HIGHLAND DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) [MONEY] (Hansard, 16 March 1965)

§ Mr. Forbes Hendry (Aberdeenshire, West)
In all the years I have been in the House of Commons, I have never seen such a deplorable Money Resolution. Such education as I have had on the subject of Money Resolutions has principally derived from the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, who have attacked Money Resolutions over the years principally on the ground that they were too narrow. They have certainly given an exhibition of their idea of a Money Resolution tonight; in producing one with greater width than I have ever seen in my years in Parliament.
What they are asking tonight is, in fact, for the Committee to give carte blanche to the Secretary of State to 1205 spend unnamed sums of money for unnamed purposes. Indeed, the Money Resolution states: … for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the economic and social development of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in making payments in respect of the expenses of a Highland Development Board or a Highland Development Consultative Council established under the said Act;

(b) any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under the said Act.

There is not a word in it to indicate on what the money is to be spent. I would be out of order if I were to discuss the details of the Bill which we have just debated. But the Committee is entitled to know what the right hon. Gentleman intends to do with this money, since he has given us no details at all. I have never seen such wide powers being sought in a Money Resolution.
It is true that the initiative in expenditure rests with the Crown, but the House of Commons has a duty to the people of this country, the taxpayers, to make sure that the money raised from them is properly spent. In being asked to recommend this Money Resolution, we are entitled to know how much it is proposed to spend and on what it is proposed to spend it. We have the most extraordinary proposition in that we should … authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament … to meet … any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in making payments … Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea of what these payments might be? I would be out of older to refer to the Bill—to which, presumably, the Money Resolution relates—but is it for the administrative expenses of the Board, as it would appear, and, if so, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have had no indication of what these administrative expenses are likely to total?
We know that the Secretary of State proposes to set up a Board of a certain number of members. We know that he intends to pay those members, but we have had no indication—and we are entitled to know this—from the Secretary of State how much it is expected this 1206 Board will be paid. How much is the chairman to be paid? How much is the vice-chairman to be paid? How much are the members to be paid? What staff is the Board to have to carry out these extremely wide powers, of which we are told nothing in the Money Resolution?
Is the Board to have an ad hoc staff or is it to be one recruited by the Board? If the latter, are they to be civil servants and, if so, what arrangements are to be made by the Board and the Treasury for their payment? What is the nature of the staff to be provided by the Board? A very great deal of public money could be wasted in this way. We are entitled to know whether the chairman of the Board will have a Rolls-Royce motor car. There is nothing here to prevent that, and nothing whatever to indicate what the money will be spent on.
I could go on at great length about the administrative expenses of the Board, but the Committe might prefer me to go on to something even more important and even more possibly productive of waste. In the course of the Second Reading debate, I understand that a lot was said about the acquisition of land. This Board is seemingly to have the power to acquire land. There is nothing in this Money Resolution to restrict it in any way in regard to the land it is to acquire. Is it to acquire land throughout the whole of our crofting counties? If not, to what extent would it be restricted—

§ The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey)
Order. The acquisition of land does not arise on the payment of expenses.

§ Mr. Hendry
That may be so, Sir Samuel, but I understood the Bill to give certain powers to this Board to acquire land. If the Board has no means with which to acquire land, it is rather difficult to understand how it will do it. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum of the Bill to which this Money Resolution relates, states: These expenses may be incurred under one of the following heads … (b) expenses incurred in the exercise of the Board's powers under Clause 4 (acquisition of land) …". With very great respect, therefore, it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman envisages the acquisition of land 1207 as part of the expenses for which we are being asked in this Money Resolution—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the acquisition of land. He can only discuss the expenses incurred.

