HC Deb 19 July 1962 vol 663 cc716-68

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Brewis

I was saying that the chief recommendation from hon. Members opposite has been a stronger industrial development certificates policy and greater inducements. Yet in the period from 1945 to 1960 £7.8 million or about £500,000 a year was spent on encouraging industry in Scotland, while in the last two years £43.3 million has been spent, equal to more than £21.6 million a year, or about 40 times as much as in each previous year since the end of the war. Therefore, I can hardly feel that Scotland has not been treated handsomely as regards the cash inducements handed out under the Local Employment Act.

In the last two years 81,000 jobs have been created, and we see from page 41 of the Report that the potential employment is equal to about 46 per cent. of the total of unemployed. But the trouble is that this is an entirely theoretical point. The real heartache of the position is that we are losing jobs so rapidly in the older industries, such as shipbuilding. But that is due mainly to the many ships which there are in the world and to points like flag discrimination. It is not due necessarily to inefficiency in the Scottish yards or even to lack of encouragement by the Government. As a result, steel has decreased its production slightly.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

The hon. Gentleman complains about shipbuilding. Would she not agree that this gives the Conservative Government an opportunity to experiment with atomic-powered ships? I was horrified that not one Scottish Conservative Member took part in the science and industry debate when the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) outlined the argument for having an atomic-powered ship. That is the sort of thing which should be built on the Clyde.

Mr. Brewis

I cannot enter into the question of an atomic-powered ship. Before building it, one has to be sure that one has the right machinery. We have given numerous Admiralty orders to the Clyde.

With regard to coal pits, it is impossible for the Government to subsidise unwanted services and uneconomic activities. That would lead the country straight away into an economic crisis and would threaten the stability of the position of the whole country.

But today we have a new Secretary of State for Scotland. I congratulate him and hope that I shall not annoy him too much by anything I say. First, I would point out that he has to watch carefully that he gets full co-operation from his Cabinet colleagues. He has to deal with the considerable problem of our railways, a problem in which the Minister of Transport will need to help as much as he can. Also, looming over the housing problem is the problem of the fishing industry.

My right hon. Friend wild need cooperation to stem as far as possible this haemorrhage of depopulation which is pulling people away from Scotland. In what Professor Galbraith would call the old conventional wisdom, it used to be the laissez-faire argument that it was economic to let people go off to where work was to be found. We have to make a complete reappraisal of that idea.

In France it has been calculated that every family which leaves the country area and goes to live in Paris, which is a great magnet for the population of France, costs about £3,000 in housing, waiter, drainage, land and the general infrastructure necessary for civilised living. When a family leaves an area, one has to put on the debit side what has been spent in that area on education and other services in the interest of the worker and his family.

The Scottish Office has considered many foreign countries, including Norway, but it might also look at one or two things which the French have done in Brittany. In 1954 a programme was started in Brittany, which is very much like Scotland in many ways, and is about 500 miles from Paris. At the time the survey was started it was at a fairly low ebb. There were practically no main roads, the roads were in bad repair, and the railway services were on two different gauges so that if one wanted to move goods from this part to Paris one bad to change trains.

Brittany now has its motor factory. Many hon. Members may have noticed in connection with Telstar that the best television pictures were picked up at Lannion, at Cape Finistere, which is about as far away as anywhere could be. It is interesting how the station came to be there. M. Pleven, the former Prime Minister of France, and a Deputy for Brittany, appointed the Surlaut Commission to go round the Paris area Looking at all the Government research stations situated there and deciding which could be moved into areas such as Brittany which needed more science and more research stations. As a result, the radio and telecommunications centre for France was moved to Lannion. Following that, Brittany now has Phillips (Electronics) Co. at Lannion, the Compagnie Generale de Telegraphic at Brest, the Alsacienne Radio and T.V. Co. at Maudeville, Frankel at St. Malo, the Thomson-Houston [Electronics] Co. at Laval, and many others.

This is something that we could well do in this country. However, I appreciate that it is beyond the initiative of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who would need the co-operation of the entire Cabinet. If one goes round the London area, to Teddington, Sunbury-on-Thames, Egham, Virginia Water, and so on, one finds many similar research stations which have no need to be in these congested areas. I cannot mention any particular ones, except two about which I feed rather strongly. One is the Forestry Commission Research Station which is in Hampshire, and the Timber Research Station as Princes Risborough. In Scotland at the moment we have a bigger acreage under trees, but the research work that we are getting in Scotland is done by seven men and a dog somewhere near Edinburgh apart from the universities. I cannot see any reason why these research stations, should not go up to Edinburgh. The wives would be just as happy doing their shopping in Princes Street, Edinburgh, as in Regent Street, London. Why is it strategically necessary to keep the Army in the south of England? Why are Salisbury Plain and Aldershot so essential to the Army? Many of these Government Departments should exercise a sort of voluntary I.D.C. system in which the Departments see that their establishments can be spread about a little more.

I now want to say a word or two about the fifth university. I do not want to go into it on educational terms at all, but we must realise that a new university is equivalent to a major industry coming into a town. We all know that since the war England and Wales have had twelve new universities. Why on earth could not one of these twelve have been placed just over the border in places like Dumfries, to which both English and Scottish students could come, as well as Commonwealth students. I was particularly pleased to see the new development plan for Livingstone, which is on a much bigger scale, and which, in my opinion, would be a very good site for a university.

I am particularly pleased to see that the development plan is on the scale of a city, so that we can get the sort of city amenities and entertainments which people will want if they are to stay in Scotland. One thing which might be included in the Livingstone plan, and I believe the Board of Trade has power to do it, is the building of office blocks in order to get the commercial employment. Private enterprise development can do this and nearly always builds office blocks on an entirely speculative basis and manages to get away with it. I see no reason why we should not do exactly the same thing in the new town of Livingstone.

I should like now to speak about the inducements offered under the Local Employment Act for new industries to come in. On the whole, I think, they are adequate, but the building grant is particularly cumbersome. One has to get an assessor to look at the plans, decide what the value would be if the firm went out of business, as compared with the actual cost of the building, and then, by comparing these figures, the value of the building grant is arrived at. If one gets too much in the way of a building grant, then, obviously, this is the wrong type of factory to come into that area, because it would have such a small residual value if the firm should go bankrupt, and B.O.T.A.C. will tend to refuse money as a loan to equip the factory.

It would be very much better if the building grant were given on a flat percentage basis. The Toothill Report suggests 15 per cent., and the French complain that 20 per cent. is inadequate. I should like to see it at 25 per cent., without having the business of the assessor working out the value of the factory. If one is lucky enough to get Scottish Industrial Estates to build a factory to rent, the rent is quite low— from 2½ per cent. to 4 per cent. If the factory is built for one, and one has to buy it back over a period, the rate of interest at the moment is about 5½ per cent., repayable over ten years, which comes out at 13¼ per cent., which is a very great difference for a new company starting out, as compared with the 2½ per cent. in the case of renting a factory. It is far too big a difference, and, although one is buying the factory on hire purchase and it will become one's own at the end of ten years, one gets no building grant, which seems to me to be entirely illogical and a typical attempt at saving by the Treasury on the building of these factories.

I think that, generally speaking, we are right in concentrating on the industrial areas of Scotland, but there is one passage on page 60 of the Report which makes me very angry. It is about the other development districts, such as Anstruther, Girvan, Rothesay, Sanquhar, Stranraer, Lesmahagow and Cumnock. The Report says: One project was completed in 1961 and another was approved but not started at 31st March, with employment potentials of 100 and 50 respectively. The Board of Trade seem to be too ashamed to say how little they have managed to do in these areas and do not give details in the case where the factory was completed.

These places are the complete Cinder-elks of the Local Employment Act, and I am extremely indignant about the way in which Stranraer has been treated. We have a modern air base at West Freugh, which is used by such firms as Elliott Automation, Blackburn Aircraft and Ferranti, which shows the sort of work which is being done there, and in which the local people are being trained, but it is an open secret that the Minister of Aviation would like to close it down, although it has spent about half a million pounds on it. About a year ago, the "Midas" space project came up, which was absolutely ideal for such an area, but instead of it going there it went to an aerodrome near Carlisle, which was not even in a development district. I have never been able to understand that at all.

Take the case of the great military port of Cairnryan, which was sold to scrap merchants, at the same time as the "Polaris" was brought in and placed in the most half-baked place imaginable— Holy Loch near Glasgow. I cannot understand any reason why it should have been sent up there, near the city of Glasgow, when Stranraer is just as close to Prestwick Airport as is Dunoon, if it comes to flying the crews borne to America. There is neglect of areas like Stranraer, where no Government Department will build an advance factory, and where there is no question of Scottish Industrial Estates building a factory to rent. All we can hope for there is to be able to borrow money at the rates I quoted earlier when we do not get a building grant, when we have an industry which wants to come into the area, which is very suitable for it, and includes people on the board of directors very experienced in that industry, and when the amount of finance available is, as the Toothill Report suggests in paragraphs 20 to 24, suitable for help by the Board of Trade.

While I have great confidence in our new Secretary of State for Scotland and while I thoroughly welcome his appointment, and while I think the Board of Trade has done an extremely good job on the whole in Scotland, I feel that I should be failing in my duty to my constituents, in view of the way in which Stranraer has been treated, if I did not vote against the Government in the Lobby tonight.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. J. Hill (Midlothian)

The new Secretary of State for Scotland said that he was a Scot, but I am afraid that Scottish hon. Members on this side of the House will not welcome that statement very much after what he said to them today. We have been listening to a brief prepared, I presume, by the backroom boys and read by the new Secretary of State. He did not deviate from that brief, but there was nothing in it to tell us what steps he was to take to alleviate the problems facing Scotland now.

Last week, the then Secretary of State made a statement about what was to happen to the mining industry. When he was pressed for details, he gave no answer, although those details were known to every newspaper in the country and were on the tape. If the new Secretary of State consults his right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, he may be told exactly what is proposed for the Scottish pits. The National Coal Board has now completed its survey and 27 pits in Scotland are due to be closed, possibly within a year while another 33 have a doubtful future and 46 are presumed safe.

