said, "I would not give in to that fellow. He starts out with one fee and then he offers you another and then he says we can come down a bit lower". And Lord Elgin said, "I am sure I have seen in the attic of my house a Coat of Arms granted to a predecessor of mine called George Brown". He said, "When I go home this weekend I will have a look and see"; and a few weeks later, sure enough, there arrived, in the original woodwork, a Coat of Arms issued in 1803 to George Brown. Unhappily, he came from Stockport and not from Southwark, but it was near enough. So I did not go on with this thing about whether I paid £250 or £150 or £75. What I did was to get my secretary to clean it—she had to iron it with an ordinary iron to get the creases out—and it is now framed and up in my house. So I have a Coat of Arms, grace à Lord Elgin, but no money in the pocket of Wagner, Garter and his colleagues.
I think the whole thing is in fact ludicrous. I am not a revolutionary; that would be an understatement. I am not a Republican; that also would be an understatement. But I do think it makes this whole place laughable and stupid, and I would rather get rid of it all.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!;
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: Yes, I would, for myself. We sit here by virtue of what we are pleased to call our credibility, anything you like—our ser-
568
vice, whatever you will. We are not improved by what I regard as all this flummery. But if we are to have it—and here I might carry with me those who said, "Oh!"—then for Heaven's sake! let us have it properly and authoritatively done. It must be by the authority of somebody. It cannot be the Earl Marshal doing it on the Arundel marshes all by himself, or Wagner, Garter doing it in his fastness in East Anglia. It must owe something to somebody. If it is to the Royal Household, it must be carried on that Vote. Let us have it done authoritatively. Let us know what is done. I agree with Lord Teviot. Let us have it all public, clear and on the Record.
The only other thing I want to say is that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, who enjoys, in your Lordships' House and outside it, a certain legal authority and distinction, and is never shy of employing it, and has been known to engage himself in industrial matters, said this afternoon that it was just idle curiosity that led any of us to want to see the accounts. I venture to suggest, my Lords, that this doctrine would go down very badly outside this House. If I suggested that anybody who wanted to see how the Transport Workers' Union were disposing of their money and what they were charging for what, and it ever reached a Bench on which the noble and learned Lord was sitting, I think we should get a pretty short answer if we just said that it was idle curiosity that made people want to see what we do with our members' money. Frankly, I found his intervention a little regrettable, because it just could not be sustained, and it sounded as though the Establishment was really fetching up the Old Guard in order to try to hold the debate.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, if I may, that I think he has won the argument; but, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, I do not therefore invite him to withdraw the Bill. I think he should pursue it. Let us go further into it than we have been able to do, at Committee and subsequent stages. Let us find out what is the role of this extraordinary institution. That they are appointed by the Earl Marshal seems to be clear; but why and how, and for what purposes? Who authorises them to charge? Where does the money they charge go? How is any public money

569
which they receive accounted for? It would be a very good exercise. Although I said that I would never speak in this debate, I have now done so. I support the Second Reading of the Bill, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will resist all the seductive approaches he has received and will pursue it.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I had no intention whatsoever of speaking but I should like to make a point that has not been made. It was the last speaker who really persuaded me to make it. I can do this extremely briefly. My own personal point of view is that I do not have very much interest in genealogy. I remember, and perhaps next week on Monday others will remember, too, that if you go back 20 generations and include the female line you have a million ancestors. So, unless a family has remained in one part of the country for a very long time, one has to say that a lot of this is but a pleasant tradition and a pleasant hobby. It does not stand up to strict logic of importance. I am afraid that many people—and it has been made quite clear from what the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, has just said—do not really appreciate this tradition. I therefore think that we should be making a very grave mistake if we pulled all this out of the cupboard into the public eye. It is doing no harm as it is. It is forming a pleasant tradition, and we should not therefore make it a question of public debate by what I think many people would castigate as Philistine. I am a Philistine, but I should not like those with perhaps not the same sympathy or tradition as I have to make criticism of this and it reaches much further out. So, my Lords, I would say that this Bill should at no cost be given a Second Reading.
6.12 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the passionate solemnity of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has rather spoiled what I hoped would have been a satisfactory continuation, at a slightly lower level of ability, of the style of my noble friend Lord George-Brown, because my recollection is that during the saga of his title there was difficulty with the noble Marquess, Lord Sligo, and of course it was thought that the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, might in fact be a son of the noble Marquess. When the matter
570
was referred to the noble Marquess he replied with great kindness, "We are an undistinguished lot. We would regard it as something of an honour to be confused with George Brown"; and in due course the title was settled, though not without some very curious and difficult negotiations.
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. Some noble Lords have been um certain as to whether to take it with great seriousness; some felt extremely passionate, like the noble Lord, Lord Hewlett, who identified the Heralds with the changing of the Guard and various other active and enjoyable spectacles. We had a very pleasant speech from the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, and it was a very great pleasure to hear from him. Anyone who has had the duty or the obligation to deal with members of the Royal Household and it goes for his success also—will remember the great courtesy, wisdom and kindness with which he dealt with us. It is of great satisfaction to me, not only that he is in your Lordships' House but that he has made a maiden speech to-day.
I am bound to say that I have arrived at a slightly different conclusion from him as to the nature and purpose of this Bill. This is, of course, a Private Member's Bill. There is no question of the Whips being on. Usually Bills that are reasonably respectable get a Second Reading—but not always. I have known less respectable Bills get a Second Reading. But I think it is just worth while considering whether there is—as the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, in a most moderate speech made clear—a point of public interest here, and I am bound to say that I found it a little disturbing that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, not having heard Lord Teviot's speech, proceeded to debate in detail the arguments which he had not heard. I find it a problem as to whether we ought not now, for the benefit of those noble Lords who have advised the House what they should do with this Bill, repeat the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. But in the circumstances, it may well be that if there is a Division the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, who appears to think that this is a matter of mere curiosity, may feel that it is more fitting for him to abstain.