§ Mr. Hendry
In that case, Sir Samuel, I think I am entitled to know from the right hon. Gentleman what he proposes to spend on this land, and the extent to which he envisages making this expenditure on land. Far be it from me to inquire into what land he intends to acquire, but it is rather important to know exactly what arrangements he proposes to make for the payment for that land. The section of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum dealing with the Bill's financial effects says that part relates to expenses including the expense of building, and so on. Far be it from me to ask what building, but the Committee is entitled to know approximately what, taking one year with another, the right hon. Gentleman envisages spending on buildings.
Then we come to a most extraordinary thing under the heading "Financial Effects of the Bill" as set forth in the Explanatory Memorandum, where reference is made to the carrying on of business. This is a most extraordinary power to give to any Board set up by a Secretary of State, and the Committee is entitled to know whether the Resolution envisages the paying to the Board of losses incurred in running a business. This is a most serious matter, because here we have the House of Commons being asked to authorise the expenditure of taxpayers' money on the running of business—

§ Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)
On a point of order. Is not the hon. Gentleman seeking to discuss the terms of the Bill by a subterfuge, by pretending that he is discussing merely the Money Resolution? He is dragging in various considerations arising under the Bill.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I think that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) so far is keeping within the Ruling I have already given.

§ Mr. Hendry
I am obliged to you, Sir Samuel, because, even if the hon. and learned Gentleman is not, I at any rate am very perplexed about the extent of public money which the Secretary of State proposes to apply in making good the losses to be incurred by the Board in running businesses. This is a most serious thing. After all, the money which it is proposed to spend is the hard-earned income of the British taxpayers, including, I am certain, every Member of Parliament. I am most concerned about this. I hope that the Secretary of State will give us a very full explanation of these losses which he must envisage meeting out of the taxpayers' money.
According to the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum of the Bill, the Board—

§ Mr. Archie Manuel (Central Ayrshire)
On a point of order. Sir Samuel, I should like you to clear my own mind on this point with which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) is dealing. Is it in order to deal with hypothetical losses which can be assumed by the hon. Gentleman in his imagination? Can we deal with a hypothetical position, in other words?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West is perfectly entitled to inquire what expenses can arise under the Money Resolution.

§ Mr. Manuel
Further to that point of order.

§ Mr. Hector Hughes
On a point of order.

§ Mr. Manuel
Sit down.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Order. The Chair can deal with only one point of order at a time. Mr. Manuel.

§ Mr. Manuel
I was not challenging the right of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West to inquire about certain administrative expenses or money which may be spent under the terms of the Money Resolution. What the hon. Gentleman was dealing with was a hypothetical situation in which losses may occur. As this is entirely hypothetical, I would ask you, Sir Samuel, to consider whether it is out of order.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Any example given my an hon. Member is bound to 1209 be hypothetical. So far, I have not heard anything which is not in order.

§ Mr. Hendry
Thank you, Sir Samuel. After all, what the Committee is being asked to do tonight is not a hypothetical thing. We are asked to give a grant of money of unknown amount for unknown purposes for the Secretary of State for Scotland to spend or squander as he thinks fit. That is no hypothetical proposition.
What I was pointing out to the Committee when the point of order was raised was that the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum of the Bill, in its description of the financial effects of the Bill, which is what we are discussing, says this: These expenses"— that is, expenses which may be incurred by the Board— may be incurred under one of the following heads". Then, cutting out a lot of verbiage—

§ Mr. Hector Hughes
On a point of order. Has not the hon. Gentleman repeated the same arguments and the same presuppositions many times over? Therefore, is he not guilty of tedious repetition?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
When I consider the hon. Gentleman guilty of tedious repetition, I will call his attention to it.

§ Mr. Hendry
Now that you have dealt with that point of order, Sir Samuel, perhaps I may proceed with my argument. My argument is that the expenses which may be incurred by the Board include, among other things, so we are told, expenses connected with the carrying on of a business. If one is carrying on a business, one does so either to make a profit or to make a loss. If one makes a profit, one does not incur any expenses which must be met out of moneys provided by Parliament. That can happen only if one makes a loss.
I turn to something entirely different.
10.15 p.m.
Among the other extraordinary matters which are described in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum giving rise to expenses are "advisory and other services". Are these advisory services to be given free; what sort of advisory ser- 1210 vices are they, and, if they are not to be free, who is to get the benefit of these advisory services at the expense of the taxpayers?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the advisory services. He may only discuss the expense of those services.