But will the 33 pits classed as doubtful close within three years? Will the Minister of Power tell us whether that is the case and whether within the next three years manpower within the Scottish coal industry will fall by nearly 24,000 men, and there will be no jobs to replace those which are lost? In Scotland we are convinced, and have been convinced for some time, that the Government aim for the Scottish industry to be run down to a minimum.

Last year, although Scotland was struggling, the Minister of Power agreed that Scottish coal prices should be 10s. a ton higher than those in any other part of the country. The Government toll us that they are trying to attract industry to Scotland, but they impose conditions on the coal industry which make it impossible for the industry to compete in the fuel market. The miners are constantly told that Scotland's coal industry is £100 million in the red and that the reason is low output. But last year output of coal in Scotland increased by almost 11 per cent., and, addressing the annual miners' conference at Skegness two or three weeks ago, Lord Robens said that we could be proud that output in the mining industry was increasing.

What reward do the miners of Scotland get for the increased output, apart from insecurity and the fear of the loss of their jobs? When these 24,000 jobs go—as they will go unless the Government do something about it—there will be no other jobs to replace them. The former Secretary of State said that he would institute five new industrial estates, but what is the use of industrial estates if there is no industry for them? Are the Government prepared to accept responsibility and to direct industry— which is my view—or start industry themselves to provide jobs for displaced miners.

My constituency is adjacent to the site of the new town about which we have heard so much. Two years ago, the Government introduced the Local Employment Act. The then Member for West Lothian and I were successful in getting the Calders area scheduled. Then we got the B.M.C. factory, which we were glad to have, but the President of the Board of Trade descheduled the area. What is now gumming up the works with the B.M.C. factory? There were great promises at the time about the creation of jobs and ancillary work and it was said that at the end of the day B.M.C. would employ between 5,000 and 6,000 men. But something went wrong somewhere and the pipeline is still choked.

In answers to questions and in debates we have been repeatedly told about the number of jobs going to Scotland, and yet when the Minister of Power finally strangled the shale industry—and strangle it he did—I asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he was prepared to reschedule the Calders area. He then refused, but two days after the result of the West Lothian by-election was announced he rescheduled it without anyone asking him. At the time the Minister of Labour said in reply to questions that there were between 8,000 and 10,000 potential jobs in the area. If those jobs are still there, why is it necessary to reschedule the area?

When I asked for an advance factory to be built in the area to attract industry or ancillary employment, I was told that such building was not Government policy. But, with more courage than the Government, Midlothian County Council is building advance factories and attracting industrialists, something the Government should have been doing. It may interest the President of the Board of Trade to know that one of the sites in Midlothian near the B.M.C. factory, Burngrange, interested two industrialists who came to see the site and who were perfectly happy about it and the labour position until they were told that they would get no assistance from the Board of Trade, when they left. That is what the Government have been doing in an area where they could help to solve the unemployment problems of the centre of Scotland. The answer to all this is that the Government should give the miners and the Coal Board justice and a fair crack of the whip.

Miss Harvie Anderson (Renfrew, East)

Is it not a fact that out of the 10,000 men made redundant in the mines in 1961, 9,900 have been successfully re-employed?

Mr. Hill

I agree, but they have been re-employed in the doubtful pits.

Miss Harvie Anderson

indicated dissent.

Mr. Hill

The hon. Lady may shake her head, but that is true.

The Government must accept responsibility for the trade which the Scottish coal mining industry is losing to imported oil. We are convinced that the Government must accept responsibility for the finances of the industry and subsidise it. Why not? The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) is against subsidising the coal industry, but is he also against subsidising agriculture and spending public money on shipbuilding and the steel industry and on bolstering up dying private enterprise? Why, then, should he be against money for the coal industry? I am convinced, as is my trade union, that unless the coal industry has a fair crack of the whip it cannot compete with oil.

Like the Government, we want to see the pits closed. We do not want men to spend the rest of their days employed in coal mines. But we do want security for them and their families, and that security cannot be attained unless the Government are prepared to bring in alternative industry. When they do so, we shall willingly say to them, "Close the lot." But at the moment it seems that the biggest export Scotland has is its young people.

The National Coal Board is making no bones about this. It is telling Scottish miners who are losing their jobs that if they go to Yorkshire or to the Midlands of England they may get jobs and houses there. But we do not want them to leave. We want to keep our youth at home.

Unless the Government do something about this, when the Prime Minister decides to hold the General Election—and it cannot come quickly enough—there will be more heads rolling. This time, however, it will not be the Prime Minister wielding the axe but the Scottish electorate. Many hon. Members opposite will not be back in this House after the election. The people of Scotland are tired of promises of jobs. We do not want "pie in the sky" but jobs for our people now—and it is the Government's job to give us those jobs.

7.42 p.m.

Lady Tweedsmuir (Aberdeen, South)

The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. J. Hill) is rightly concerned about his area, whch is so dependent on one of the main industries in Scotland. He was courageous enough to come into the open and say that he disagreed with the speech made by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman gave us, for the first time in this House, a clear statement of Labour Party policy, in that he said that there would be, in his view, no direction of industry and of course, no direction of labour. But I think that that did not appeal to some horn. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Midlothian.

Mr. J. Hill

I said that that was my opinion and it is still my opinion.

Lady Tweedsmuir

Exactly. I thought the horn. Member was courageous to disagree with his own leader publicly in holding that view. We have had a clear statement of policy from the Leader of the Opposition. That being so, as neither direction of industry nor direction of labour would be carried out, it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman brought no fresh policy, except that he welcomed the idea of industrial estates and advance factories and also asked for a tougher policy on industrial development certificates.

I now pay my tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay), who is not here at the moment, because I think that he has laid the foundations for the diversification of Scotland's economy. I should also like to wish my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State well, because I believe that he is tough and determined enough to do everything he possibly can for Scotland.

We have had many analyses of Scotland's ills. I think that analysis can sometimes be overdone and that we perhaps overlook the fact, which was brought out by the Scottish Council, that although 50,000 jobs were lost in the two years up to July, 1961, 81,000 new ones were created. But the figures from July, 1961 to 1962 do not exist to show exactly what has happened up to date. The Council considers, however, that there is a drop in net growth due in part to what it calls a general drop in the industrial activity evident in England.

As the Leader of the Opposition rightly says, we cannot discuss Scotland's problems unless at the same time we also pay attention to what is happening in the United Kingdom economy as a whole. The latest United Kingdom trading return figures are very interesting because they are bad at home and good abroad. For example, our exports are up by £12 million, which is a 9 per cent. rise so far in 1962, while our imports are down £10 million. The result is that the visible trade gap is down to only £27 million. There is an improvement in invisible earnings and, as we all know, personal savings are high, not least in Scotland.

But at home sales have fallen and, therefore, one is bound to ask whether it is safe to take, to some extent, a more reflationary policy. There are great difficulties in front of those trying to sell our exports. Everyone will have noticed that the rise in our export figures has been most striking in Europe, but Canada has raised tariffs around her and there is great uncertainty in America, which is now carrying out a "Buy American" campaign. It looks as if the markets for many traditional Scottish exports are going to be much more difficult in North America, while many countries are beginning to raise protective barriers around themselves.

The result in this country as a whole is that, allied to uncertainty as to whether we are going into the Common Market, there is a general lack of confidence in the markets and in buying power. That has resulted in a lack of orders. I believe that a considerable potential of capital investment is held back at the moment for reasons of caution at a time of immense change and, unfortunately, world uncertainty.

In this country, until a decision is made one way of another about the United Kingdom's external pattern of trade, this uncertainty will remain and will colour all our efforts either to help expand existing industry or to attract new industry to Scotland. I am driven to the conclusion that we have to treat Scotland and England in different respects, for there are certain incentives necessary to the Scottish economy which are not suitable at this time south of the Border because of the external difficulties to which I have drawn attention.

The Scottish Council says that we ought to be able, on an average, to get 15,000 jobs a year until 1970 but that this is not possible unless we are doing it in what is really a more thrusting economy. There are certain matters of United Kingdom concern that I think would directly affect and help Scotland at once. Here I may not be at all popular with those hon. Members who represent coal-mining constituencies, because I feel that a reduction in the fuel tax would be an instant lift to industry, whereas tax incentives would be very much slower in working.

I agree with what the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) said about Scotland as a whole being con- sidered as a development district. I know that we have often discussed this. In a way, I have been against it because Aberdeen happens to be a development district, and obviously if Scotland were made a development district we in Aberdeen would not have quite the same possibilities of attraction as we have now. Even now, I am told that it is a bit difficult to keep Aberdeen as a development district because, at this time of the year, our unemployment figure is, happily, under the national average at just under 3 per cent.

The time has come to regard Scotland as a separate region, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will give fresh thought to this and not reject matters which have often been considered by the Cabinet, and no doubt considered in the various Departments, but try to consider these factors in connection with it. The Scottish Council and the Toothill Committee recommended that public investment changes should have regard to regional conditions and suggested that it would not be inflationary, for example, to encourage construction and building north of the Border, while, for obvious reasons, holding it in check south of the Border. On the other hand, I think that even now an inflationary position is developing in the construction industry. For example, in my constituency there are demands for building to meet educational needs, hospital needs, and housing needs, and one of the most important things to be done is to have more local co-ordination between those authorities who want their building done at the same time. Would not it also be possible, for example, to have long-term interest rates reduced north of the Border? This would be of great benefit indeed.

I very much welcomed the first act of the new Secretary of State for Scotland, which was to postpone the rerating of industry until 1966. However, I suggest that the statement made the other day in connection with coal mining, that it was proposed to build advance factories and certain industrial estates, seemed to imply that these estates or advance factories would not be placed in Chose parts of Scotland which were not affected by the coal-mining industry.