571
There have been some rather curious aspects of the debate. I will not say that there has been a well organised attack on Lord Teviot's Bill. Some language with regard to it was rather violent, I thought; nevertheless, there is an anxiety which was focused on the subject as to whether this was a mischievous attack. Indeed, a number of us received letters from, I am tempted to say, Wagner Garter, but I have a high regard for Sir Anthony Wagner, in which he said firmly that this Bill was unquestionably an expression of no confidence in the Earl Marshal. May I repeat that whatever happens about this Bill, whether noble Lords pursue it or not, this is something that had never occurred to me. I have observed the noble Duke on a number of ceremonial occasions. One is deeply impressed by his professionalism and firmness. On one occasion during the State Opening of Parliament, I remember him turning to a more junior figure and saying, "Now is your opportunity to do something useful"; and there is no doubt that he rules whatever he has to do with the greatest firmness and distinction.
On the other hand, there is some mystery as to the precise status of the College of Heralds. They appear in the Imperial Calendar next to the Civil Service Pay Research Unit, and it seems to me it will be easy to get help in publishing their accounts. The Earl Marshal himself, who of course is one of the great Officers of State, only appears in relation to the Royal Household as "Her Majesty's representative at Ascot"; and we all remember a famous occasion—I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Wigg is here—and certain events that took place. I assure the House that those of us who are inclined to support the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, are in no way reflecting on the Earl Marshal; and it is, as has been made very clear, nothing to do with the Royal Household or the Monarchy, although I understand that Garter does occupy a somewhat disputed position in relation to the Royal Household. None the less, we all accept that the College and those concerned in it play a most valuable role. Several noble Lords have suggested that they are doing an excellent export trade; indeed, I think it may have been the noble Viscount, Lord Long, who was almost
572
saying that they ought to receive the Queen's Award to Industry for their achievements in this particular area. I have no doubt that with integrity, and professionally, they do a good job, and I am perfectly prepared to accept that they do not make a lot of money of a kind that would in any way be disapproved of by this Government, with their policy on pay and prices and limitations of that kind; but of course we are not in a position to know.
I was extremely interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, had to say on this subject. He gave us a great deal of information, but I am not sure that he gave us all the information we need. This matter has been raised and it must be settled now in the interests of the Heralds themselves, otherwise there will be continuous snide assumptions about the type of rewards they have. As I understand it, they average, in relation to their public service, £2,000 per annum, and the noble Lord threw in the extra fact that in addition they earn certain private fees. It seems to me that this matter can be settled perfectly easily, and if I understood the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, aright, it would be possible to make the full accounts available. I was not sure whether he was talking about the accounts of the trust or the accounts of the College itself. I am also wondering whether the College of Heralds has to pay V.A.T. Perhaps it does not, but it is a service, and admittedly a valuable service, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, can enlighten us.
In regard to what is reasonable and whether professional people should be investigated, professional bodies, such as the legal and medical professions, set their own standards. They have machinery and scales, and they police themselves. But even that has not prevented lawyers, architects and others from being investigated; I cannot remember whether it was by the Monopolies Commission or by the Prices and Incomes Board. But as I said, those bodies which are rendering a service for which they receive a remuneration, and which operate within professional standards, have their own policing arrangements. Some of them are sanctified by certain statutory powers and the status of certain bodies is in fact determined by law. It is possible to argue that this is really a case of

