Commons Sitting of 3 February 1971

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GLASGOW CORPORATION (FINANCE &c.)

    PAISLEY CORPORATION (CART NAVIGATION)
    ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    Bills read the Third time and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Scottish Business School
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Scottish Office's relationships with the Scottish Business School.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): The Scottish Office has no formal relationship with the Scottish Business School. On the occasion of the formal launching of the school on 13th January my right hon. Friend sent a message welcoming its establishment and expressing his good wishes.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that it is very important that this new venture in Scottish education should get off to a good start? Therefore, will he persuade his right hon. Friend to raise at an early opportunity the possibility of a conference organised by the Scottish Business School and the Regional Economic Planning Council, so as to draw to the attention of the business community in Scotland the advantages of this new institution?
    Mr. Younger: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes, too, for the prosperity of this school. My right hon. Friend and I will certainly consider his suggestion.

    New Towns (Sale of Houses)
    Earl of Dalkeithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses have so far been sold by the development corporations in the Scottish new towns.
    Mr. Younger: 1,024, up to the end of 1970.
    Earl of Dalkeith: I thank my hon. Friend for those figures, which seem to show a substantial demand for home ownership. Can he tell us how many of those houses were sold under the present Government and how many during the term of office of the previous Labour Government?
    Mr. Younger: I thank my hon. Friend. I am afraid that I cannot give him the detailed figures for the period of the previous Government, but a considerable number of this total were sold during their period in office.

    Older Houses (Improvement)
    Earl of Dalkeithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the progress of improvement of older houses.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): During 1970 applications were approved for the grant-aided improvement of 23,400 houses, which is an increase of 57 per cent. on 1969. As I told my noble Friend on 2nd December, I will shortly be launching a special campaign to encourage still further progress.—[Vol. 807, c. 1262.]
    Earl of Dalkeith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those figures will be warmly welcomed, but that there is still an enormously long way to go in bringing these out-of-date houses up to date? If he could keep us fully informed of the progress of his publicity campaign in making it well known that there are these excellent improvement grants available, this would be very helpful.
    Mr. Campbell: That is why I am launching this campaign. I understand that last year was a record for the number of improvements carried out in Glasgow.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this commendable Act, which was commended by both sides of the House, deserves a better reception than it is getting? Is he not aware that the rate of progress should be about twice that?
    Mr. Campbell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his assistance in this. The improvement has been great, a 57 per cent. advance in 1970 on 1969. I hope that we can do even better than this.

    Blantyre Development Plan
    Mr. Alexander Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will speed up his decision about the Blantyre Development Plan, or hold a public inquiry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend will arrange a public inquiry as soon as the inquiry into the Bellshill Town Map is completed.
    Mr. Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread anxiety in this area because of this indecision? Is he further aware that, should this project be started, it would do something at least to alleviate the mounting unemployment figures in my constituency?
    Mr. Younger: I have not had any formal representations of difficulties as a result of the time taken to have this inquiry, but I am aware that there is a desire to have the inquiry as soon as possible. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there has been a series of such inquiries in Lanarkshire and it is not easy for the county council to cope with more than one inquiry at a time. This is why we must wait for the Bellshill inquiry to be completed before we can have the one for Blantyre.
    Mr. James Hamilton: As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned Bellshill, in my constituency, may I ask when this inquiry will be finished, as this matter is causing a great deal of concern to my people?
    Mr. Younger: We hope to arrange for the Bellshill Inquiry to take place in April.

    Winter Work Programmes
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he has
    1644
    taken to obtain accurate information on the number of jobs created or saved by his allocation of £1·75 million to winter work programmes for the relief of unemployment; and if he will state the number of jobs created or saved.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what effect the winter special relief programme has had on the unemployment situation; and what further steps he intends to take to solve this problem.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: It is not possible to make reliable estimates of the emloyment effects of particular projects of this kind; and I note that estimates were not given for similar schemes in recent years. I am confident that the scheme as a whole is well worthwhile.
    Mr. Sillars: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 115,000 unemployed can be equated to a national disaster in Scotland'? Is he further aware that his allocation of £1·75 million for the relief of the unemployed, a contemptible little measure, shows the callous disregard of the Tories for the plight of the unemployed?
    Mr. Campbell: I was well aware on arrival in office—when I found within a few days of arrival in office that there were 93,000 unemployed in Scotland in the mid-summer—that a situation of this kind was bound to develop as the autumn and winter drew on. A deputation of hon. Gentlemen opposite came to see me in September and urged me to launch such a scheme urgently, although they recognised the limitations of any such emergency scheme. I launched it as soon as I could.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Is not the honest answer that no jobs have been created by this miserable scheme? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman at least match the much greater figure which was produced earlier in the year by the former Secretary of State?
    Mr. Campbell: The answer to the first part of that supplementary question is "No". Jobs have been created—
    Mr. Hamilton: How many?
    Mr. Campbell: —and in other cases where men would have been laid off, they are being kept on. It is impossible to

