in posn to resist this – which I can’t do yet.
Hence, prefer to p’pone legn for a time. This may mean we wd. have
no powers at next review. But at this review, deadlock is likely
& it mght. suit us to say we have no power to deal with it. Later
the l.a.’s & teachers mght. divide & we mght. be under less
pressure to include arbitn.
H.B. Timing is nicely balanced.
This year’s review must not yield further increase. Teachers’ 14% is
already grave threat to our 2½% - it must last for a long time.
Is it better to legislate before a clash. Or after we have made it clear
they are to get nil.
I.M. Balance of argument in favour of D.E.
In addn legn this session v. all the opposn it wd. arouse wd. be
v. unwise. That seems to me to be decisive.
J.H. Cd M/E. get agreemt. with B’ham Cttee – he doesn’t press legn: but
they promise to discuss recommns with him informally before
J.M. If they are to get nil this summer, there will be conflict – with or w’out
powers. I am therefore indifferent, wtr. D.E. legislates or not.
Hail. Will we be in any better posn to legislate next session – nearer to
H.B. E.P. thinks 10-11% for nurses is likely at arbitn because of teachers’
14%. If another rise were given to teachers, our 2½% for ’62 wd.
D.E. In answer to Hail: this won’t be politically nasty legn next session if
it follows a deadlock in ’62. May even be acceptable to teachers.
J.M. In Scotland no deadlock maybe because arbitn is available.
D.E. J.H.’s plan mght. mean no legn ever: wd. also imply we were ready to
Agreed: legn to be p’poned.
R.M. Independence (self-government) due day after to-morrow – 1/3. This
compensation plan must be settled first.
Remember Tanganyika, when Ty. in end had to pay more.
On Uganda I want to offer plan nearer to Tanganyika settlement.
Otherwise we shall be politically pressed to do it.
H.B. T. was intolerably expensive. Also bad precedent because suggests
tht. if Govt. are pressed it will yield.
Difference £700.000 on compensation & £2 m. on development.
Uganda cd. afford to dispense with the £700.000. Has just raised
salaries by that amount. Ty. satisfied £5.3 m. is enough.
Development – bedevilled by Bank plan, which is good. But
in U.K. we have had to cut back on good plans. We have offered
enough to enable them to carry on at level higher than in
Remember Kenya is coming along.
R.M. Even so, I’m sure we shan’t be able to hold posn v. Parly pressure.
D.S. I agree. We cdn’t have settled T. for less and did no good by
haggling over it.
H.B. Haven’t Govt. agreed to hold aid at a total figure? We can’t do that,
if D.S. argument prevails.
Cd do a little more on compensation, if really necessary. But can’t
go higher on aid.
I.M. What about x/? in memo. W’in aid total.
Differ from H.B.’s account of T. settlement. My view is tht. we wd.
have got a lower result if Ty. had not insisted on starting too low.
If C.O. view had bn. accepted we cd. have got a lower settlement
than we eventually reached.
H.B. We are already over the £180 m. figure.
Diffce of view betwn. C.O. & Ty. on Tang. negotiations.
Rate of developmt. expre now: £5.6 m. Ty. offer wd. raise it to
(?) £7.8 m. in 62/3.
P.M. Agree with H.B. on inconsistency with aid ceiling. But floating off
C’wealth countries will have to take priority over e.g. Libya.
P.T. Why shd. Uganda be exempt from need accepted by all U.K. Ministers
to phase out development plan?
Hail. We wd. do better to carry cost of compensation and cut back on
development, as a general proposn in all these countries.
P.M. Remember that if constitutional plan miscarried it wd. cost us more –
& political diffies wd. be greater.
H.B. x/ Ready to close whole of gap on compensation.
F.E. Support C.O. case.
C.S. What wd. they say if we took over all obligns on compensation?
R.M. No difference.
R.A.B. Raise loan to £1 m. – giving 2.5 development, in addn to full
x| P.M. Settle finally on C.O. figures if they will.
| If they won’t, w’draw it.
H.B. Then we had better abandon our aid ceiling – we can’t control expre.