573
de minimis and that we might leave well alone, but there have been enough stories of a kind to suggest that there is anxiety.
My noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner and the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, discussed the question of supporters. The noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, said that when Life Peers were first created there was a little uncertainty as to whether they got full value for money and whether they should be given a cheaper rate, because their supporters would last only for their lifetime although their Coat of Arms would go on. I am bound to say that I found myself—I refer to no living Herald, and I shall not say which one it was—in something of a bargaining position. I was assured, after being congratulated, that all Peers, and particularly Labour Peers, love Coats of Arms, and since one or two letters of congratulation from certain Labour Peers actually bore coronets I thought that that was possible.
After several minutes, I said, rather plaintively, that like my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner I had a Coat of Arms. I was then asked where it was registered. It so happens that I had a dubious uncle who was once a Herald, who is supposed to have stolen the Irish Crown Jewels, so I knew something about this business, and I answered smartly, "Ulster". He then said, "But you will need supporters." That is a very solemn moment. When you go to the undertaker about a near relative and he asks, "Will you have brass handles on the coffin?", you do not really like to argue about it and appear very mean. But I thought that £100 was rather a lot for putting on two strange figures. I have noticed that noble Lords have chosen interesting figures. My noble friend Lord Snow has two Siamese cats as his supporters.
But before I had finished the price had come down to £30, and I was told that I could have some rather inferior supporters for that sum. The noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, may say that that cannot have happened; that it is a false recollection. I admit that I have actually dined out on it, and as I get older I find that my stories improve, but I have a very clear recollection of that episode and other noble Lords have on occasion had reason to complain. I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Hewlett, was sold
574
a pedigree at the same time. He explained that, in order to have a Coat of Arms which would properly justify him, he was told that he ought to have a pedigree, and I wonder what he paid for it.
LORD HEWLETT: My Lords, may I endeavour to answer the noble Lord? I did not pay anything for a pedigree. I just had to prove my legitimacy in order to secure the continuance of my grandfather's Arms. He was a mere Gentleman, and I was a Knight Bachelor. I then had to gain supporters, and I paid much more than £30. But may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition what he got for his cut-price supporters? He has not told us that.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I got nothing, because I never bought them. Even before the inflation got going, I thought £30 was too much. But, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, said, if the noble Lord, Lord Hewlett, had been a Scot he would not have needed to prove his legitimacy.
There is no suggestion that the Heralds should be nationalised. I think we all agree that even if on occasion—because people naturally take themselves rather seriously—they are perhaps a little demanding in their attitude which has occasionally caused offence to certain people, they provide a most valuable service, and I have seen enough of their work to appreciate that it is a very scholarly operation. I do not know how they are appointed, but one would wish them to continue to prosper. If the Heralds were able to survive 100 years ago, when they were required to publish their figures retrospectively to the House of Commons, I cannot see why the very moderate provisions of this Bill cannot be met, particularly in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said is unsatisfactory about Clause 2.
I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, intends to do, whether he will perservere with his Bill or withdraw it, but I should like to say what my own judgment is. If he chooses to withdraw it, he can feel that he has had a very satisfactory debate. On the other hand, quite clearly there are a number of strong feelings and it would seem very easy to meet the requirements of this Bill without legislation. I fully accept what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, said,