    1645
    make a reliable estimate of the numbers. When hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office they made no attempt to give public estimates of similar programmes.
    Mr. Dempsey: Would the right hon. Gentleman put aside party points for a moment and recall that only two weeks ago it was announced that 750 jobs had been lost in North Lanarkshire? What practical steps does he propose to take to try to replace those 750 lost jobs?
    Mr. Campbell: I will have an opportunity to answer that supplementary question at some length in the debate which will follow this Question Time. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman seems to think that the first supplementary question from his hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), was not political.
    Earl of Dalkeith: Is my hon. Friend aware that one marvels at hon. Gentlemen opposite having the nerve to make some of the comments that they have been making about the present unemployment figures, bearing in mind the fact hat when they were in office they were responsible for the loss of about 85,000 jobs in Scotland?
    Mr. Campbell: I never marvel at the irresponsibility of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am getting used to it.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: We envy the right hon. Gentleman's record in this regard. How much of this total of £1·75 million is represented by 100 per cent. grant schemes to local authorities? Is it one or none? Would he post hoc be good enough to tell us how many jobs this programe has produced and how much of the money was actually spent by the time limit, remembering that we did both?
    Mr. Campbell: I have already answered several questions about the composition of and allocation within this scheme. I am prepared to answer more of such questions if hon. Gentlemen opposite will table Questions on the subject. I will also consider whether it is possible, post facto, to see what was achieved by this scheme because it may help similar schemes in future, though I hope that we shall not need such a scheme in any winters to come.

    Scottish Economic Council (Discussions on Employment)
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next take the chair at the Scottish Economic Council.
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will discuss with the Scottish Economic Planning Council the gains and losses of jobs in Scotland since June, 1970.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I regularly discuss employment and other economic issues of importance to Scotland with the Scottish Economic Council and I shall be doing so again when I preside at its next meeting on 5th February.
    Mr. Sillars: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance on 5th February to the members of the Scottish Economic Council that by this time next year the number of Scottish unemployed will be well below 100,000?
    Mr. Campbell: When I discuss this matter with the Scottish Economic Council in two days' time I shall be listening to the views of its members and receiving their advice on what can be done. I find it impossible at this stage to predict precisely what is likely to happen next winter. However, everybody on the Council will be helping me to try to make sure that this situation does not recur.
    Mr. Douglas: While recognising the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty in making predictions for next winter, may I ask him, through the Scottish Economic Council and the Regional Economic Planning Board, to make public his estimate of the gains and losses in Scottish jobs between 1970 and 1975? Is he aware that his colleagues have made great play about mistaken estimates having been made in relation to manpower planning? Is he aware that it is time that he, bearing the responsibility in this matter, came clean and gave his estimates as soon as possible?
    Mr. Campbell: What has happened is proof that making estimates of this kind is not a useful exercise. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Labour Government estimated a net increase of 60,000 jobs in Scotland between 1964 and 1970. In the

    1647
    result, between March, 1966, and March, 1970, there was a net loss of 82,000 jobs.
    Mr. Buchan: Is not the real point here the fact that hon. Gentlemen opposite—
    Mr. MacArthur: My right hon. Friend has stated the real point.
    Mr. Buchan:—do not understand the term "job loss" and use it wrongly on every occasion? Would the right hon. Gentleman give a simple answer to a simple question? How many members of the Scottish Economic Council advised him to change the system of incentives from grants to allowances?
    Mr. Campbell: The answer to the first part of that supplementary question is that page 9 of the Labour Government's 1966 White Paper, from which I quoted, recorded the figures of job increases and losses. The answer to the second part, about the work of the Scottish Economic Council, is that in acocrdance with the arrangements made by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), its proceedings are confidential.