E.H. Then will C.O. look at all future settlements. We can’t carry these
burdens. W. Indies will demand a lot, I’m sure. And they shd.
not get it.
P.M. Let us look at a plan covering C’wealth and foreign.
D.E. Growth at home is being curtailed by generosity abroad.
Difficult to gauge damage done to our b/p. by these projects.
P.M. Proceed as at x/ above.
4. Federation of Rhodesia & Nyasaland.
P.M. We are bound to have trouble with R.W. – over Fedn future, if not over
Must we have trouble with Africans too, in N.Rh. For them equal
%age must be gt. advantage. Does w’drawal of Asian seat help
v. much. Not in itself a grievance, for Africans.
Is there a compromise by way of making it temporary.
H.B. Our responsibility is for N.Rh. Shd we accept opinion of R.W. instead
of Govr. on this matter affectg. our responsibility. The Asian
seat won’t be defensible in H/C. if it’s seen that no-one wants it
save R.W. Remember R.W. won’t be more amenable over
Fedn or Nyasaland because we give him this.
Hail. Rejection by Asians themselves lets us out. Stick to that.
K. Argument for retn – standing by bargain with R.W. Will
therefore avoid accusation of bad faith from him: esp. as both
points of difference will have bn. resolved v. him. Also awkward
to w’draw the 500 Africans. We put it fwd. on basis of Govr.’s
Arguments against retn – increase chance of African co-opn.
[R.W.’s public re-action has made it more diff. for us to w’draw.]
But still leaves us in gt. diffy over our understanding with R.W.
R.M. I will support whatever decision Cab. reach. But I shall feel heavy
responsibility if it goes wrong.
H. Hard to w’draw from public posn that the 500 Africans are fit for
D.S. y/ Agree: wd. have to put them back under pressure.
I.M. Apart fr. this point, which will annoy Africans, the Asians will not
be on upper roll or voting in 1st hurdle percentage. If I were
African I wdn’t buy that.
S.Ll. African co-opn will be jeopardised more by w’drawal of the 500 than
by retention of Asian seat.
R.A.B. Diffy of abolishing Asian seat:
Can’t defend w’drawg. 500 Africans.
Morally, we are too deeply involved by past agreements to make
more than one change.
Will face the music if we stick to one change.
D.S. Can’t abolish Asian seat and keep 500 Afr. on upper roll.
No-one can be sure of African re-actions. They may co-operate if they
get equal %ages. If their mood is ugly, they won’t whatever
We must therefore take broader view. Effect on Africans’ co-opn wd.
be much greater on a/c. of removg. the 500. Effect elsewhere
wd. also be bad.
y/ wd. put us in worse posn.
R.M. W’draw my proposal to abolish Asian seat – tho’ concerned at
consequences. Make %age 10%. Leave reserved seats at 4.
P.M. R.M. is v. generous. He has inherited a position which others of us
made. Good of him to appreciate diffies this has created for us.
Agreed: Retain Asian seat.
P.M. Make it clear to R.W. that Cab. have considered D.S. reports of
conversations on future of Federation & cannot be regarded
as committed in any way to his partition plan.
Agreed. Announcement on N. Rhodesia to be
made in H/C. on 28/2.
C.C. 18(62). 1st March, 1962.
1. Parliament. [Enter M.R.
I.M. Business for next week.
Budget: Mon. 9/4.
2. Post Office: Giro System.
P.M.G. D/E. give views of Joint Stock Banks, who believe their facilities
meet public demand. I don’t believe that – nor even does B/E.
There are 22 m. people with P.O. a/cs and only 7 m. with
bank accounts. Publn wd. stir Banks up.
H.B. Radcliffe Cttee said, unless Banks move, case for considering
P.O. Giro. Did we take this recommn seriously?
R.A.B. I’m against the system but in favour of publishing W. Paper to show
we did act on R. recommn.