§ Mr. Hendry
I was just about to come to that, Sir Samuel. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain what he intends to spend on these advisory services and to give some sort of breakdown of the distribution of this expenditure between different sections of Her Majesty's lieges. We have an absolutely firm duty in this House to look after the taxpayers' money and not to allow any member of the Government to spend the taxpayers' money without giving some sort of an account.
There is, however, a much more serious state of affairs. We find in the Memorandum that these expenses may include, of all things, the giving of financial assistance by way of grant or loan … The Committee is entitled to know how much is to be given in loans and to whom the loans are to be given.

§ Mr. David Griffiths (Rother Valley)
To the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Hendry
I should be very surprised if they were to be given to me. To whom is the right hon. Gentleman going to give the loans, for what purpose, what amount, and what rate of interest is he going to get for the taxpayer?
Then, horror upon horror, we find that the right hon. Gentleman is to give not only loans but grants. Who will receive these grants? I cannot imagine that I shall. Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman will give them to somebody, and the Committee is entitled to know who are to be the recipients of these grants, what is to be the amount in each case and what is to be the cumulative amount. After all, we are faced here with a request for a carte blanche to spend any amount of taxpayers' money in any way the right hon. Gentleman thinks fit. This is a most serious matter. Never in the years in which I have been a Member of this House have I seen a Money Resolution 1211 so carelessly and so widely drawn. I suggest this is a most disgraceful thing, and the right hon. Gentleman has got to answer to the Committee for his proposals.

§ Mr. William Baxter (West Stirlingshire)
Whilst I cannot agree with all that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) has said, I agree with him to this extent that we should be concerned with Exchequer money and should see that it is wisely and sensibly spent. I am sure that is a sentiment with which most of the Committee would concur.
If there are any difficulties in the way of providing the money I believe there is a way of overcoming them. It is a method to which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West has not given much consideration. As I understand it, we are at the moment spending in the region of £45 million for a Polaris base in the Holy Loch—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The Polaris base does not arise on this Money Resolution.

§ Mr. Baxter
I quite agree, Sir Samuel, but this is not the point. This is a hypothetical method of getting the money, if I may say so. You have previously ruled that hypothetical cases are permissible in argument—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
What I ruled was that the illustration was relevant to what we were discussing.

§ Mr. Baxter
What is relevant to what we are discussing now is the wherewithal to make these monetary grants. If the wherewithal is not available from any other source it may be wise to use a hypothetical case to show where the money might be obtained.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Order. What we are dealing with is the expenditure and not the wherewithal with which it will be paid.

§ Mr. Baxter
I must bow to your Ruling, Sir Samuel, but I have tried to make the point. I agree that it is a pity that we should question expenditure on such an organisation. I would prefer that the organisation should have embraced the whole of Scotland, but 1212 that is by the way. I would not be so conservative, however, as to say that while there is not in the Bill the all-embracing power for which I had hoped, I would not accept that the money should be made available for even part of Scotland. I accept that in the Money Resolution the money should be provided for this part of Scotland which has been proved in the debate to be in dire need of assistance. I did not have the pleasure of catching your eye, Sir Samuel, in the previous debate, but I have had the opportunity now to put before the Committee my point of view that there should be a new approach not only to the problems of the Highlands but the problems of the whole of Scotland.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Order. The hon. Member cannot make this Money Resolution an excuse for making his speech on Second Reading.

§ Mr. Baxter
I say with respect that I am trying to point out the reasons why the money should be provided under the Money Resolution although the Bill did not go as far as I had hoped it would go.
Again, not being of a conservative turn of mind, I bless the Money Resolution but hope that when we come to the Report stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House I may have the pleasure of catching your eye to express a point of view which has not been put forward so far about the general development of my native land.