As we know, the powers that are given to local authorities to build small advance factories or small industrial estates allow them to have a grant for the purposes of servicing or clearing the sites, but they get no financial help towards the buildings. Therefore, should there not be a partnership between the Government and local authorities? If a local authority had the gumption, for instance in my area, to say, "We do not think that a large industrial estate would be suitable, but possibly a small one with one ox two small factories would be", why not have a partnership whereby the Government build the factories if the local authority is prepared to provide the basic need?

The fact remains that according to all the analyses that we have had, we in Scotland have to depend on private industry for 80 per cent. of our production and expansion, and I think that not enough is known or said about what is being done in the expansion of the existing industries. For instance, in Aberdeen the Pittodrie Granite Turning Company is now producing the largest granite rollers in the world. One is 38 feet long, and 90 per cent. of the output goes in exports, to Finland, Norway, Sweden, Belgium and France and so on.

Recently the Pneumatic Tool Company of Tullos has designed the Reich drill, which is the most modern rotary drill in the world. It is mobile and can work in rough territory on caterpillar tracks. It weighs over 38 tons. It has been exported to South Africa, Bechuanaland is interested in it, and the firm of Colvilles has asked for one for their work at Shap. But much of the work being done and the money being spent does not necessarily immediately employ more people. For instance, one can walk round Spiller's factory and see few men there because all the grain is moved through enormous pipes and elevators.

Recently in connection with the fishing industry £500,000 was spent by one firm on cold storage. This provides employment in some of the ancillary trades, but it does not give a true picture of the potential employment which might be had if we had a different type of industry.

Let us recognise what is being done. When we talk about emigration, let us remember that, whatever one thinks, emigration will always appeal to a large number of Scotsmen. It will appeal not only because they like to live and work abroad, but because one cannot get over the fact that London is the financial capital of the world and there are many people who will always go out to seek such centres. Also let us not forget that this pull to the south is not peculiar to Scotland. Canada, which is a rich country full of natural resources, has a constant struggle to keep and establish her own separate identity.

Do not let us underestimate the difficulties or the size of the task, because we are trying to do four things simultaneously. We are trying, as bankers of the sterling area, to keep a strong £. We are trying to get economic growth, steady prices, and full employment, all in the middle of the second industrial revolution.

From the figures which have been given I believe that Scotland is on the move, that we have had enough of girning, and that if we are determined we shall succeed.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence (Dunbartonshire, East)

I came to this House eleven years ago, and I have heard the speech to which I have just listened on eleven annual occasions. The speeches made by hon. Gentlemen opposite are always the same. They always refer to heavy unemployment in Scotland. Eleven years ago there were 52,000 people unemployed in Scotland, and the situation then was regarded as terrible. I remember hon. Gentlemen opposite saying how bad the situation was, what the Government should do to remedy it, what had to be done, and what would be done. Today, there are nearly 80,000 people unemployed, and similar speeches are being made.

I agree with one point made by the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir). In the past fortnight I have visited two modern firms. The one I saw at the weekend is a busy firm which twenty years ago would have employed 7,600 men and women to produce its present output. Today it employs 250. Another factory which twenty years ago would have employed 8,000 people today employs about 780. The fact is that new production industries are not large employment agencies. They produce large quantities of goods, but they employ small quantities of labour.

I believe in the direction of industry. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) referred to Brittany having found a solution to the problem by the direction of industry. The French Government have a national plan. They take shares in an industry and undertake its direction. Near Orleans there is an overhead railway system acquired from Milngavie, and known as the Bannie Overhead Rail Plane—a Scottish invention. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) was with me when I went there. This has been done by the French Government. They are seeking contracts all over the world. This is State direction not of private enterprise but of Government enterprise.

Hon. Members opposite have said that they are in favour of this sort of thing, but I was surprised when the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) said that he was in favour of Government institutions being directed to Scotland. In the eleven years that I have been here I have seen Government institutions taken out of Scotland and sent south—from Greenock, Alexandria, Clydebank, Dalmuir and Rosyth. We have seen Government industries directed away from Scotland. It appears that hon. Members opposite believe in the direction of industry if it is directed out of Scotland.

Mr. Rankin

My hon. Friend will recollect that the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) wanted industry directed only into his division.

Mr. Bence

Human nature being what it is, I can assure my hon. Friend that if I can get the Government to agree to the direction of industry to Scotland I shall try to get it directed to Dunbartonshire. I do not quarrel with the hon. Member on that score.

The point is that in the modern industrial complex more and more people will be employed in ancillary services, with a rising standard of living. As a result of the techniques of modern production, high wages can be paid to a small number of people and a tremendous amount of social and cultural activity is created around that complex, leading to the employment of more and more people in all sorts of services for the community. That is what happens in the South, but in Wales and Scotland, where the heavy industries are situated, many people are employed in production but very few in the ancillary social services outside, and there is a lower social standard. The Government must undertake some direction of State activity into Scotland, even if it has to come from the South.

The Secretary of State, in what perhaps I ought to call a peroration—or was it something written in at the end of his brief?—frightened me, because he actually said that he believed that there would be a chance for Scotland when world conditions were right. In the eleven years that I have been here I have seen world trade expand, wages double and conditions vastly improve in the Midlands and the South, and in Germany, France, Belgium and Scandinavia. I have seen this happen in Italy, and in every industrial community in the world except Scotland. While all this has been going on unemployment in Scotland has increased. What sort of conditions must exist in the world before Scotland gets standards equal to what the rest of the world is now enjoying? My only conclusion is that the people of the rest of the world, outside the borders of Scotland, will all have to become millionaires.

We hear a good deal about displaced miners and the need for their redeployment in other industries. I can assure the hon. Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) that in my constituency some of the displaced miners are over 45 years of age, and they cannot get jobs. Local authorities do not want people over 45 years of age, because of their superannuation schemes. This consideration also applies in industry. When I worked for B.M.C. in the Midlands it did not want men over 45 because of its superannuation scheme. But some of the miners who are being displaced and who are 45 years of age or more fought in the last war. They have families. Many such miners in my constituency have five, six or seven children. These men are being put out of work by the closing down of pits, and they will never be able to get other work.

Two of the pits in Twechar, in my constituency, are scheduled to be closed, and when they are closed the mining industry in that area will be finished. Yet a new town is being built which will ultimately have a population of 70,000. What the people there will do, heaven only knows. Figures of new jobs becoming available are bandied about the House. New jobs are being provided in Dalmuir, by the firm of Babcock and Wilcox. But a Royal Ordnance Factory there was closed down, and 1,800 men lost their jobs. The firm of Babcock and Wilcox will employ 1,000 men. It is said that we have got 1,000 new jobs, but this is merely a transfer of old jobs into new jobs. This is how we have been hoodwinked up to now. But the people of Scotland refuse to be hoodwinked any further.

The Scottish Industrial Estates had a piece of land on Clydebank which was scheduled for industrial development. This was sold or leased, two or three years ago, and I understand that it was taken by Remington-Rand. There it is today, covered with weeds. Nobody else can use it. Why should sanction be given to Scottish Industrial Estates to sell or lease a piece of land scheduled fox industrial development when the company which takes it over does not use it? Will the President of the Board of Trade consider all the facts about this piece of land in Dalmuir, which I understand is held by Remington-Rand? Is that firm going to build a factory there? If it does not want the land, let it be bought back by compulsory purchase order at the price paid for it.

Mr. Ross

They will not do that.

Mr. Bence

Why should not they?

Mr. Ross

If my hon. Friend studies the last Town and Country Planning Act passed by this Government he will see that it was the precursor to the considerable rise that has taken place in land prices, and it could not be bought back for the price which the company paid for it.

Mr. Bence

There we are, then. But we know of cases where Departments of State have sold land at very low prices and have had to pay fancy prices to get it back.

Little industrial land is scheduled for development in Kirkintilloch, but there is to be a very big overspill from Glasgow. Kirkintilloch is trying to get industry from Glasgow, and Glasgow is trying to get industry itself. Who will win the tussle? This is a serious business for towns like Milngavie and Kirkintilloch, who have to take the overspill from Glasgow.

I have been given figures relating to five industries. In one it takes £23,000 of capital to employ one man. In the case of the oil industry, the cost is higher. In the lowest—modern light engineering—it costs £12,000. I am assured that those figures have been increasing, and will continue to increase, and the longer we delay in getting industry to move into Scotland the higher those costs will be. This trend applies to public buildings of all kinds, and all sorts of capital accumulation. Real capital is becoming more and more expensive. The longer we delay the more difficult it will be to solve the problem of Scotland, and the more future generations will condemn the party opposite. They may even condemn this institution.

8.10 p.m.

Miss Harvie Anderson (Renfrew, East)

I am glad to have had the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because I want to follow the theme underlying the speech of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). I wish to concentrate on what is, unfortunately, a problem relevant to a vital sector of industrial relations, known as the problem of redundancy. I do not think that it can have escaped notice that the speeches in this debate have revealed an underlying anxiety about this problem.

I understand that the object of the debate today is to help Scottish industry. As I see it, there is one great difficulty which we face. Those of us who represent Scottish constituencies are so aware of the difficulties confronting Scottish industry that we tend to convey to the world an image of this problem and thereby overcast the excellent work being done and the excellent workmanship which is available in Scotland. But in Scottish industry there is too much old-fashioned thinking and there is stalemate in method. We have "go slows" and demarcation disputes, such as are to be found in England, and this attitude is to a great extent, due to the problem of insecurity. The problem of insecurity of tenure in employment arises undoubtedly from a background of possible redundancy which must exist in the minds of many people.

Those who experienced life in the 1930s or who were brought up during that period must have a feeling of fear in the back of their minds which plays a major part in their attitude to their work. I do not believe that fear is the only motive which lies behind the difficulties we face, but I think that fear is a much more real motive than many of us are prepared to accept. Therefore, I believe there to be an urgent need for better understanding, on the one hand, by the Government and by management of the psychology of employees, and on the other hand, I believe there to be need for the employees to understand the economic forces which control the destiny of this island and also the destiny of the employees themselves. I believe it vital that there should be a better interchange of ideas with the hope of achieving a better understanding. If, as I believe, some form of security of employment is a necessary ingredient in industry, I consider that this is a matter of over-riding importance which should be given great consideration now—much greater consideration than it has received up to the present time.