575
that one does not need to have a Bill if something is worth doing. But I think most of us would think that certainly what is contained in Clauses 1 and 3 is worth doing.
May I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, that the action of the House in passing an Amendment or in giving a Second Reading to a Bill is sometimes very surprising. Even Governments, when they are involved, do something as a result. As noble Lords know, I recently carried an absolutely meaningless Amendment on the Overseas Pensions Bill which was subsequently withdrawn, but the Government decided to pay pensions which their predecessors had promised. I am suggesting that the House would be right—and it is entirely free to do so—if the noble Lord perseveres with this, to give the Bill a Second Reading. I should have thought that thereafter (because there is not time now) it would be absolutely reasonable for the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, and the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, to get together to discuss the requirements of the Bill. I do not think any of us is asking to know the details of individual earnings, although in fact everybody knows the earnings of most people who operate in the public service. None the less, I see no reason why, in an area which is concerned with the public, certain information should not in fact be freely given; and if I understand the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, he is not averse to this information being given.
My Lords, the Bill has not yet achieved its objective because we do not yet know what is possible, but it will be perfectly simple thereafter to meet its purposes without then having to send the Bill to a Select Committee. I personally think that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has shown some courage in pursuing, something on which he knew there would be some cross words from certain of his friends—and we have all spoken regardless of Party in this matter. I congratulate him, and I personally hope that the Bill will have a Second Reading. Then we might think again as to whether there need be any further proceedings.
6.32 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, I think I should
576
first explain, as indeed I was more or less invited to by my noble friend Lord Teviot, the circumstances in which the Government thought it right to advise Her Majesty the Queen to place Her prerogative, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill, and the significance of Her Majesty's consent which my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn announced earlier on. When a Bill is introduced in this House which affects the Royal prerogative, the Queen's consent must be signified. This would be done at a very early stage, before the Second Reading, where the Bill is mainly concerned, as this one is, with matters affecting the Royal prerogative itself; otherwise, the Bill cannot be debated at all. The Government advised Her Majesty to place Her prerogative and interest at the disposal of Parliament to allow this debate on the Second Reading. This is the accepted practice, but it in no way implies that the Crown, through its advisers, approves of the provisions of the Bill. It means that the Crown does not intend that lack of that consent should debar Parliament from debating the Bill's provisions. Nor does it mean that Ministers accept the purport of the Bill, either. I think it is just worth making that fact plain.
My Lords, I wish that I could contribute to the marvellous personal stories that have embellished the debate. My trouble is that I am the only speaker this afternoon who comes under the jurisdiction of the nationalised Lord Lyon of Scotland, and I think the only thing of the slightest significance about this is that, as my noble friend Lord Killearn said, the Scots have to pay every time they succeed, for rematriculation. Indeed, not only was I devoid of supporters in the reference books for some time, but I did not have any Coat of Arms at all, because somebody at Hurstpierpoint discovered that I had not matriculated and saw to it that the reference books did not put any Arms in for me. I was infuriated, and eventually I had to pay something like £30 to have the matter put right. Otherwise, I really cannot contribute to how the system works, because I know about only what happens North of the Border. But we have heard much interesting and illuminating comment on the Bill (and indeed off it, if I may respectfully say so) in the course of

577
the afternoon from all sides of the House. Certainly I would respectfully join in the tributes to the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, on his maiden speech, and indeed on the content of it, which I think will have helped us considerably in judging the merits of the measure before us.
I was very glad indeed to hear the tributes of my noble friends Lord Teviot and Lord Mancroft, and of others, to the College of Heralds and to the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk; and these were strongly reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I do not think that, after the descriptions given by my noble friends Lord Teviot and Lord Croft and others of what the College does, I need go into the details of that now. If the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, and again the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, wish to find a neat constitutional pigeonhole for the College, they will, I think, be disappointed. I personally am certainly not going to attempt to describe what its status is, save that I am assured that it is genuinely unique; and I do not believe that there is any money carried on the Vote directly for the College, except possibly those small sums that my noble friend Lord Clitheroe mentioned as being paid, on what is presumably a mediæval scale of fees, to the Heralds themselves—£49 and £17, and that sort of figure.
As for the dealings that the Government have with the College, my noble friend Lord Killearn mentioned the Home Office. It is indeed true that under a Royal Warrant of 1910 we deal with Baronetcy matters, but I hasten to assure him that I do not think we really are the villains of the piece because here we look for advice to Garter King at Arms, and certainly my Department, so far as I am aware, has not actually been involved in the extremely complicated matters that my noble friend described to the House. We also have contact with the College over certain types of armorial work, which arises in connection with privileges which can be granted only by a Royal Licence from the Sovereign; and from time to time, like other people, no doubt, we in Government have our disagreements with the College of Heralds. But there is no statutory responsibility, either at the Home Office or anywhere
578
else at the moment, for the way in which the College runs its affairs.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I am a little reluctant to interrupt because I have had my penny's-worth, but the noble Viscount says that there are only miniscule monies on a mediæval scale. Even if it were only a farthing, much less £2,000 a year for one, two or three Heralds, if it is public money it has to be borne, surely, on some State Vote. On which Vote is any money which the Heralds receive from the public borne?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I just wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, was here during the course of the speech of my noble friend Lord Clitheroe.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: Yes, I was.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Perhaps if he would refresh his memory from the OFFICIAL REPORT OF what my noble friend said, I think he will find that the matter is explained.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: I am sorry, my Lords, but no. The noble Viscount cannot get off with that. The noble Viscount is a Minister. I knew the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, when he was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. If one had asked him this question then, he would have given a straight answer. It now happens to be the Minister who has to answer. On which Vote is any public money which the Heralds receive—and the Minister confirms that they receive some, although it is small—borne? It is no good the noble Viscount asking Lord Clitheroe. With great respect, my Lords: Ministers are answerable for public money, not Lord Clitheroe. With very great respect, I am not interested in Lord Clitheroe's answer, which he has now passed to the Minister. I am asking the Minister: on which Departmental or other Vote is any public money carried?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am going to give the same reply as the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, gave, because it is the correct reply. He gave it earlier in the debate, and I am merely refreshing the memory of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, about what has already been told the House by my noble friend Lord Clitheroe. The answer