I.M. Publn wd. lead to debate etc., & then lead us into controversy with
H.B. Then publish but with statement tht. we don’t intend to act unless the
Banks fail to meet the need. The Banks shd. do it, and need
F.E. x/ Cd we not have a general paper discussing all the means of extending
credit transfer, incldg. P.O. Giro.
E.H. Cd debate it on Private Member’s day.
H.B. And with my foreword you wd. not need to state a Govt. view.
P.M. Favour x/. Offls. to consider. No publn until after
3. Nuclear Tests.
P.M. Exchange of tells. with Mr K.
Ques. of substance: are these tests justifiable w’in terms of our
After discussion with experts last night, I concluded they were.
H.W. I agree. If the doubt exists re R. anti-missile progress, we can’t risk
not going on. Western duty to go forward. It is clear enough that
R. are putting great effort into this.
We can make a clear political case. More difficult to sustain technical
P.M. On timing. Can’t wait for agreement at Conference. Awkward to do
it while Confn is sitting. Mr K. therefore concludes better to
announce it before Conference begins.
Hail. Strong arguments for early statement. But why need explosion be
timed as early as April.
H.W. Turns on prepns already standing by. Task force is sea-borne: can’t
be poised indefinitely.
E.H. 8 months since R. tests: and they continue underground. Mr K. is
Hail. Still, will be represented as ultimatum.
H.W. Even if R. are continuing to test?
Ch.H. Will be seen as danger to success of conference.
D.S. If you have to name a date: bound therefore to have element of
ultimatum. Does Mr K. really need to give a date.
S.Ll. Unless you give R. some definite limit, you will get nothing from
H. I agree. They could conclude an agreement in 2 or 3 weeks, if they
P.M. Ask him to use language of appeal rather than of threat.
Issue notice on Saty making it plain tht. it was done
after consultn with us.
Statement in H/C. by P.M. on Monday. Cd be discussed
in debate on Defence White Paper.
[Exit P.M., H.
4. Education: Universities.
R.A.B. Expansion: agreed with Ty.
Salaries: majority favoured 3% from ¼ - L.P. dissenting.
Hard but right in view of incomes policy.
Cd be assumed tht. Univ. teachers wd. understand reasons for
H.B. 8 or 9% wd. be justified & wrong to treat this end of teaching so
differently from others in teaching. But, nationally, it wd. be
fatal to incomes policy to give such an award in an area wholly
w’in Govt. control. Commend therefore 3% with promise of
review in few years’ time. Recognise it will be said this will
cripple expansion p’mme.
U.G.C. are unhappy but realise Govt’s diffies. Responsible Univ.
re-action will prob. be tht. it’s open ques. wtr. they will get
teachers to match expansion.
Our adminve apparatus depends on output of graduates, which is far
too low. We are committed to 30% increase of nos. – 40% in
science & 60% in technology. Can’t hope to get recruitment
needed on this basis.
Element of pre-pause oblign. This is corollary of teachers’ award.
Cab. Cttee influenced by effect on workers – rlways., nurses etc.
J.H. i) Universities are getting their share of rare birds – scientists
etc., because people want those jobs, irrespective of
somewhat lower pay.
ii) Private enterprise re-action wd. be v. strong if we departed
from our policy in this sector w’in our control.
D.E. Doubt if we shall man the expansion – not because [Exit D.S., C.S.
salaries but because inadequate no. of post-graduate
No means of telling what salary increase wd. be decisive.
Univ. re-action: I’m told they are most concerned about non-staff
costs per student. That wd. help to soften 3% for teachers.
They will prob. hold special mtg. to re-consider expansion
S.Ll. Stress readiness to review next year.
M. Unjust but inescapable.
Hail. I submit, but without agreeing.
C.C. 19(62). 6th March, 1962.
1. Foreign Affairs. [Enter M.R.
H. K. has agreed tht. 3 F. Ministers shd. meet first – with Gromyko
on Mon. Hope to offer agreement on tests wh. it will be diff.
for R. to reject – tho’ all will turn on wtr. they decline to
accept any inspn at all.
Looks like Summit in May: Mr K. is coming round to that.