    New Towns (Shortage of Teachers)
    Mr. Alex Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the amount of current teacher shortage in new towns at both primary and post-primary level.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor): I have made inquiries and I understand that there are 10 vacancies in primary schools and 40 in secondary schools.
    Mr. Eadie: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider conducting an investigation into the whole question of teacher supply in new towns in Scotland in view of the disquiet that has been expressed on this subject?
    Mr. Taylor: I should be glad to give the detailed figures to the hon. Gentleman. The latest information I have is that there are no vacancies at, for example, Livingston. There is a general teacher shortage, and I will be glad to look at the position in any particular new town if the hon. Gentleman will advise me.

    Lung Cancer (Royal College of Physicians' Report)
    8. Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take arising out of the Royal College of Physicians' Report on the incidence of lung cancer.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I am increasing the scale of the anti-smoking activities of the Scottish Health Education Unit; and in conjunction with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Secretary of State for Wales, I am considering what further steps should be taken.
    Mr. Eadie: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that any Government would be doing a great disservice to this and future generations if they did not give proper attention to the injurious implications arising from this Report? Will he keep the House informed of the steps he is taking to try to publicise those implications?
    Mr. Campbell: I am glad to agree with the principle behind that supplementary question. There is Private Members' legislation before the House at present on this subject. Perhaps it is a sign of the times that the past three Secretaries of State for Scotland were all quite heavy smokers, whereas the present Secretary of State is a non-smoker.
    Mr. Milan: Is the Secretary of State aware that many of us believe that no Government have faced up to their responsibilities in this regard and that there is now an unanswerable case for a very severe restriction on or the banning of cigarette advertising? I include the previous Government in this stricture.
    Mr. Campbell: The recent Report has brought out more sharply than ever the dangers of smoking, and the consequences of this are being considered by the Government.
    Dr. Miller: When the Secretary of State is considering this matter, will he bear in mind that even the Swiss and the German reports about smoking and lung cancer deal specifically with other forms of cancer and that it is obvious to authorities all over the world that there is a direct relation between cigarette smoking and lung cancer? Other forms of cancer

    1649
    may or may not be affected. It is lung cancer that we are concerned about. Will the right hon. Gentleman take this point strictly into account when he is considering these matters?
    Mr. Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting a point with his professional knowledge. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already stated that inter-Departmental discussions have begun on all the implications of the Report and that these are being urgently pursued.

    Musselburgh and Tranent By-passes
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will investigate the reasons for the delay in the planning and construction of the proposed Mussel-burgh by-pass road.
    Mr. Younger: Extensive preliminary investigations were needed in connection with the Musselburgh and Tranent bypasses. My right hon. Friend has just received the final report of the consultants, about which he will shortly be consulting local authorities in the area.
    Mr. Strang: Is the Under-Secretary aware that that complacent reply just is not good enough? Has he forgotten that in September of last year he wrote to me saying that the soil reports would be available shortly and that in a few weeks he would be contacting the local authorities about the line of the road? What are the Scottish Office's intentions about the road and when is it intended to start building it?
    Mr. Younger: I well remember the correspondence I had with the hon. Gentleman. As I think the hon. Gentle. man knows, considerable difficulties were thrown up by the extensive soil investigations which were needed to survey more than one possible line for this road, and these necessitated further tests and further bores to establish the best possible line. This is why it has taken longer than it otherwise would have done. I hope to get it on as soon as possible.
    Mr. David Steel: Does not the Under-Secretary realise that as motorway developments have proceeded apace both west and north of Edinburgh it has become
    1650
    more and more apparent that we need not only the by-pass at Musselburgh but a by-pass for the whole of the City of Edinburgh as well and that without it there is no clearance for the Scottish motorway programme?
    Mr. Younger: The line for the Mussel-burgh and Tranent by-passes is affected by the possible changes there may be in the Edinburgh-link road system. This is another factor which we must take into account.
    Mr. Mackintosh: Is the Under-Secretary aware that many of the local authorities, and myself, are dubious about the figures by which there is a separation between the Musselburgh and Tranent sections of the by-pass? We believe that a single section should be built into Edinburgh from the east and we cannot see any reason for holding this up depending on the link-up. We believe that the motorway could be built without the line of the link road being fixed. We hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider this in the very useful consultations he has allowed between his Department and the local authorities.
    Mr. Younger: I hope that it will not be necessary to hold this up, but we must bear in mind all the effects of the various considerations. On 29th January I received one copy of the report of the consultants. As soon as the report is printed it will be circulated to the local authorities concerned and we shall seek their views.