§ Mr. Edward M. Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)
I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry). My remarks will be brief and relevant. The last thing that I want to do, and the many hon. Members who wish to follow me, is to detain the Committee unduly.
I was appalled to read the Money Resolution. As a new Member it seems to me appalling that we are prepared to give such wide powers and to authorise any expenditure incurred in this connection. It has come to my notice that when as new Members we complain about powers of this sort, it is frequently said to us that exactly the same thing was included in Resolutions 1213 put forward by the previous Administration. It may be that this argument will be advanced in this case, but I respectfully submit that on no occasion has any such Resolution been passed where the powers given in it are so flexible and wide as those given here.
In the circumstances, I feel that it would be dangerous to pass the Resolution in its present form when, as we see from the Explanatory Memorandum, it has been estimated that the expenditure involved will rise to only £1 million after the passing of three years. On the basis of the information which we have, this estimate cannot be right, and if it is intended to use the powers in the Bill in any way the estimate must be wildly inaccurate.
The Minister of State, in winding up on Second Reading, said that this figure was only an estimate and he admitted that no limit was placed by the Bill on the amount of expenditure that would take place. If we passed several Bills like this, in which various Ministers had the power to spend a great deal of money and they indicated that the amount would be very small but they actually spent a great deal, there would be a real danger of undermining the economy. What guidance can we and the Secretary of State have as to the amount of money that will be spent in consequence of the Bill? There are three possible guides which would help the Committee to decide whether it would be right to pass this Resolution.
The first guide would be some indication of the direction of policy to be pursued by the Board when established. We have had no such indication. When the Highland Survey has not yet issued its report and recommendations and the Board itself has not been appointed, it might, perhaps, be unfair for the Secretary of State to be asked to give too broad an indication of what powers would be involved and what expenditure would be incurred as a consequence, but it is only right, in considering this Money Resolution, that we should be told something of the expenditure involved and of the powers which will be used. If we could be told, for instance, that the policy of the Board would be based on growth areas, on the creation of new employment or on the continuation of the existing pattern of employment in the Highlands, this 1214 would give us some indication of the amount of money to be spent. But we have been told nothing of the kind.
The second guide would come if we had a clear statement of the extent to which the Government intend to use the powers avaliable to them under the Bill. Knowing the Government, I feel that they will probably try to use these powers rightly, and, if they do, the amount of money spent—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Order. The hon. Gentleman is going too far in discussing policy.

§ Mr. Taylor
With respect, Sir Samuel, I feel that we ought not to pass such a Resolution as this without knowing what amount of money will be spent in fact. My hon. Friend has said that the estimate given in the Explanatory Memorandum must be wrong, and my arguments are genuinely meant to support that contention. However, I pass to my next point.
Although we have had no indication of the amount which will be spent, we could quite well have been told about some small items. No idea of the amounts to be spent has been given and we have been given no estimate apart from the global sum of£1 million in three years. To illustrate my doubts, I should like to refer to some of the moneys which have been spent in the Highlands over the past few years. I feel that if these powers are to be used at all—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Member must not refer to money which has been spent already. We are dealing with authority to spend money.

§ Mr. Taylor
I bow to your Ruling, and I pass to my next point, Sir Samuel.
It is dangerous to pass this Resolution for this further reason. The ever-increasing amount of Government expenditure has stemmed from an over-ready approval of too many Resolutions as loosely worded and as flexible as this. We were told by one right hon. Gentleman opposite recently that Government expenditure next year will go up by£600 million, and it has been said that it will rise further by 4¼per cent. in real terms each year thereafter. One reason is that we are passing too many Resolutions of this kind embodying wide and comprehensive powers. In the circumstances, we 1215 must have a more accurate indication of the actual sums involved. This lack of specific control or lack of guidance from the Secretary of State as to what he thinks the maximum amount may possibly be makes it most unwise to accept the Resolution.
The essential purpose of the Bill is to help the Highlands to play a greater part in the economy of the whole country. If we pass this Resolution, with unlimited powers to spend money, that purpose may be endangered. One of the main reasons why I say it is wrong to pass the Resolution is that the Government have made a very bad estimate. Clearly, if we are to achieve anything by the Bill, it will be necessary to spend a great deal more. To explain this, I would point out the policies which have recently been announced by the Government which have hit the Highlands so hard, such as the increase in petrol duty.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Order. We cannot discuss the petrol duty.