H. Adoula has now said he wants to co-erce Katanga by force: he
cdn’t do that w’out U.N. troops. Mtg. betwn. A. & T. still
necessary, tho’ now seems less likely.
c) West Irain.
H. Shd we offer to act as mediators? Don’t want to have to put pressure
on Dutch. Will report again next week.
[Enter J.H., J.B-C.
2. Oxford Road.
Ch.H. On traffic grounds case for Meadow Rd. is the stronger. Alternative
is such a diversion tht. it wdn’t work w’out closing
Cost: diffce is small: £½ m. even for sunk road.
Is damage to amenity sufft. to outweigh these considns.
If the Meadow is open space, need for Order. Not yet clear that this
will be necessary. some delay however because development
plan will need to be changed - & public enquiry on this if objns
raised. This might take 2 months or so.
Hail. H/L. cd. impose absolute veto by refusing to pass the Order.
Sure H/L. wd. not pass such an Order, now.
But after a further enquiry we might get it through.
R.A.B. It is not yet clear that Order will be necessary.
E.M. Support Meadow road: alternative is nonsense qua traffic.
H.B. Little feeling in H.C. last summer.
D.S. Favour road across Meadow.
H. Dreadful prospect. Whatever road you have, M. Bridge will have to
be closed eventually. Why not do it now, & have longer road?
Hail. i) If you build B. road, & it achieved maximum, you wd. need
Meadow road too in the end. ii) Many homes wd. have to be
demolished: serious outcry. iii) Closing M. Bridge wd. not
solve traffic problem: traffic wd. come in via Car tax & return
by same way.
H.B. Model removes many of fears of amenity.
J.H. But its peace would be ruined.
D.S. We are concerned with amenity of the precinct – not speed of traffic.
We want peace in the precinct, not merely in the Meadow.
D.E. Traffic will get worse – ruining amenities of most Colleges.
Why shd. we be concerned only with amenity of the Meadow.
If you can’t close M. Bridge, you must have a road that will attract
people from not going up the High.
D.S. Support Meadow road, but want to close M. Bridge too.
H.B. Cd consider that – but only when Meadow road is there.
R.M. “Impervious to logic & hope reason will be defeated, & Meadow road
K. Favour Meadow road.
J.M. If it’s open space, compulsory purchase procedure will be involved
F.E. Remember object = preserve amenity in centre of Oxford.
M. Weight of opinion in H/L. against Meadow road.
I.M. Agree with F.E. Price is worth paying.
R.A.B. In H.A. Cttee clear majority in favour of Meadow road.
In Cab. opinion rather more evenly divided.
Cd we not know first what Parly posn is?
Ch.H. V. awkward to ask ch.ch in advance of announcing our decision.
Hail. Serious consequences for H/L. if they veto-ed this.
Ch.H. Even so, much prefer to take decision first on merits.
R.A.B. We can risk H/L; for if they veto-ed Order we cd. introduce Bill &
push it through under Parlt. Act.
Agreed: proceed with Meadow road – sunk.
(? without street lighting)
[Exit E.M., J.B-C.
3. Government Building: Broad Sanctuary.
J.H. As in memo.
J.H. Mainly concrete: but architect is considering stone base.
D.S. Good design: but concrete has bn. criticised – may look shoddy
opposite W’minster Abbey.
J.H. Will consider again.
[Enter E.P., P.M.G.
4. Smoking and Health.
R.A.B. Can we authorise Answers in Annex B? To go further wd. need more
D.E. Exhortn w’out example is not effective: also tobacco advertising is
slanted to the young. If I don’t go beyond Annex B., I shall be
asked what teachers can do if we don’t restrict advertising of
tobacco. Wd like study of consequences if restrictg. advertising.
Hail. Pretty serious course to start on restricting advertising. What about
S.Ll. £880 m. p.a. to revenue.
J.M. Impressed by increasing pressure for action.
E.P. Least we can do is B. & saying we are studying other measures.
Pressure for other measures will build up.
Prepare (N.B.) announcement tht. we are studying
I.M. Will answers to 2 P.Q.’s be enough (Annex B.)?