    Agriculture (Production Grants)
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of production grants to Scottish agriculture.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): The production grants will be fully considered at the Annual Review.
    Mr. Strang: Is the Under-Secretary aware of the concern that exists in the farming industry about the firmness of the Government's commitment to production grants? Will the hon. Gentleman give an

    1651
    assurance that the Government will not reduce the level of these grants, which are essential for the continuance of hill and marginal farming?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I endorse entirely what the hon. Gentleman says about the importance of these grants to agriculture in Scotland and, in particular, to the hill and upland areas. The points he raised will be borne closely in mind during the annual review.
    Mr. Lawson: As the Tory Government believe that tax allowances are so much superior to grants, will the hon. Gentleman consider scrapping the grants in favour of income tax allowances for farmers?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman, even through his urban glasses, must realise that the problems in agriculture are very different from those in industry. I invite him to go round some of the hill and upland areas of Scotland and see what conditions are like.
    Mr. Maclennan: In view of the vital importance particularly of the hill sheep and hill cow subsidies in Scottish hills and uplands, will the Government press the E.E.C. to consider these measures as conformable with its regional assistance under Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this point. This is a matter which we have very much under consideration in our negotiations with the E.E.C.

    Hospital Beds
    Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average number of beds per 10,000 head of population for all hospitals in Scotland and in the County of Fife, respectively.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: The average number of beds per 10,000 head of population for all hospitals in Scotland is 121·4 and in the County of Fife, which is not a self-contained area for hospital services, 91.
    Mr. Hunter: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the ratio of beds to population in Scotland is lower than it is in many parts of the United Kingdom and that
    1652
    the position is much worse in the provision of geriatric beds? Will he take steps to remedy the position in the County of Fife?
    Mr. Taylor: I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of geriatric schemes. He will be aware that schemes to provide geriatric and psycho-geriatric beds in Kirkcaldy, Glenrothes and West Fife are included in the hospital building programme in the period after April, 1972 which was announced in April, 1970.

    Home Helps
    Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many home helps were employed in Scotland and in the County of Fife, respectively, in 1963, 1967 and 1969.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: With permission, I will circulate these figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Hunter: Is the Under-Secretary aware that a great deal more could be done to improve this service, that an improvement in the hourly rate of pay would considerably help, and that many of the retired people who contribute to the cost of this service find it more difficult now to make a contribution because of the fall in the value of the old-age pension by 7s. 6d. per week since last June?
    Mr. Taylor: I fully accept all that the hon. Gentleman says about the importance of this service. On looking into the matter following the tabling of the hon. Gentleman's Question, I was glad to find that the number of households in the County of Fife receiving home help service increased by 66 per cent. from 1963 to 1969 whereas the comparable increase for Scotland as a whole was only 17 per cent. Therefore, Fife is doing very well in this connection.
    Sir J. Gilmour: I welcome the progress which has been made in the County of Fife. Does my hon. Friend agree that spending extra money here might relieve pressure on the hospital service and therefore save money in the long run.
    Mr. Taylor: I fully accept what my hon. Friend says. This is an important

    1653
    service, one which we are constantly reviewing, and one which we hope can expand.
    Following are the figures:

    NUMBERS OF HOME HELPS EMPLOYED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES

    Full-time

    Part-time

    Full-time Equivalent

    SCOTLAND

    1963

    …

    …

    836

    8,101

    4,034

    1967

    …

    …

    722

    10,911

    4,898

    1969

    …

    …

    687

    11,402

    5,095

    FIFE COUNTY COUNCIL

    1963

    …

    …

    —

    582

    121

    1967

    …

    …

    —

    999

    208

    1969

    …

    …

    —

    1,071

    178

    Housing Subsidies
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now ready to make a statement on his new housing policy.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) on 13th January, 1971.—[Vol. 809, c. 36.]
    Mr. Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman still has not given us a firm answer as to precisely what is the Government's policy. How can he now say that he has no firm statement to make or no White Paper to produce when the figures in the White Paper on public expenditure clearly show that there will be virtually no increase in expenditure on house building between 1969–70 and 1974–75? This must mean a decrease in housing subsidies. Will not the right hon. Gentleman now admit that this is his object?
    Mr. Campbell: As I have made clear on many occasions, it is not the object to reduce the amount of housing subsidies now being paid. The Government's policy on housing has been made very clear and the details of its application are being discussed with local authorities, whose views will be carefuly considered.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I am more reasonable than my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). Is the Secretary of State aware that there is much public disquiet about this matter? Unlike my hon. Friend, however, I do not want precise
    1654
    figures from him; but I think that we are entitled to know the broad figures within which he is working. For example, as to the proposal to introduce rent rebate schemes in the private sector, will the cost fall on public funds or will it be borne entirely by existing ratepayers? Surely the right hon. Gentleman can answer such broad questions as these?
    Mr. Campbell: These have already been answered in statements we have made in the House. The policy of the Government is to redirect the amount at present being paid in subsidies. One of our objectives is to lift the burden on Scottish ratepayers, who are at present paying 35 per cent. of the cost of council housing as opposed to 7 per cent. in England. Another is to introduce proper rebate schemes throughout the public sector and, for the first time, in the private sector, where on average the tenants are poorer than those in the public sector. The greater part of that will be paid by the Exchequer.
    Mr. Brewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that any assistance he can give to tenants in the private sector will be generally welcomed in Scotland?
    Mr. Campbell: I am already aware of the overwhelming support there has been in Scotland for this policy.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable and genuine discontent and alarm among those in charge of the house-building programmes, and that this is borne out by the fact that the number of approvals since the Government created this state of uncertainty by not announcing their proposals in detail has fallen by over one-third over the last year? This is calamitous and is taking us back over ten years.
    Mr. Campbell: The only alarm and uncertainty I know of has been created by the kind of questions put forward by hon. Members opposite. The fall-off in approvals and starts began in 1968 and 1969.

    School Milk
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he had with the Scottish medical

    1655
    authorities before he took the decision to discontinue school milk to the over-sevens at primary schools; what advice he received; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: No special discussions were necessary.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that before the Labour Government ceased to give milk to secondary pupils they had consultations with the British Medical Association? Can he tell us what impact the loss of school milk will have on the nutritional status of children attending primary schools, particularly children from large families? Will he not seek medical advice before introducing such niggardly action?
    Mr. Taylor: The medical advice available to me is that no untoward consequences need follow this action, any more than they followed the action of the Labour Government in deciding to end free milk to secondary schools in September, 1968. However, as a matter of prudence—and I accept what the hon. Gentleman says on this point—arrangements are being made now to keep a watch on the long-term nutritional status of the groups affected by changes in the school milk and welfare milk schemes.
    Mr. Murray: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that he gave on undertaking to the Oposition on two occasions that he would have such consultations? Can he therefore explain the answer he has given? Does not he agree that young people between the ages of 7 and 18 do not have votes, and, on the basis of "no taxation without representations", does not he further agree that it is unreasonable to visit such economies—and this is the falsest of false economies—in public expenditure on these large groups? Does not he further agree that deleterious effects from the ending of free milk will not show themselves for another decade? In these circumstances, does not he accept that this is something he should consider again in the most serious light?
    Mr. Taylor: When I said that no special discussions were necessary, I was pointing out that we are constantly receiving medical advice on this and other matters. On the general information available to me about the state of health of school children, and in view of
    1656
    the widespread realisation that indiscriminate subsidies are not the best way of providing effective help for those whose need is greatest, I believe that this action was right.
    Dr. Millar: Will the hon. Gentleman please make a distinction between statistical evidence of problems and the families who are involved? It is quite simple to get a situation where statistically there is no great problem seemingly but where nevertheless a considerable number of families are affected by what my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) rightly called this niggardly action by the Government.
    Mr. Taylor: It is fair to point out that no medical body has made representations to me on the subject. I assure the House that arrangements are being made to watch the situation.
    Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    A9 (Improvement)
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the development of the A9 road north of Perth.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: To promote Highland development this road must be modernised. I expect later this year to announce proposals for the route between Inverness and Evanton, and I am studying the section between Perth and Inverness to determine the extent and priority of further improvements. Meanwhile a number of urgently-needed improvements are in progress and others will start this year.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Secretary of State realise that that goes no further than the previous Government's commitment in the White Paper on Scottish Roads in the 1970s? Why is it that he has not so far given support to the proposal to bridge Dornoch Firth in the light of the encouraging remarks he made about this prior to his coming to office?
    Mr. Campbell: In reply to the first point—we are taking the action. In reply to the second—it is almost exactly two