Let us consider the effect of this insecurity as a whole. Surely it is devastating, because it is reflected in an attitude which is against progressive change. There is also the feeling that redundancy will result from progress and that is a feeling which we ought to dispel. If new thinking is required for this problem, as I believe that it is, we must evolve a remedy for redundancy. I do not believe that that remedy lies necessarily in that phase of which we have been speaking today. We have had, and are having, experience of the period between present and future employment which is so unsettling. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. J. Hill) and I have crossed swords on this point, but I believe that the majority of those who have become redundant in some of our major industries have been re-employed. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), from a sitting position, interjected and voiced what I think is the main anxiety, that young people are not going into these industries.

Miss Herbison

Hear, hear.

Miss Harvie Anderson

This feeling that there is of the fear of redundancy and the necessity for re-employment runs right through the age groups and affects the young people so that their minds turn against the progress which we desire to see in Scottish industry. Some new thinking has been done by Scottish industrialists, and I think it right to put forward what many people have already heard about—the plan advanced by the chairman of Thermotank Limited. We should welcome new thinking on these lines. The concern of the chairman of that firm is to find a solution to the problem created by this feeling of fear and insecurity which lies behind redundancy which, in turn, has such a bad effect on progress in industry.

Mr. Rankin

Does the hon. Lady realise that today the greatest handicap facing Scottish industrialists is the fact that the cost of boiler fuel in Scotland is 25s. a ton greater than in England? That bears on the problem of redundancy.

Miss Harvie Anderson

It is unlikely that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) and I would come to the same conclusion. I think that the reasons for the difficulties which we are experiencing in Scotland today are more widespread and deeply rooted than the rather simple fact which he has mentioned.

Mr. Rankin

It is not a simple fact.

Miss Harvie Anderson

May I return to the theme which I have been trying to follow? I am sure that the hon. Member for Govan has been listening eagerly to every word I have said. I wsih to refer to the solution which has been put forward by the chairman of Thermotank Limited, who is a young and forceful personality in Scottish industry. It was also advanced by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) in his Redundancy Bill.

As I have said, I believe it is time that we gave thought to this problem and began to think out some adequate solution. It has been suggested that the only solution is a national one and I believe that to be true, because redundancy reverberates nationally. We do not want to tackle this thing in piecemeal fashion. If we regard it as a national problem we must face reality and the need for an employment code binding the employer and the employee.

Having envisaged this, we must accept the need for redundancy payments, under conditions acceptable to management and men, and I 'think that Mr. Iain Stewart's suggestion of a national mobility trust is not very wide of the mark in the next phase. This would be a trust administered largely by the T.U.C., which in any successful scheme of this kind would have a major part to play. Under such a scheme, the board of any company have an obligation to establish an acceptable two-way communication. Its object again must be that one side understand better what the other side is driving at and why, because forces on both sides are very often outside the control of the individuals concerned.

These are provocative suggestions. They have been made by others but they have not been made often enough and they have not given rise to sufficient thought from those who must put them into operation. They reflect new, but I believe useful, thinking. They have been discussed in political, trade union and industrial circles. However, they 'have to be much more widely discussed and some solution arrived at to enable this changing pattern of Scottish industry to be not only the reality we hope it will be but more easy for those who are bound to be adversely affected in the welcome change.

The hon. Member for Midlothian very wisely painted this out by saying what I have heard from miners so many times, that they do not want their young people to go into the mines because they want a progressive industry such as the hon. Member fox Dunbartonshire, East has illustrated, which brings in its wake good wages and a high standard of living. If we in Scotland are to face up to this great change from our narrow and heavy industries, we must do it by protection in this way.

In the minute or two remaining to me I want to put to the President of the Board of Trade a constituency point about which I feel very deeply. Although we have to go on a national basis toward progress and new thinking for new industries, we must maintain in some adequate or improved form the industries whereby Scotland has lived far generations. This includes a number of industries perhaps small by the standards of industry in the latter half of the twentieth century.

In my constituency the knitwear industry is doing what has been an up-to-date and thriving trade. At the moment it is being throttled and nearly killed by imports from another part of the Commonwealth. I realise the difficulties presented by the fact that the imports come from the Commonwealth but I beg my right hon. Friend to look at this before it is too late, because although great emphasis has been placed today on the old industries of Scotland declining and changing, the woollen industry in all its aspects is essential to Scotland and will be essential for some years to come. I earnestly ask that consideration be given towards that support now before it presents my right hon. Friend with the problem which the heavy industries present him with today.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

I am on my feet on behalf of small com-munities—'Blackridge, Stoneyburn, Fauldhouse, Winch-burgh, Seafield, and Livingston Station and other communities up and down central Scotland—in the belief that human beings should not be obliged against their will to leave their homes, their relatives and their friends and go away in search of work; that children should not have their schooling interrupted merely because father has to go south to England or to Canada; that teen-agers are entitled as of night to work in or near their own home towns without this dreadful business of travelling twenty miles to work and twenty miles back, which not only eats into their pockets but, which is far more important to me, injures their health, and in the belief that those who are "too old" at 45 or 55 should be given other work.

What this amounts to is that we should have public works. I am on my feet on behalf of certain practical public works. There are two objections. It may be said that public works interfere with freedom. Let us be clear about this freedom. Even at this late hour I make no apologies for discussing freedom Which is the more important—the freedom to spend money as one pleases or the freedom to work, the freedom of investment or the freedom of teen-agers to find work in their own home towns?

Again there is the question of cost It may be said, "He is suggesting public works. He is inexperienced. He will learn". When many hon. Members were in Parliament in 1945 I was only twelve years old. That was an hour of national need. To these small communities in Scotland on whose behalf I am speaking this is also an hour of national need. I can only reflect that when in 1942 it was necessary to build Hurricanes the accountant did not have his way. In 1962 let us no longer be governed by accountants and Treasury officials.

Without making a personal attack, I as a young man sadly ask one of my former heroes as an economist, Professor Cairncross, "Have you lost your soul? In 1944 you were suggesting that public works should be done inversely as private investment so that people in areas which needed it would benefit". I of all people can respect a person for changing his mind, but I think that we are entitled to know why the Treasury has changed its mind on the usefulness of public works.

The first public work which I suggest is the reconstruction of Turnhouse. After all, this should be non-controversial, because the Toothill Committee said that the main runway is wrongly sited to the prevailing wind and the subsidiary runway is not long enough. Surely there is a case, remembering that it would give employment to shale miners otherwise too old at 50, to carry out the major re-construcion of an airport where business will grow, with the likely development of Livingstone and in the light of the development at Bathgate and the construction of the Forth Road Bridge.

The second of the public works—this is very relevant in the light of what the Secretary of State told us about creating the conditions in which new industry can flourish—is the electrification of the railway line which goes between Airdrie and Edinburgh. This is not merely a constituency point. If Bathgate is to be the growth point of the whole of the Scottish economy, facilities must be created, and created in good time. Besides this, electrification would provide a lot of work, which is needed right now.

The third public works scheme is this. I do not say that this should be sited in West Lothian or near it. Perhaps East Fife or Ayrshire would be better. Two major power stations of the Kincardine Mackenzie type should be erected using pulverised fuel. If the mining industry is to be helped, perhaps the stations could be run with a standard, if low quality, product such as pulverised coal, possibly forcing people to use electricity in their homes. However, this makes sense in the light of the fact that the Zeta heavy hydrogen process has not been all that was expected of it. Hunters-ton has been shown to be relatively four times more expensive per kilowatt hour for the capital invested than a power station of the type of Kincardine or Cockenzie.

There is also the question of the chemical industry, which depends on coal as a raw material. It is time that hon. Members looked at the Wilson Report on the uses of coal as a derivative. After all, by turning coal into carbon monoxide and hydrogen and then synthesising it all sorts of products, from synthetic rubber to polyurethene, can be made. This is the basis of one of the industries of the future. It can be prefectly easily done, because it is the logical extension of the work of the National Coal Board.

Time is running short, but I must make one more point. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) spoke about a fifth university. This would create employment, but I am interested unashamedly not in a fifth university but in a sixth university, a seventh university and an eighth university. It may be said that this is because I am an educationist. On Sunday morning I went to see the National Union of Mineworkers at the Woodend pit near Armadale which has been scheduled as a "B" pit. The president of the Woodend miners did not say, "Fight as hard as you can to keep Woodend open". He wants Woodend kept open, but that was not his first request. His first request was to point at the youngsters round about and say, "Tarn, do you know that in fifteen years' time anybody who does not go to a university will be considered ignorant? "That is not my remark. It is the remark of the president of the Woodend miners. I think he is right.

Added to this, during the West Lothian by-election I was frequently asked whether I did not think it was wrong that Scots should be excluded from university places while Englishmen, Africans and Indians came to Scottish universities. I shook my head and did not give the questioners the answer that they wanted. I said I thought it was quite right that Englishmen, Nigerians and Indians should be welcomed at out universities, because that is the sort of thing a university is for. A university becomes valuable if all sorts of people can be brought together in it. At the same time, it is a sad situation that we have to turn away Scots. Some may think it equally sad, if not sadder, that we have to turn away Nigerians, Ghanaians and Indians who want to come here.

This is the argument for setting up in Scotland now four universities, because they take a long time to grow. If I am still here in fifteen years' time I shall be very surprised if any hon. Member says that we have a surplus of university places. We can do this. It would help our brickworks. It would also help the many people of 50 to 55 who could work for the university establishments as they grew up. Let us get on with the job very quickly.