579
is this: sub-head E.3 of the Miscellaneous Expenses Vote, Class 2. That is what my noble friend Lord Clitheroe said in the course of his speech.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: Is the noble Viscount saying that it is true?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: Is the noble Viscount taking responsibility for it?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I take responsibility for the fact that that is the correct answer. I know that my noble friend Lord Clithroe said this before, and it is correct.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: You are the Minister!
LORD WIGG: My Lords, this is a matter of great Constitutional importance. The Minister—and not the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe—is answerable to this House. There was a time when Lord Clitheroe was answerable to another place, but the Minister is answerable here. He has been asked a straight question: is any part of this money paid to these people borne on a Vote which is voted in by the House of Commons?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I hesitate to suggest that I should go through this again, but I shall do so for the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. The answer is "Yes". The answer is that a sum of money, I think constituting £49 a year, is paid to the Garter King at Arms; I think £17 a year is paid to the other Kings and £12 a year is paid to the Pursuivants. This, I will repeat it again, comes under sub-head E3, Miscellaneous Expenses Vote, Class 2. That is the Garter £3,000.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, the Minister has got it wrong. Will it be within the House—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD WIGG: My Lords, I will not be shouted down. If the Minister does not know—and he now makes a statement which the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, corrects—would it not be as well for the House to adjourn, so that they can have a conference to get it right?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think I will proceed with the
580
speech that I was about to make. What I was saying was that the Home Office has no responsibility for the fees that the College charges or for its internal finances, which at the moment are matters for the noble Duke, the Earl Marshal. The Government honoraria paid to certain College officers (also mentioned by my noble friend Lord Clitheroe) come from Votes within the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal. There is the other half of the answer to the questions of the two noble Lords opposite. I know that there has been more than one view about the College of Heralds. People have had their own experiences; but where I think most of us can agree is that the position in the College is not always an easy one. Being a private corporation, as it is, and having to meet its expenses from its income it provides a specialised professional service. But so far as anybody—at any rate anybody I have heard of—is concerned, and this applies particularly to Members of this House under Standing Order No. 5 which has already been referred to, it is an optional service of which people do not have to take any account if they do not wish to.
We have heard how the fees charged over the years have gone up. Complaints about the College are nothing new. There have been these reports in 1869, roughly two years after the Scottish Lyon King at Arms was, as it were, nationalised, in 1903 and in 1928 when there were two Government committees—and my noble friend Lord Teviot, I know, has looked carefully at these. Both inquiries recommended changes in particular practices of the College but not structural changes. In each case after those inquiries the College maintained its unique position. I do not think that any of the comments made to-day by comparison with what was said on those occasions suggest that the position is essentially different now. On the face of it the Bill does not require any structural change, nor do I believe that my noble friend Lord Teviot is asking for one. But in fact, despite the appearance and the intention—and I will comment briefly on this in a minute—there could be rather larger effects from this Bill (and it is the duty of the Minister, whatever other duties I have, to explain the terms of the Bill and its effects) than at first sight appear.