§ Mr. Taylor
I have no wish to do so, Sir Samuel, but it is measures like the increase in duty which are damaging the Highlands so much and clearly the amount that we shall have to spend in bringing them back to stability will be much more than estimated in the Financial Memorandum.
Government expenditure has continued to rise far too quickly over recent years and this has undermined the economy to a substantial extent. If we continue to pass Resolutions like this, there will be a real danger of the increase in expenditure getting out of hand. For this reason, I and my hon. Friends who wish to contribute to this debate are very concerned. It would be wrong to give these powers because they are so wide.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Order. We are not discussing powers now.

§ Mr. Taylor
It is wrong to give these powers but we have had no clear indication of the maximum amount of money involved. We are very concerned about this and I hope that we can be given a clear indication from the Government as to the maximum they expect to be involved, particularly in view of the policies they are pursuing in other direc- 1216 tions, which are damaging the Highlands and the whole of Scotland.

§ Mr. George Younger (Ayr)
I am most reluctant to detain the Committee at this advanced hour but there are a few points I want to make and I ask you, Sir Samuel, not to hesitate to call me to order if I should inadvertently stray from the narrow path.
To what extent is the money we are being asked to vote to be devoted to the improvement of tourism in the High lands? Is there any possibility of its being used for improving tourism and the standard of hotel accommodation?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Order. We cannot discuss tourism on the Financial Resolution.

§ Mr. Younger
I beg your pardon, Sir Samuel. I thought that it was in order to discuss the purpose for which this money may be used. I understood that that is the point of the Financial Resolution. I hope that some amount from these funds will be spent on tourism. Is it not in order to point this out?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Gentleman can discuss it only within the terms of the Financial Resolution.

§ Mr. Younger
Is it in order to ask to what extent the money will be used for such provision? This is involved in the Resolution and I think we are entitled to know in particular terms for what the money is to be spent. As I understand it, other speakers in this debate have been making precisely these points as regards other matters in the Resolution. I ask you to guide me on this point and tell me if it is out of order.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Gentleman should refer to Clause 16, where he will see what it is in order to discuss.

§ Mr. Younger
The point I wished to make is that I hope that the money we are being asked to vote will not be devoted to matters other than tourism. Tourism—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Order. We cannot discuss tourism.

§ Mr. Younger
I beg your pardon, Sir Samuel. In that case I will move on to my second point on which I desire information. The money we are being 1217 asked to vote will be spent in various ways by the Board and I think that it is in order to ask for some indication as to whether the whole sum is to be expended on the running expenses of the Board or whether some of it is to be pumped into the Highlands for improving various industries and services which we have been discussing earlier today.
In this connection I should like to know whether it is the Government's intention to have close regard in the spending of this money to all the separate areas a the Highlands, or whether it is intended to concentrate on particular areas.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Order. The hon. Gentleman is going far too wide of the Money Resolution.

§ Mr. Younger
I am very grateful for your guidance, Sir Samuel.
Finally, to what extent will this money be used for the remuneration of the Board? This is a matter of great concern. Salaries paid to the Board should be adequate to attract the best possible people for the job. I hope that the Government will take note of this and will not skimp the provision of these moneys, but will get the best possible people.