There is one question that hon. Members opposite must answer. I am not saying this in a sneering way. It is a question that we all have to answer. If the Russians can develop the Arctic, if the Israelites can develop the desert and if the Brazilians can develop the jungle, is it really beyond the wit of Her Majesty's Government to develop the far-off regions of Britain? When I speak up for Scotland, I also speak up for Anglesey, Northern Ireland and any other parts of Britain which might be in a similar situation.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy (Edinburgh, Leith)

We have had a rather interesting debate. I want to open my remarks by welcoming the new Secretary of State for Scotland to his present office. It is a very high position in Scotland. It is also a very onerous position, and on the right hon. Gentleman's shoulders will fall the responsibility for guiding Scotland in the months that lie ahead. I have already conveyed the condolences and sympathy of my hon. Friends and myself to the ex-Secretary of State in view of the very personal troubles which he has been suffering for a long time.

Having welcomed the Secretary of State to his office, I must tell him that I could not welcome the speech which he read this afternoon. He said that enormous tasks lie ahead of us in building up our industry and new industry, and that that was what Scotland required. It is not good enough to make such statements 11 years after the present Government have been in office. What have the Government been doing for 11 years when the newly appointed Secretary of State finds he must tell us that that is the job that Scotland has to undertake? Did he not realise that when he was saying that he was condemning every one of his predecessors and the successive Governments of which he has been a member?

I did not quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman meant when he used another phrase. He said that we must let other people know that manpower is Scotland's greatest asset. What did he mean by that? Did he mean that we have so many unemployed that they can be used up if industry only would come into Scotland? Surely unemployment is not an asset. It is a condemnation of the system under which those men have been condemned to live. Instead of regarding it as an asset, the Secretary of State ought to have been sorry at having to report such a thing to the House.

The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Government will have to trigger off action and give people the facilities for working and create a new economic situation in Scotland. But the right hon. Gentleman did not say whose action the Government were going to trigger off. The right hon. Gentleman offered no solution at all. All I can tell him about his speech is that it was only because of the usual generosity of my hon. Friends with regard to a maiden speech that he got through quite as easily as he did.

Mr. Willis

We shall not do it again.

Mr. Hoy

I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance.

The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) made an interesting speech. He spoke about the part that afforestation could play in Scotland's economy. But he did not face the issue which the Forestry Commission has been facing, and it is not a new one. In Scotland today the Forestry Commission employs about 4,000 people, maintains about 2,000 miles of road and has an acreage extending to about 1½ million acres. The one thing that prevents the Commission from developing its work is the lack of land.

Sir J. Gilmour

It was for that very reason that I suggested that agriculture and forestry should be put under the same control. It seems to me that there is competition between the two. We need co-ordination of policy to ensure that the very best use is made of the available land.

Mr. Hoy

Of course we have co-ordination at present. I was in the north of Scotland recently addressing the farmers of Aberfeldy. They were bringing this to my attention, but they are under the Secretary of State for Scotland. He is the Minister responsible. It is no use the hon. Baronet talking about co-ordination if the principal defect is that the Commission does not have sufficient land. He knows as well as I that the main reason is that to such a great extent land in Scotland remains in private hands and private landlords resist attempts to get land for this purpose.

I look back to the days when Lord Robinson was chairman of the Forestry Commission. I remember the attacks made on him because he endeavoured to get more and more land to build up the Forestry Commission in Scotland and elsewhere. I agree with what the hon. Member said, but the test would be if he would lend assistance to the Forestry Commission to get the land it wants. Even at present because of the scarcity of land the Commission is compelled to plant on land which previously was regarded as unplantable. I agree that great inroads can be made, but that will require the Government—this is where responsibility falls on the Secre- tary of State—not only to take the power but to use the power, to give power to the Commission to buy the land necessary for the work it wants to undertake

We had another interesting speech this afternoon. It was made by the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir). We were delighted to hear her. She was the only one who spoke about "girning" over Scotland. She has to do that because she comes here so seldom that she has to record her attendance. She spoke about special interest rates for Scotland as a way in which industry could be attracted there, especially to the north of Scotland. This was a change. On many occasions my hon. Friends have asked if we could have special interest terms to attract industry, to allow capital development, to build new factories and provide employment, but that has been laughed at by hon. Members opposite. The hon. Lady has at last been converted to the view that such special interest rates are a possibility.

Perhaps she had been converted by the way in which the Government have been able to hand out cheap money for motor car development in Scotland. I am not criticising that but we must remember, especially hon. Members opposite, that all these large developments taking place in Scotland at present are either through nationalised industry or industries which are receiving State aid. Not a single development is being done without that Even the industry to which the Secretary of State is so proud to belong could not live without a State subsidy. I will say this: it was a pleasant relief for the first time for a long while to have a speech from a Secretary of State for Scotland which did not include the word "pipeline". I give the President of the Board of Trade due warning that he had better not introduce it.

The need for this debate requires no explanation. On previous occasions my hon. and right hon. Friends have been accused of carping criticism, what the noble Lady described as girning. As I said a few moments ago in her absence, she has to use these words in between her visits to the United States because that records her attendance here. That is the kind of thing hon. Members opposite have accused us of, but on this occasion, except for that one example and a little from the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore), it has not been levelled against this side of the House.

That was because all realise the very difficult position in which Scotland finds itself. It has been the job of my hon. Friends throughout the years, not only this afternoon but on many occasions, to draw the attention of Ministers to the economic position in Scotland. Everyone admits that what they have been saying for years has been perfectly justified. I say to the President of the Board of Trade that he was just as guilty of this sort of criticism as any of his hon. Friends. It was when unemployment was mounting this year, even as late as April, that the right hon. Gentleman was saying to the House: There is nothing much wrong, except in the eyes of hon. Members opposite."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1962; Vol. 657, c. 1188–9.] I am certain he will not want to repeat that statement tonight. He said it in the month of April, which was a month that did not pass unnoticed in Scotland. At the bag inning of that month Scotland thought and thought Tightly, that its share of unemployment was already too great, but the month had hardly started before we were informed through the columns of the Scotsman of further blows to follow. I remember opening the Scotsman on 4th April. Double headlines on the right-hand side said: Death Sentence For Shale Oil. Industry Has Only Six Weeks to Live. 1,050 Men Will Be Left Without Jobs. In the left-hand corner of the paper it was said: Fight To Save The North British Loco Works Fails. 1,400 Employees Face Redundancy. Strangely enough, the only real ray of light that was shown in the columns of the Scottish Press that day was the announcement about the building of a ship at Aberdeen. A cargo and passenger vessel had been launched which had been built in the shipyards of a well-known firm in Aberdeen. This was the one ray of light. The only comment that I make about it is that the ship was ordered by the Secretary of State for Scotland, paid for by Government money, to serve a nationalised service.

Not even the leader of the Liberal Party objected to that. Apparently, he was delighted to welcome this ship, nationalised and paid for by the Government, into his constituency. I say to hon. Members opposite that if they pause to think of this little report there may be a lesson for them in Scotland. It may be that Government action can succeed in Scotland where private enterprise has failed.

If the beginning of the month was bad, worse was to follow. Before the month had passed, we had a visit from the chairman of the National Coal Board, who, amidst the monastic simplicity and frugality of Gleneagles Hotel, announced that further pit closures would take place in Scotland and that thousands more miners would possibly lose their jobs. This, of course, caused consternation in Scotland. As usual, it was my hon, Friends who responded quickly and demanded from the Government an immediate debate.

It was held upstairs and we had a two-day debate in the Scottish Grand Committee. It was anticipated that the miners would lose their jobs. I asked the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland if he could say what consideration the Government had given to this problem. The hon. Gentleman replied: The hon. Member for Leith referred to the anxiety which has been caused as the result of a speech made over the weekend by the Chairman of the National Coal Board. I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power about this, and he has assured me that nothing that was said gave any final figures, or indeed, any figures at all, about manpower. I know that estimates have subsequently appeared in the Press, but these are not official. The position is that the Board is still working on the problem, and when it has arrived at definite estimates it will, as is customary, inform the union."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 3rd May, 1962; c. 15.] He gave us no figures and no information as to what was happening. That is one of our chief complaints against the Scottish Office because this performance was repeated by the ex-Secretary of State for Scotland last week. In fact, in making the announcement, he did not disclose a single word about how many miners would be involved. Unless the Scottish Office appreciates the significance of these changes and the position of the men who will lose their jobs and plans alternative employment for them. it will be impossible for Scotland even to maintain its present position.

If the Government find it difficult to understand it in that way, let me put it as simply as I can. As a result of the recent statement on pit closures, some 6,000 miners in central Fife will lose their employment. This means 6,000 fewer jobs. What steps are the Government taking to make good the loss? This is of vital importance not only to central Fife, but to the whole of Scotland, because, unless we provide suitable alternative employment, the drift from Scotland will continue.

This afternoon, in an excellent speech, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition gave some figures to show just how this was affecting Scotland. I will give the House some more, though I do not wish to use too many figures because I always remember the story told by our late colleague, Tom Hubbard, who was the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs. He was at a meeting accompanied by a supporting speaker, and the supporting speaker said that he would not bore the audience with statistics; he could safely leave that to the candidate. I do not want to be in a similar position tonight, but I shall put a few figures to the House to prove my case.

Since 1956, the total working population of Scotland has fallen by about 38,000. During the past year, the total population of Scotland fell by a further 24,000. This has happened in face of the fact that the population in the rest of the country has been increasing. By comparison, Scotland's position has worsened.

The reason is not difficult to find. It can be summed up in one word, unemployment. As my right hon. Friend said, our unemployment figures are always twice as large as those for the rest of the country. Compared with London, the South-East and the Midlands our position is even worse. Taking the last five years, unemployment in London and the south-eastern area varied between 0.9 per cent. at its lowest and 1.3 per cent. at its highest. In the Midlands, during the same period, unemployment ranged between 1.0 per cent. and 1.6 per cent. The figures for Scotland show that our percentage rose from 2.6, the best, to 4.4 per cent. In Scotland's best year unemployment was twice as heavy as the worst figure in London and the South-East. That is the comparison.