581
In the first place, the Bill proposes that matters which have previously been regulated under the Prerogative should be regulated by Parliament. This goes to the extent of legislating upon this matter, because previously the whole thing rested on the Prerogative and Parliament never previously interfered. Of course Parliament is entitled to interfere if it thinks fit; but we then have the question (and whatever else the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, said, he did put the question) whether the interference is necessary. As the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, said, one cannot compare it with the Scottish situation where, among other differences, the Lyon Court is a court of law as well as an heraldic court or College as the English one is.
Perhaps one of the misunderstandings that has vitiated and made it rather difficult to look at the true legal effect of the Bill is the use by my noble friend Lord Teviot of the word "Chapter". The trouble is that there is no such person in law as the Chapter, because this is, as he said, rather like a cathedral chapter, a periodic meeting of some of the Heralds, having no legal personality or responsibility either for setting fees, which is the noble Duke's prerogative, or with regard to any accounts. Therefore, whatever happened, we should have to take out of the Bill any references to the Chapter, which are not apt when we are trying to define responsibility for legal requirements.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount? Presumably it would be possible to put in an Amendment to require or to define for the purposes of the Bill that the Chapter was a legal person, would it not?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not think that there is any difficulty about it; but we must decide who in fact is going to do this. At the moment it is the noble Duke as Earl Marshal under the Prerogative. One could require the Chapter or enable it by Statute to do it and one could enable the College to do it if one wished; but if one enabled the College to do it, it would mean taking it out of the realm of the Prerogative. All I am saying is that we must be certain who does what and what changes under the Bill one wishes to make.
582
Under Clause 1, we now know what the tables of fees are that the House wishes to consider. It is not entirely clear from the description in the Bill and it is not entirely apposite to deal with the fees that my noble friend intends, but we know it is the table of fees in relation to the grant of Arms and Supporters—what is generally known as "grant fees". That is what my noble friend Lord Teviot wants published; and that is all. That, I understand, is what the noble Duke is prepared to make available more widely. It is not right to say that it has never been available, but he is offering to make it more widely available. It was suggested that it should go, if the editors of these books wished it, in something like Whitaker's, Debrett's or Burke's where there is a neutral source of reference. They are published every year and these fees can be updated. Probably a system of this type (if it were to be negotiated between the College and the noble Duke and the editor of one or more of these volumes) would enable everybody who happened to be interested, whether as a recipient of a new honour or because he wished to go into some other matter of reclaiming old Arms, to see where he stood without going so far as to show his hand in the matter at all. It would be an anonymous source to which everybody resorts by going into most public libraries. As I understand it, this is the sort of thing that is being offered this afternoon.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, why does the noble Viscount think this is necessary? Is it not the ordinary reasonable thing to happen when you go to the College of Arms to ask something, that you be given a list of the scale of charges? Most people would not think it would be in Debrett's or start looking for it there. Would it not be possible, as a matter of form, that when a person goes to the College to ask something he should be handed a current list of the charges?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I thought that that already happened.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, then I am wrong. But if that is all that noble Lords want, so be it. I thought that some of those who

583
indicated their views in the course of the debate suggested that this information should be available outside the College for people to look up without having to come to London. If that is your Lordships' wish—and I am certain that it is something for negotiation and not for me—there have been suggestions of publications in which this matter might be made plain.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount? I think this problem can be solved. On the one hand, it is perfectly true that the Heralds do not want to be in the position of putting a price list round everywhere. They might be thought to be touting for business, and one fully understands their position. But it is possible to have this list automatically made available when people have to go to the College. Secondly, it should be known that there is such a price list. Many people have not known about that until very recently. It should he made available, outside or inside the College. On the other hand, one would not want to make the Heralds distribute a kind of mail order list. I do not think that they would like that.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am not trying to suggest how the College of Heralds should do this. I was merely attempting to summarise some of the statements which have been made in the debate. Since the noble Duke is present and has listened to virtually the whole of the debate, and certainly to this interchange, I think he will he able to judge for himself and have such further consultations as he thinks fit about exactly how this matter should be handled. In principle, as I understand it, I see no difficulty about making this table of fees available, widely or narrowly, according to what people want.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, as a fellow Scot who is not going to vote either way, may I ask whether I am not correct in thinking that the noble Duke, in an intervention, said that there is a list of charges and there always has been, and at the moment the list is being printed?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, my Lords; that is exactly what the noble Duke said. I thought I was correct
584
in understanding him that a table had always been available or, at any rate, had been available for a long time. I saw the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, shaking his head and it may be that it has to be specifically asked for. But, at any rate, there was one. It has been revised, I understand, from time to time, and the argument really depends on whether it is in a drawer, or somewhere slightly more available, for people to be able to see it without asking for it. As I say, my Lords, the noble Duke is sitting on the Cross-Benches and has heard the discussion and I am sure that he will be able to draw his own conclusions.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, would the Minister be good enough to say how much is charged if the list is asked for?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not think that one is charged of it at all. The provision in the second clause of the Bill is something which I think has been resolved in the course of the debate. My noble friend Lord Teviot has explained his own misunderstanding and other noble Lords have touched upon the practicalities of this. It seems that it is now agreed by those who have touched upon this matter that the work is likely to be achieved without the intervention of Statute. One simply hopes that the resources now available to do this will be able to be kept up. There is in the third clause this difficult question of accounts.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Viscount, but the question of records has by no means been resolved. If the noble Viscount is under any sort of misunderstanding, may I say that I said the word "calendar" was out of order and perhaps should be substituted by the word "guide". I shall have a great deal to say on the question of records, but I should like the noble Viscount to be clear in his mind that that question is not resolved, and I think that this is something with which it would be worth while to go ahead.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, there it is. I misunderstood the situation. My noble friend still wants to legislate on this but in a different sense from what is in the Bill. He still wishes