Wd prefer statemet.
E.P. I am first on Mon: P.Q. already down: can get others added.
To volunteer statement wd. excite expectn of wider
5. Housing Policy: Valuation for Rates.
Ch.H. Overall posn gives prospect (para. 10) tht. householders’ share will
be slightly down, industry will be 43% up. No case for general
order to relieve householders. F.B.I. are preparing campaign for
statement on industry.
Appeals r. assessments make these figures approximate. Success at
appeal by industry might increase burden on householders.
Variation between areas. Mentioned those with more than 10%
increase. Shd there be abatement for these? Sea-side towns.
Due to fact tht. hotels are doing worse relatively. B’mouth:
excess of shops. But 2 industrial towns in top 10 – Bristol
Against local abatement. i) Shifts burden to another class, who will
protest. ii) If we abated over 10%, what of those just below?
iii) Strengthen case for industry to have some relief. iv) Wd
reduce B’mouth’s contn to Dorset river board (who are already
13%). Thus, if tolerable, better to adhere to equity. Once we
offer abatement, we open gates to other pressures. Many of the
hard hit have low poundages – tho’ not, I must admit, all.
If we abated over 10% - B’mouth industry wd. rise 40-80%. And
in most areas it wd. be 8-10%.
Considered other ways of helping sea-side towns. Not by rate
deficiency: which other l.a.’s wd. oppose.
I.M. Other pressures: cd. be resisted because only power we have is for
Transfer of burden: in industry etc., rates are business expense.
Real ques: are we pledged? Believe we are. Agree it’s better than
H.B. believed at time of his speech. But we have relied
extensively on that speech – “taken power to cushion the rise”
on houses. We shall be expected to use this power.
H.B. I wd. not regard myself as pledged if still Minister.
The storm we shall have will be from industry.
Assumed at time of speech tht. burden on industry wd. be
Level. Will be harder to meet this pressure if we have done
somthg. discriminatory for dwellings.
Ch.H. If we had to do this, confine it to top 10.
Hail. Don’t want to make this concession and then another on Sched. A.
S.Ll. Thought of p’poning that issue until 1963. Various views w’in
Party, on abolition. But some concession is likely to be made.
R.A.B. P.M. wd. be disposed to favour some plan for top 10.
S.Ll. Won’t it give us more trouble, in the end – political racket.
I.M. Not if we relieved all above a certain figure.
Ch.H. Shops, going down by 13%, are due to lose next April a 20%
abatement. They wd. do worse in areas specially abated for
H.B. These are forecast figures: what of those near the line whole posn
changes on actual figures.
Ch.H. Or by appeals?
Ch.H. 12½% wd. help from that angle.
Discussion to be resumed – Thursday.
6. Farm Price Review.
C.S. Para. 5. Expln: if milk were cut by 0.4d, consumer wd. carry more of
burden – it wd. be 8d for all save 4½ mos. when it wd. be 8½d.
Since memo, more talks with N.F.U.’s. No chance of agreed
settlement at any reasonable figure. Shd we then go for £14 m?
Against doing so: somethg. in farmers’ argument tht. over £6 m.
will be a minus on income next year – by £8 m. at figure of
£14 m. For we have to take efficiency factor at £25 m.
Trying to carry farmers on C. Market, but ’62 will be difficult year.
Full cut will cause full protest to be turned on. £10 or 11m. will
be taken with grumbling. At £4 m., I wd. cut milk; and Ty. wd.
not lose: they wd. still save £16 m.
H.B. At Cttee oversea/independent/members argued v. milk proposals. As
condition not met, will be assumed 0.8d.
Is it desirable to have minimum determination this year, in view of
Para. 3(iii) quotation is incomplete. Went on tht. in exceptional
circs. we cd. go to minimum consistent with Act.
If we give more than minimum, we shall be told we’ve missed a
chance to economise. Wd put £3.4 m. on to cost of milk.
R.A.B. Against that, need of farmers on C. Market.
If £16 m. to Exchequer: shd. take the help of 0.4d on milk.