Our present total of 72,143 men, women, boys and girls unemployed is 12,380 more than the total a year ago. Included in that figure—this is terribly important—are 2,200 boys under 18 and 1,305 girls under 18 signing on at the employment exchanges. There is something wrong with a system which condemns young people under 18 years of age, just out of school, to go to the employment exchange and be offered no means of earning a livelihood.

Lest hon. Members should get it into their minds that this is just a transitory phase through which the people of Scotland are passing, it is as well for the House to know that over 60 per cent.— nearly two out of every three—of the 73,000 unemployed in Scotland have been signing at the employment exchanges for eight weeks or more. We have this hard core of unemployed and, as my right hon. Friend said, all this is reflected in our figures of industrial production which show that, between 1954 and 1961, while Britain's level of production rose by 20 per cent. Scotland's rose by only half as much. When we remember, as we have remembered today, that Britain's record is about the worst in Europe, we realise that Scotland is all that much worse off. The people of Scotland want to know what will be done about it.

The demand for action does not come only from these benches. Many have joined in the cry, and it was interesting to hear the voices of one or two hon. Members opposite joining in this afternoon. The Convention of Royal Burghs of Scotland has spoken out. Let me remind the House of what was said in April this year in a report in the Press about the Convention: The convention unanimously adopted a motion urging the Government to adopt a ' sincere and vigorous' policy on direction of industry to underdeveloped areas. The motion, by the commissioner for Leven, Provost William Laing, asked the convention to express concern and deplore the ' indifferent attitude' of the Government towards ' the alarming decline in Scotland's traditional industries and consequent unemployment'. Let me remind the Government once more that that was the unanimous finding of the Convention of Royal Burghs of Scotland.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) made some suggestions this afternoon about how this problem should be tackled. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) also had some suggestions to make. We on this side have made many suggestions for dealing with this problem in these debates. If the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South is interested in the Labour Party's policy, let her consult the programme issued by the Scottish Labour Party Let Scotland Prosper and the booklet Signposts for the Sixties, and she will find out what we mean.

Quick action must be taken if we are to stave off a worsening of the position. I suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that Government orders can be placed quickly even with existing firms in Scotland. This would help to stave off a certain amount of unemployment. There may be some little difficulty in convincing certain people in the South. I heard only last week, when travelling up with one of the greatest industrialists in Scotland if not in Britain, that his concern was being persuaded by the Government to place an order in the South rather than in Scotland because it was much more suitable to the social and administrative convenience of certain officials.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll) indicated dissent.

Mr. Hoy

Oh, yes, it was. It is no use the President of the Board of Trade indicating that that is not so, because I shall show him that it is true. This is one of the reasons why we do not get as much development in Scotland from Government sources as we should. The Government could quite well do this and it would do considerable good to Scotland without having a bad effect on the South.

We have suggested for a long time that advance factories should be built. I was a little disappointed with the Secretary of State's speech this afternoon in that he did not expand the statement of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Power who last week, in trying to soften the blow of pit closures, said that we should have some new estates, new sites and new factories. If the President of the Board of Trade cannot tell us exactly where the factories are to be, surely he can tell us how many factories the Government have decided to build, how many jobs will be provided by them and when they will be built, because urgency is the keynote of this action.

Even if all these temporary measures are taken, they can be regarded as no more than palliatives for Scotland. What is wanted is a long-term plan to allow Scotland to play its part in the economic recovery of our country as a whole. Simply to close down railways and mines for bookkeeping purposes is not planning. What we should be doing, and what the Government should be doing, is finding out what part these industries will play in Scotland's future. Certainly, it might be interesting to know what part the railways will play in a co-ordinated transport system that will best suit the industrial and social needs of Scotland.

The decay of old industries makes the need for new ones urgent and imperative. The case for this is put succinctly in Signposts for the Sixties. It contains new ideas. The right hon. Gentleman might not agree with them, nor might any hon. Member opposite, but at least they are put forward as a contribution to be discussed and as something which might provide a solution. At least, they are a contribution in ideas which the Government have not equalled.

In Signposts for the Sixties, it is stated: How can Britain make up the lost ground in the scientific revolution? The first thing to be done is to reconstruct and greatly to enlarge the existing National Research Development Corporation. In its new form, the Corporation should be authorised to engage in production, either in its own establishments, through the creation of subsidiary productive undertakings, or by joint enterprises with private companies which have the expertise to develop new products but lack the resources. Does any hon. Member opposite find objection with that? It continues: For a fraction of the cost of one of the missile contracts, the National Research Development Corporation could stimulate research directed towards promoting new developments in civil industry, for example for new advances in textile machinery, shipbuilding techniques, machine tools or electronics. Encouragement could be given to young scientists to form research and development teams to work on particular programmes. It goes on to develop the case for State-owned industries if they are necessary. It expresses willingness to go into partnership with private enterprise to exploit these resources, on behalf not only of Scotland, but of Britain. If all this is to be done, we have to consider whether we have the organisation to carry it through. This is important. I agree with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who raised this aspect. This might well mean a new department in the Scottish Office, not all on its own, but a department working in conjunction with, or as part of, a larger development corporation which would revitalise our whole country.

We will expand as a nation if we are prepared to devote a greater part of our income to work of that kind. In Scotland, we will be only too willing to play our part along with the rest of the country, because we do not believe that we can shut ourselves off from the rest of Great Britain. All we ask is the opportunity to play our part in developing our resources and to put our country into the forefront of the European nations, as it was for so long. These are plans that will call for action, for work and for determination. I am bound to say that I do not think that lead can come from right hon. and hon. Members who occupy the benches opposite.

9.4 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll)

It is just over three years since I last took part in a Scottish debate on industry and employment. I am glad to have the opportunity of taking part once again, particularly as on the previous occasion I followed immediately the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) and I find that I am doing so once again.

If I may be allowed to make a comparison, I think that tonight's debate has been better than the one in which we both took part three years ago, because I understand there has been an unofficial arrangement whereby hon. Members on both Slides would limit their speeches to about fifteen minutes. As a result, more hon. Members have been able to speak than on the previous occasion. I therefore endorse the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that Members representing English constituencies might do well to come to Scottish debates. If they had come in greater numbers today, they would have attended a model debate excellently conducted by both sides. Despite the fact that so many hon. Members limited their speeches to a few minutes' duration, it was not possible for all hon. Members to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) was anxious to make his contribution to the debate, as was the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). [HON. MEMBERS: "And many more."] Of course, I cannot name them all, but I thought that I had been fair by mentioning one from each side. I am sure that anyone who knows about Scottish debates will know that inevitably there are some disappointed Members.

On a matter of detail, before I turn to my main speech, I shall be most grateful if the hon. Member for Leith will give me details of the contract to which he referred. I appreciate that he probably did not wish to give details in public, but if he cares to let me know about them privately, I shall be glad to look into the matter straight away.

I have always been interested in the problems and opportunities of Scotland, and it would perhaps be right for me to mention to the House that I am planning to pay an official visit to Scotland lasting just over two years. [Laughter.] I should like to spend two years in Scotland. This is an official visit of two days towards the end of August, and among other engagements I shall visit industrial estates in Dundee and South Fife and firms in the Glasgow and Edinburgh areas. I hope to meet members of the Scottish Council, of the Glasgow and Edinburgh Chambers of Commerce, of the Scottish T.U.C. and of the Lord Provost of Dundee's Development of Industry Committee.

I thought that I would clear out of the way one or two matters which have been raised in the course of the debate but which are not central parts of my own speech. I want to deal first with what the right hon. Gentleman said about Britain's place in the production league table. I know that this is a subject which is often referred to in economic debates. On this occasion the right hon. Gentleman suggested that we ware near the bottom of the production league table. I should like to refer to another league table in which we are at the top.

Mr. Ross

Cost of living.

Mr. Erroll

We are at the top of (the employment table—and that applies to Scotland. The unemployment rate in Scotland compares very well with that of other countries. For example, although unemployment in Scotland during last winter was 4 per cent. one should compare it with 5½ per cent. in. Austria, 8½ per cent. in Belgium, 8½ per cent. in Canada, 10½ per cent. in Denmark, 7½ per cent. in Italy, 6½ per cent. in the United States, and 8 per cent. in the centrally planned country of Yugoslavia. I mention these figures to show that there are other league tables. It may be that the higher rates of unemployment in those countries are partly responsible for the greater rate of increase of production, but I do not intend to debate that tonight. I intended merely to show that taking league tables can lead to some irrelevant arguments. I will not continue any further on that theme.

I want to deal with the phrase "in the pipeline", which has become a convenient form of shorthand in the House for describing jobs which are in prospect and which will arise as a result of I.D.Cs being granted or factories being built. Would hon. Members prefer us to say nothing about what we think the prospects will be in the various areas, particularly those in their own constituencies? If they prefer that we say nothing, we can stop all talk of jobs which have been referred to as "in the pipeline". Personally, I believe it to be right that we as a Government should pass on the fullest possible information of what the firm industrial prospects are both for the benefit of hon. Members and for the benefit of their constituents. Their constituents matter in this as much as do hon. Members. I do not mind being knocked about and laughed at in the House on the subject of the phrase "in the pipeline", or any other crack. What matters is that we should try to help those who are wanting and waiting for jobs. I think that we should tell them as much as we possibly can.

I have therefore had an inquiry made to see whether the information which we gave in the past about prospects has proved to be reasonably accurate in fulfilment. That is what really matters. I think that if we have been reasonably accurate in the past, it is fair and right that we should go on doing it, but if we have been wildly out it is perhaps better that I should not give any estimates about the future.

We could not possibly look at all types of industrial projects throughout Scotland because there was too much variety, but we had a special investigation into the electrical engineering industries and into all projects new to Scotland since the war which were in operation in 1962. In the case of new industries, the total number of jobs estimated to arise between 1960 and 1962 was 55,000. By May, 1962, the companies concerned were actually employing 51,000 extra workers, with another seven months still to go. In the case of the electrical engineering industry, the total estimated number of extra jobs was 18,300, and by May, 1962, the companies concerned were employing 17,700 workers, still with seven months to go. I mention this to show the House that in fact our estimates of jobs in the pipeline, a phrase which is laughted at, has been remarkably accurate over a period of years, and, unless hon. Members would prefer that we did not make reference to jobs in prospects, I propose to continue to do so.