585
to legislate, and it will be for your Lordships to judge whether this part of the Bill is something you wish to support.
We then come to the question of accounts. Again, we have here the difficulty of who is to be responsible, because the Chapter plainly cannot be, since one would have to re-define the responsible person in order to get hold of the legal personality upon whom to lay the obligation. I do not think Lord Long's point about the accounts of the dollar receipts relates to the accounts with which this clause is meant to deal. As I understand it, the fees received for the kind of grants that appear on the Table of Fees are all that my noble friend Lord Teviot is interested in. These of course are paid into an account and are under the control of the noble Duke. My noble friend Lord Clitheroe has given the figures of income and expenditure and has broken them down between payment on College expenses last year and the residue available for distribution.
There are, of course, other fees payable to the Heralds for their private work. But everybody has, I think, been in agreement that we are not attempting to force a disclosure of those. That has nothing to do with a monopoly or any scale of fees laid down by the Earl Marshal. Nobody has suggested that those fees should be laid before Parliament. It is only those based on the receipt of the fees for grants on the Table of Arms that are here concerned. Whether, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, that will be entirely satisfactory to those who wish to get a picture of the College, I do not know. It will mean that part of the income and part of the expenditure is disclosed in some form in public and part is not. Again, it will be for your Lordships to judge whether this is a satisfactory situation and whether it is something with which the House wishes to proceed as a matter of principle; or whether the sort of information which my noble friend Lord Clitheroe has given is satisfactory to show that there is at any rate no abuse, and that no fortune is being made out of this matter.
I am delighted to hear that if this Bill is to proceed, my noble friend Lord Teviot does not propose to insist upon any involvement on the part of Her Majesty's Government in these accounts.
586
For that I am grateful. In the Home Office we have many things to do and to take on this further task would seem to me, not intolerable, but perhaps unnecessary, since there are precedent; for accounts to be laid on the Table in the Library without any Ministerial intervention at all. So, my Lords, I think I agree with my noble friend Lord Gage. It seems to me that noble Lords who have listened to the debate, and particularly to the explanations and the offers made by my noble friend Lord Clitheroe and the noble Duke in his intervention, may think that the basic matters that my noble friend Lord Teviot wished to achieve have been already achieved by way of concession. Certainly I would concur with those who think that it is a good thing to have aired this subject. A great deal of ground has been covered and the debate has gone much wider than the pure terms of the Bill. I do not object in any way to that, and I doubt whether my noble friend Lord Clitheroe or the noble Duke would object to there being a wide-ranging discussion on this matter. But at the end, my Lords, it will be necessary for the House to decide whether in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, it is now necessary to legislate on this subject.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, I will not detain the House for more than a moment. The Minister has made it quite clear that a sum of approximately £50, which he described as a miscellaneous expense class 2, is borne on the Vote of some Ministry. Therefore some civil servant in Whitehall, as the accounting officer of that Department, must authorise the payment of that money, and the Minister to whom he is responsible is responsible for that expenditure. So it is no good the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, saying that this has nothing to do with the Government. It has everything to do with the Government. Public money is being spent for this purpose and it is accountable to the House of Commons and not to this House. The only reason I have for speaking is that occasionally what we say is read by Members of another place, and I hope that when the Home Office Vote, or whatever Vote upon which this money is borne, comes up for discussion one of the Members of another place