§ The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross)
I welcome the arrival of three interested Scots to the club of those interested in Money Resolutions. I am the last person in the world to complain about people taking an interest in this subject. All I will say is that I knew my job a little better than they knew theirs. I am prepared to give advice to anybody on how to speak to a Money Resolution without getting out of order. I cannot congratulate the three hon. Gentlemen who have spoken tonight, but it was a brave effort.
I want especially to mention the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry). The last time he was directly concerned with a Money Resolution he was so ignorant about it that he was not even here in time. It was his own Private Member's Bill and had it not been for my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), who is not accustomed to speaking on such occasions, the hon. Gentleman would have been in great difficulty.
1218 I am surprised by what has been said. I have always thought that the most important thing about a Money Resolution was the extent to which it cribbed discussion in Committee. I give hon. Members this free advice from the benefit of my experience. If we had specified how much was to be spent on this and that, we might as well not have had a Committee stage, because there would have been no room for the free play of initiative such as we have seen tonight. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) was worried about the adequacy of salaries. If I had specified salaries, he would not have been able to discuss any changes in the proposed salaries.
He should welcome the fact that I have done what I have asked every Minister in the past to do—and gone unheeded—to give room for discussion in Committee so that we could suggest Amendments which were not out of order because of the Money Resolution. It was generosity to back bench Members which determined the form of the Money Resolution. Instead of being thanked, I am criticised. My own Member of Parliament said that he was reluctant to speak and then proceeded to tell me in so many words that it was not worth his while speaking because he did not know what he meant to say. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has been rising in my estimation as a Tory prepared to work. He said that he would speak shortly and be relevant and in order and then he immediately stepped out of order.
In the short time that is left to me, I should like to deal with some of the points which have been raised. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West said that it was deplorable that there should be unnamed sums for unnamed purposes. Admittedly, no sum of money is specified in the Money Resolution, but the hon. Member is quite wrong to say that the purposes are unnamed, because we have just given a Second Reading to a Bill which includes the purposes. That is why we cannot talk about the purposes in a Money Resolution, because the House has just agreed in principle to those purposes. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will mend his ways and be a little less loose. I know that as a lawyer he is inclined to be rather loose in his language, but he must get out of these rather slipshod legal ways.
1219 I was asked what I intended to do with this money. Let the hon. Member look at the Money Resolution again. It uses these words: any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in making payments in respect of the expenses of a Highland Development Board or a Highland Development Consultative Council established under the said Act". There is the hon. Member's answer. I shall give the moneys to the Highland Development Board and to the Highland Development Consultative Council which will be "established under the said Act". This is what we have been discussing all day.
It is a pity that the hon. Member was not present. Had he been here, he would also have found that, far from criticising me for being over-generous, his Front Bench, or his now silenced Whip, the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), said that he was reluctant to move Amendments because of the paltry sum. I was at pains to tell him that the sums were not really paltry and that we are not governed by the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. That Memorandum is not in the Bill; it is for the help of those who, like the hon. Member, might not be able to read and understand the Bill. We always get these simple explanations at the beginning. They are an indication of exactly what is intended.
Of course, the money will be properly spent and Parliament will have the opportunity to control that expenditure. Let it be appreciated that all these moneys are not being voted tonight. They will come under the Estimates. If they are not in existing Estimates as presented, they will come forward in Supplementary Estimates. I hope that the zeal of hon. Members opposite for discussion will continue and that they will not, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State rightly pointed out, concentrate purely on the Highland Development Board, which is to bring so much benefit to a part of Scotland which needs it and which was neglected in the past by hon. Members opposite. They will be able to spread their desire for financial concern in other fields as well.
1220 I must break the news to my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling-shire (Mr. W. Baxter) that the purposes—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) wants to address anybody in the committee, he should rise.

§ Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)
If the right hon. Gentleman will give way—

The Deputy Chairman
Order. The hon. Member must not persist if the Secretary of State does not give way.

§ Mr. Ross
I was explaining to my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire that we do not include within the purposes, or intend to include within the works of the Highland Development Board, the establishment of a Polaris base in the seven Crofter Counties.

§ Mr. W. Baxter
My right hon. Friend must realise that I was using that only as a hypothetical case.

§ Mr. Ross
I think that we have met the wishes of the House in relation to this Money Resolution. We have given an indication that in the first year the Board will be able to deal only with certain administrative expenses and build up—