Mr. Bence

The right hon. Gentleman has referred to jobs in the pipeline running into Scotland, but perhaps he could say how many jobs there were in the pipelines running out?

Mr. Erroll

I could with notice, of course.

A question was put to me by a number of hon. Members about research projects going into Scotland The National Research Development Corporation is a corporation sponsored by the Board of Trade, and we have asked it to bear Scottish firms in mind when placing development contracts. The Corporation had, by mid-May 1962, licensed no fewer than eight Scottish firms to use its own patents. So far as it lies in our power to direct research projects to Scotland, we are already doing so.

Mr. Dalyell

The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the electrical engineering industry. This is one which has recently been in trouble, and only yesterday the secretary of the local A.E.U. asked me to help the Telegraph Condenser Company employees, where 600 people have just been given notice.

Mr. Erroll

I was quoting electrical engineering to show how accurate our estimate have proved to be in practice; no more than that. I should have thought that the House would like to know that the estimates which my predecessor has made have proved to be reasonably accurate in the event. I wish to make no other point than that. If hon. Gentlemen would like it, we will continue to give the best estimates we can, but if they would rather we said nothing about jobs in the pipeline, we will stop the practice.

Mr. Hoy

The right hon. Gentleman should know that we will be delighted to have all the information that we can get, but we should also like information on the lines that my hop. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) suggested—jobs going out the other way. As long as we get the net figures, that is what is important to us, we will be very grateful for them.

Mr. Erroll

I was very interested, not only in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, but in the article he wrote for the Evening Citizen on Friday, 13th July. May I congratulate the right hon. Gentlemen on his ability to write, as well as to speak. [Interruption.] I mean to write as a journalist; I do not mean in any other way. I thought it was a very interesting article, and I thought the right hon. Member would have realised that I was praising his article. As a one-time amateur journalist myself, I can always tell when an article is good and when it makes its points well, and I thought that the phrase would be appreciated by hon. Members opposite. I was particularly interested not in the more tendentious features, which one would expect from a hard hitting article, but in a paragraph in which the right hon. Gentleman said: But these are bound to be ineffective unless you have a tough planning Government in London ruthlessly stopping new employers going where there is congestion and over-employment, and generously giving inducements to firms to go where jobs are needed. I want briefly to inform the House how thoroughly we are already carrying out that policy, but it is a policy not only in which we believe, but on which we act.

My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) referred to the necessity for what he called a tougher industrial certificate policy. We are already as tough, to use the colloquialism, as it is practicable to be. We are at the stage where some refusals result in no development taking place at all and when a firm would rather not expand than have to move part of its production, even with the wide range of Government inducements which are available. We may not like the attitude of certain firms in this matter, but we have to take life as we find it and the fact is that we are being as tough as it is practicable to be.

I have personally studied all 31 of the industrial development certificates granted in London and the South-Eastern area in 1961 for schemes of 50,000 sq. ft. and over in order to see whether we had made any mistakes. I took that figure as that is the sort of size of expansion scheme which we can reckon as normally expected to be mobile. Of those 31 I found not one in which we could have managed to persuade the firm to move, because many of them were tied to the London area.

I shall not go through the list, but I will give examples to give hon. Members an idea of the sort of schemes for which we gave I.D.C.s and to show that they are not mobile and not capable of being taken to Scotland. Four of them were brickworks, which must be sited near clay deposits and their market, which in this case was London. The total extra employment from all four of them was 120 and, in the event, three of the four certificates were not "cashed", or used, and only one, employing 40 people, was proceeded with.

Then there was an industrial development certificate for a printing office for a London evening newspaper, which could hardly have been moved to Scotland. Even there the extra jobs created were fewer than 300. Another printing and publishing extension of 80,000 sq. ft. was a reorganisation scheme involving no additional employment. A company manufacturing polish and cleaners in the London area applied for an extension of 125,000 sq. ft., but this was a reorganisation scheme of existing production and it created only 23 extra jobs. Another scheme concerned electrical appliances with an extension of 65,000 sq. ft., but it created only 48 additional jobs. A bakery serving London customers was centralising production and had a scheme of 80,000 sq. ft., which sounds a lot but which created no extra jobs.

I am sure that hon. Members have felt, with me, on arriving at London Airport and travelling along the Great West Road to Central London and seeing all the factories, that some of them ought to go to Scotland. Feeling that myself, I considered all these applications to see whether any could have been moved to Scotland, but not one of them could. I have given this information to the House in some detail because I want to assure hon. Members that the policy which we are pursuing is tough and that any scheme which could be moved is moved.

In the last two years, industrial development certificates for the whole of Great Britain have provided only 217,000 extra jobs for men and women and of those 26,000 were for Scotland and 191,000 for England and Wales. A great deal of the extra employment which arises comes from extensions inside existing premises which do not require additional building. It is only when a firm wishes to rebuild or build a substantial extension that it comes within our net.

The big extensions and expansions, such as those which took place in the motor car industry in 1960, tend to be cyclical in character. Extensions or subsidiaries having been planned in 1960, there is then a period in which the extensions are digested, so to speak, and in which the firms are in no mood for any further extensions. This has occurred in a wide range of industry and at the moment such investment is running a little below the record levels of the last two years, and therefore there are not so many expansion schemes coming forward at present which we could steer towards Scotland, or to that other important area, the North-East Coast, which is to be debated on Monday evening.

Mr. Gaitskell

The right hon. Gentleman has given a depressing picture of the rate of industrial development, which does not surprise me. But will he now tell us what he proposes to do to reduce the rate of unemployment in Scotland and the rate of migration from Scotland?

Mr. Erroll

Members opposite must decide whether they want to spend the short time at my disposal in interrupting me or hearing what I have to say. I asked for only twenty-five minutes because hon. Members had asked for under fifteen minutes each, and I thought that I should therefore keep my speech short as well.

This is not only a matter of steering industry to Scotland. There is also the importance of the expanding Scottish firms. Those which are situated in development districts are entitled to, and do apply for, the full range of financial and other inducements available under the Local Employment Act, 1960.

Some of these growths are very dramatic. I do not want to weary the House with a long catalogue, but some expansions of existing Scottish firms are most impressive. For instance, there is Burroughs Machines, Ltd., which employed 330 people in 1950 and now employs 3,600 in Strathleven and Cumbernauld. A. F. Stoddard, Ltd., had 1,300 employees in 1947 and now employs 2,000 people at Johnstone. Pringle of Scotland, Ltd., knitwear manufacturers, which employed 650 people in 1949, now employs 1,400 at Hawick. All these companies and many others are continuing to expand and to provide further employment. I am sorry that, in the short time left to me, I cannot deal with the question of knitwear raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson).

Mr. Willis

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us now what he is going to do about more jobs?

Mr. Erroll

I am coming to that. In view of the likely opportunities which are arising, and which continually arise, I have recently reviewed the organisation within the Board of Trade to ensure that it is as efficient as it can be. In addition to the staff at headquarters in London, each regional controller is in touch with industry all the time and has been asked to ensure that he learns as soon as possible of any firm or enterprise of any size which is likely to expand and which might become a project steerable to Scotland or to other development districts. We begin confidential discussions with every firm about its expansion plans as soon as it is ready to do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) referred to his experiences in the United States. He told me that he would be unable to be here for my reply, but I want to refer to what he said. Although some American firms in his experience may prefer the inducements of continental countries, the fact remains that we succeed in attracting far more investment from the United States than does the rest of Europe put together. We have an extremely efficient Board of Trade office in New York for the express purpose of keeping in contact with industrialists in the United States who may be thinking of setting up subsidiary plants in Britain, and particularly in Scotland. It may interest the House to know that our senior official there is himself a Scotsman and is very keen to see the industrial revival of Scotland.

The Leader of the Opposition said we should take into account future colliery closures in bringing new jobs to Scotland. We do that already, particularly when deciding upon development districts. This is the first step in the process. We maintain the closest touch with the National Coal Board so that we know as far as possible what its plans for colliery closures are likely to be, and we take this into account in deciding what new development districts should be created or what districts should be taken off the lists, the need for additional employment being no longer necessary. We also take into account the possible closure of railway workshops or old shipyards and so on.

We have been advised by various hon. Members that inducements should be greater or should be fixed.

Naturally, everybody likes to be certain from the outset what he will get, but —and we have plenty of proof of this— people also like the flexibility of our arrangements for assistance which can be adapted to suit each project and the way it develops. In practice, we give firms a pretty clear idea of what we can do for them, and in my experience, so long as they know the broad outline, they prefer the final offer when their own plans are more precise.

This is part and parcel of the flexibility which we have introduced into our administration. We and B.O.T.A.C. try to fit the assistance to the particular needs of each case, having in mind where it is to be situated, the type of employment it will give, the financial background of the firm and all the other considerations. I have studied the suggestion made by the Toothill Committee, and I know that the Scottish Council has made certain representations to my right hon. Friend. I have undertaken to look at both those with him, but I believe that the variety and flexibility of the inducements which we can offer are powerfud aids towards steering new forms of industry to Scotland.

As an example of that, the average cost of each job provided in Great Britain is about £900. But in Scotland the average is over £1,400 per job. Would Scotland really prefer that it should be a flat rate at the lower level, or would the House of Commons, which must have regard to public expenditure, prefer that the rate should be a flat £1,400 per job and see a greater expenditure of public money on this desirable object than is absolutely necessary? I am talking about money spent. Some of the money is lent above the line and all has to be met out of what the taxpayers provide in the current year. From the point of view of the taxpayer, it is money to be found this year. It may come back in the years to come, but it has to be found now and not in ten years.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith made great play with the Labour Party Pamphlet Signposts For The Sixties. He did not point out that in that document the Labour Party threatened to nationalise any firm in receipt of State aid. Are these firms to be exempt, or are they to be nationalised if they receive State aid? This is no great inducement to industry.