587
will raise the matter, because clearly public money is involved.
7.0 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, first I should like to thank your Lordships for what has been a very interesting and lively debate. I think there have been an equal number of speeches for and against the Bill from each side of the House. At one point I thought that I might be in limbo and almost in the Dark Ages. I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, for making his maiden speech. I feel it a great honour that such a distinguished noble Lord should make his maiden speech on my Bill. In order to allay any doubts, I should say that I intend to proceed with this Bill. There have been some cogent arguments from various noble Lords asking me to withdraw the Bill and saying that I have achieved what I set out to do. Even if that were so, I would put it in another way. I would suggest that your Lordships should accept the Bill on Second Reading and see where we go from there.
I may say that I have enjoyed recent conversations with the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, and I should like to refer to one or two points in his speech. One is the fact of hybridity, where he said that the College might have to brief counsel in petitioning against the Bill. I would inform the noble Lord that that is not entirely necessary. Members of the College of Arms can appear in person. I myself, in promoting this Bill, could not afford to employ counsel. With respect, I do not think it is any disadvantage. Also, I happen to know that at least one member of the Chapter of the College of Arms is a notable barrister.
The noble Lord mentioned the question of the fee being £76 10s. in the 18th century. That is quite true, and it lasted until 1936. I got this from the Garter Principal King at Arms Heralds of England. In 1936 it went up by only £5 to £81, and in 1946 (I think it was) it went up to £102. Then, on the date of the Heralds of England, which was 1967, the price was still £102. I am not saying that the price of the grant of Arms at £250 is an exaggerated figure. It is probably right. But if you were reading that book in 1967 and saw £102, and then suddenly found a grant of £250, you would begin to wonder. Before I
588
move away from Clause 1, may I say that I am sure we can come to a satisfactory conclusion. Either the Bill is carried or it is not. I should like to see a scale of fees deposited in Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
I should like to move on to the records. This was one of the points in Lord Clifford's speech—and if there has been any aggressive criticism in the debate this afternoon, it has come from him. I must say that I thank him for it, because it enlivens the debate. But one thing I did dislike was when he brought up the fact that the original intention was an attack on the Earl Marshal. It certainly was not that.
On the question of records, I should like to explain first that not all the records contained in the College of Arms are of a genealogical nature. Some of them are of a political nature. They have been left in various collections. Secondly, those of a genealogical nature are very useful, and I should like to say that the officers do use other people's records. They look at incumbent records and parish records, and they expect them to be available in their research. And they are absolutely behind the idea that anybody should be allowed to study the records. It is part of their living. You would not discriminate against people being allowed to read the records. I would suggest—and perhaps this could be written in the Bill—that it could be done on a reader's ticket, as in the Public Record Office, or in the stricter way in which it is done in the British Museum. That could quite easily be done.
I also agree that there has to be supervision of anybody looking at records. It is absolutely essential in any record office for people reading to be supervised. Most people behave well, but if anybody does misbehave the whole record may be lost or destroyed. When it comes to the question of confidentiality, any record office has the right to claim the right for a certain document to be confidential. I am sure the College of Arms has documents of a highly confidential nature which should never be disclosed.
I now come to the question of accounts, and I agree that a certain amount of difficulty has arisen here. But I do not think it is asking very much to have a statement of accounts of the Garter of Arms; and, as I said in my opening

589
remarks, I think it will help. I hope your Lordships will not think I am being a sort of young puppy or tough in labouring this point, but if the public can see the low fees, I am sure it will be a very useful vehicle for people here and from abroad and will support the College on their behalf.
My Lords, I have been quite brief in summing up. I do not think there are any particular points that I wish to mention in noble Lords' speeches. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord
Resolved in the negative, and Motion for Second Reading disagreed to accordingly.

TRENT RIVER AUTHORITY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a;, and referred to the Examiners.
Colville of Culross, for his advice, because I know he is very busy, and he has given a great deal of time on this Bill helping everybody quite impartially. I agree that there is a lot to be done on this Bill. It is a quite harmless Bill, and it can be improved. I commend it to your Lordships.
On Question, Whether the said Bill shall now be read 2a;?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 28; Not-Contents, 49.

CONTENTS

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Shackleton, L.

Diamond, L.

Listowel, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Gardiner, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Teviot, L. [Teller.]

Garnsworthy, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

White, B.

George-Brown, L.

Phillips, B.

Wigg, L.

Hale, L.

Piatt, L.

Wise, L.

Inglewood, L.

Roberthall, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Jacques, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Killearn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Conesford, L.

Maclean, L. (L. Chamberlain.)

Amory, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Auckland, L.

Cowley, E.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Beaumont, L.

Croft, L.

Mancroft, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Diplock, L.

Milverton, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Gage, V.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Caccia, L.

Gisborough, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Carnock, L.

Greenway, L.

Pargiter, L.

Clancarty, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rowallan, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L. [Teller.]

Hanworth, V.

Saltoun, L.

Helsby, L.

Shannon, E.

Clitheroe, L. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Somers, L.

Cobbold, L.

Hewlett, L.

Strange, L.

Cole, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Colyton, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Swansea, L.

  ZAMBIA: TRANSPORT LOAN
  ZAMBIA: TRANSPORT LOAN
  IMMIGRANTS AND VOTING RIGHTS
  IMMIGRANTS AND VOTING RIGHTS
  DEFENCE LAND HOLDINGS
  DEFENCE LAND HOLDINGS