Mr. Hoy

Unlike the Minister, I am delighted to answer questions. In our document Signposts For The Sixties, we made it quite clear that we were willing to go into partnership even with private industry to exploit scientific and industrial research. We were prepared to be partners, but if private industry failed to come in, obviously it would be the responsibility of the Government to set up a State factory of their own.

Mr. Erroll

Hon. Gentlemen opposite are always saying what they are going to do. In the 2¼ years during which the 1960 Act has been in force we have offered assistance amounting to £73 million to provide an extra 82,000 jobs throughout Britain. Of this, over £43 million, or 60 per cent., is to be spent in Scotland to provide 32,000 jobs Let

us see how this compares with the period 1945–51. Throughout this period the offers made under comparable powers of B.O.T.A.C. and accepted throughout Britain amounted to £4.8 million, or £800,000 per annum. This compares with the current annual rate of over £18 million for Britain which the present Government are making available. Scotland alone is now being offered B.O.T.A.C. assistance at a rate fifteen times greater than the Labour Government thought fit to offer the whole country during their period of office.

The Government are determined that Scotland shall have an assured place in the expanding economy of Britain. I therefore ask the House to support the Government's forward-looking and practical policy for Scotland.

Question put, That "£7,078,200" stand part of the Resolution:—

The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 176.

Division No. 250.] AYES [9.30 p.m.
Aitken, W. T. Dalkeith, Earl of Hiley, Joseph
Allason, James Dance, James Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Ashton, Sir Hubert d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Hill, Mrs. Evelyn (Wythenshawe)
Atkins, Humphrey Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F. Hill, J. E. B. (S, Norfolk)
Barber, Anthony Digby, Simon Wingfield Hirst, Geoffrey
Barlow, Sir John Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Hocking, Philip N.
Barter, John Doughty, Charles Holland, Philip
Batsford, Brian Drayson, G. B. Hollingworth, John
Bell, Ronald du Cann, Edward Hopkins, Alan
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Duncan, Sir James Hornby, R. P.
Berkeley, Humphry Eden, John Horneby-Smith, Rt Hon. Dame P.
Biffen, John Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Bingham, R. M. Elliott,R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne,N.) Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Bishop, F. P. Emery, Peter Hughes-Young, Michael
Black, Sir Cyril Errington, Sir Eric Hulbert, Sir Norman
Bossom, Clive Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J. Hurd, Sir Anthony
Bourne-Arton, A. Farey-Jones, F. W. Hutchison, Michael Clark
Box, Donald Fell, Anthony Iremonger, T. L.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John Finlay, Graeme Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Fisher, Nigel James, David
Brooman-White, R. Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Jennings, J. C.
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Foster, John Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Browne, Percy (Torrington) Fraser,Rt.Hon.Hugh(Stafford&Stone) Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Bryan, Paul Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Johnson, Eric Geoffrey
Buck, Antony Freeth, Denzil Kerance, Cdr. J. S.
Bullard, Denys Gardner, Edward Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Gilmour, Sir John Kirk, Peter
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.) Glover, Sir Douglas Kitson, Timothy
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham) Lagden, Godfrey
Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Cary, Sir Robert Goodhew, Victor Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Channon, H. P. G. Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. Langford-Holt, Sir John
Chataway, Christopher Green, Alan Leather, Sir Edwin
Cleaver, Leonard Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. Leburn, Gilmour
Cole, Norman Gurden, Harold Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Collard, Richard Hall, John (Wycombe) Lilley, F. J. P.
Cooke, Robert Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Lindsay, Sir Martin
Cooper, A. E. Hare, Rt. Hon. John Linstead, Sir Hugh
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Harris, Reader (Heston) Litchfield, Capt. John
Corfield, F. V. Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'field)
Coulson, Michael Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Longden, Gilbert
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Harvie Anderson, Miss Loveys, Walter H.
Craddock, Sir Beresford Hastings, Stephen Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Critchley, Julian Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Cunningham, Knox Henderson, John (Cathcart) McLaren, Martin
Curran, Charles Hendry, Forbes McLoughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Currie, G. B. H. Hicks Beach, Maj. W. Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Mclean, Neil (Inverness) Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch Studholme, Sir Henry
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) Price, David (Eastleigh) Summers, Sir Spencer
McMaster, Stanley R. Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.) Tapsell, Peter
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley) Prior, J. M. L. Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Maddan, Martin Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Maginnis, John E. Proudfoot, Wilfred Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest Pym, Francis Thornton-Kemsley, sir Colin
Marten, Neil Quennell, Miss J. M. Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Cordon
Mathew, Robert (Honiton) Rawlinson, Peter Tweedsmuir, Lady
Mawby, Ray Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin van Straubenzee, W. R.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R.J. Rees, Hugh Vane, W. M. F.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Rees-Davies, W. R. Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mills, Stratton Renton, Rt. Hon. David Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Miscampbell, Norman Ridley, Hon. Nicholas Wakefield, Sir Wavell
Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr) Ridsdale, Julian Walder, David
More, Jasper (Ludlow) Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) Walker, Peter
Morgan, William Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.) wall, Patrick
Morrison, John Roots, William Webster, David
Neave, Airey Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Wells, John (Maidstone)
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael St. Clair, M. Whitelaw, William
Osborn, John (Hallam) Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Scott-Hopkins, James Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Page, Graham (Crosby) Sharples, Richard Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Page, John (Harrow, West) Shaw, M. Wise, A. R.
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) Shepherd, William Woodhouse, C. M.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) Skeet, T. H. H. Woodnutt, Mark
Peel, John Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick) woollam, John
Percival, Ian Smithers, Peter Woreley, Marcus
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John
Pitman, Sir James Stevens, Geoffrey TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Pitt, Miss Edith Stodart. J. A. Mr. Chichester-Clark and
Pott, Percivall Storey, Sir Samuel Mr. Gordon Campbell.
Ainsley, William Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh McKay, John (Wallsend)
Albu, Austen Galpern, Sir Myer Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Gooch, E. G. McLeavy, Frank
Awbery, Stan Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Bacon, Miss Alice Gourlay, Harry MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Baird, John Greenwood, Anthony Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Grey, Charles Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Beaney, Alan Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Manuel Archie
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Griffiths, W. (Exchange) Mapp, Charles
Bence, Cyril Grimond, Rt. Hon. J. Marsh, Richard
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Gunter, Ray Mayhew, Christopher
Benson, Sir George Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Mendelson, J. J.
Blackburn, F. Hamilton, William (West Fife) Millan, Bruce
Blyton, William Hannan, William Milne, Edward
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Harper, Joseph Monslow, Walter
Bowden, Rt. Hn.H. W. (Leics. S.W.) Hart, Mrs. Judith Moody, A. S.
Bowles, Frank Hayman, F. H. Morris, John
Boyden, James Healey, Denis Moyle, Arthur
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegls) Mulley, Frederick
Bardley, Tom Herbison, Miss Margaret Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Hill, J.(Midlothian) Oliver, G.H.
Brewis, John Hilton, A. V. Oram, A. E.
Brockway, A. Fenner Holman, Percy
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hooson, H. E. Oswald, Thomas
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Houghton, Douglas Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Hoy, James H. Parker, John
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Hughes, Emrys (S, Ayrshire) Pavitt, Laurence
Cliffe, Michael Hunter, A. E. Peart, Frederick
Crosland, Anthony Hynd, H.(Accrington) Pentland, Norman
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Plummer, Sir Leslie
Dalyell, Tam Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Popplewell, Ernest
Darling, George Janner, Sir Barnett Prentice, R. E.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Proctor, W. T.
Davies, Harold (Leek) Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) Rankin, John
Deer, George
Delargy, Hugh Jones, Elwyn (Burnley) Redhead, E. C.
Dempsey, James Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Reid, William
Diamond, John Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Reynolds, G. W.
Driberg, Tom Kelley, Richard Rhodes, H.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John Kenyon, Clifford Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Robertson, John (Paisley)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) King, Dr. Horace Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Edwards, Walter (Stepney) Lawson, George Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Evans, Albert Ledger, Ron Rogers, G. H, R. (Kensington, N.)
Finch, Harold Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Ross, William
Fitch, Alan Lipton, Marcus Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Fletcher, Eric Lubbock, Eric Short, Edward
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Forman, J. C. MacDermot, Niall Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mclnnes, James Skeffington, Arthur
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) Taverns, D. Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.) Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Small, William Thompson, Or. Alan (Dunfermllne) Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Snow, Julian Thornton, Ernest Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Steele, Thomas Wainwright, Edwin Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham) Warbey, William Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Storehouse, John Whitlock, William
Stones, William Wigg, George TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John Wilkins, W. A. Mr. Charles A. Howell and
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.) Willey, Frederick Mr. McCann.
Swingler, Stephen Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

It being after half-past Nine o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply), to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Resolution under consideration.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Classes I to XI of the Civil Estimates, the Ministry of Defence Estimate, the Navy Estimates, the Army Estimates, the Air Estimates, and of Navy, Army and Air Services (Expenditure).

    1. CLASS I
      1. c765
    2. CLASS II
      1. c765
    3. CLASS III
      1. c765
      2. HOME AND JUSTICE 27 words
    4. CLASS IV
      1. c766
    5. CLASS V
      1. c766
      2. AGRICULTURE 27 words
    6. CLASS VI
      1. c766
    7. CLASS VII
      1. c766
      1. c766
    9. CLASS IX
      1. c766
    10. CLASS X
      1. c767
    11. CLASS XI
      1. c767
      2. MISCELLANEOUS 27 words
  2. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1962–63 26 words
  3. c767
  5. c767
  7. c767
  9. c767
  10. NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1960–61 21 words
  11. c768
  12. ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1960–61 21 words
  13. c768
  14. AIR EXPENDITURE, 1960–61 21 words
  15. c768
  16. WAYS AND MEANS [18th July] 69 words
  17. c768
Back to