    1657
    years ago that I wrote to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), then Secretary of State, and raised the question of the short route north of Inverness and asked him to keep this open instead of going ahead with the Beauly Road. Because he agreed to do so, it enables me to take the decision shortly as a result of the studies which have been going on in recent months on bridging the Kessock Ferry and having a short route through the Black Isle.

    Agricultural Education (Highlands and Islands)
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for improving the facilities for agricultural education in the Highlands and Islands.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Much has already been done to improve facilities at the North of Scotland College of Agriculture where there is a range of courses mainly at Diploma level. Aberdeenshire Education Authority are developing Clinterty Agricultural College as a regional farm centre with block-release and full-time courses above Stage I City and Guilds. Stage I courses are already offered locally, mainly on day-release, and appear to meet present demands.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will the hon. Gentleman guarantee that the existing day-release courses which include Stage II will be continued and maintained and possibly improved after the extension of block-release courses at Thurso Technical College?
    Mr. Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Stage II course run now at the Thurso Technical College, I remind him that this course was given temporary approval by my predecessor, following the hon. Gentleman's representations, pending the full development of Clinterty Agricultural College in Aberdeenshire. It will be reviewed in due course, probably in two years' time.
    Mr. John Wells: In view of the important virus-free potentialities in this area, can my hon. Friend guarantee that adequate horticultural training will be available in agricultural education in the area? There are great national advantages to be gained in this.
    Mr. Taylor: If there is demand for this provision it will be fully considered.

    Personal Saving and Home Ownership
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what discussions he has had with building societies to encourage personal saving and house-ownership;
    (2) what action he is taking to encourage loans for house ownership.
    Mr. Younger: I have had useful discussions with representatives of the building societies on possible ways of encouraging home ownership.
    Mr. Brewis: Did my hon. Friend get any assurance from the building societies that sufficient funds would be available to meet any expected demand?
    Mr. Younger: Yes, Sir. The societies were able to tell me that they are reasonably happy at the moment with the funds they are getting and assured me that from the Scottish point of view they were of the opinion that they would be able to meet any demands made on them.
    Mr. Sillars: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Conservative Party's housing policy will increase or decrease the number of houses expected to be built in Scotland over the next five years?
    Mr. Younger: As I have said before, the last thing I wish to forward is a statement on targets. This has proved to be a most disastrous way of running a housing programme, as shown by the record of the last five years. What I want to do is to identify the areas of greatest need and build the maximum number of houses in those areas.
    Mr. David Steel: Does the hon. Gentleman plan to encourage financially the setting-up of housing aid and advice centres in the major populous parts of Scotland so that people can get much more ready information about the facilities for home purchase?
    Mr. Younger: I have had a number of very useful discussions on possibilities and I hope that we shall be able to make a considerable improvement in the advice available to people on housing generally.
    Mr. John Robertson: In his discussions with the building societies, was the hon.

    1659
    Member able to obtain any information about the cost of building owner-occupied houses in Scotland, the relationship of that cost to income, and the possible scope for an expansion of home ownership on that basis?
    Mr. Younger: I discussed with the building societies the conclusions which were published in the Sidwell Report, which suggested some of the reasons for the increased cost of house building in Scotland. However, the building societies informed me that although this was something about which they were disturbed, in their opinion it would not make their task of lending money to house buyers more difficult.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Galbraithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how the average price being obtained from the sale of council houses compares with the capitalised value of the rent of these houses after the cost of repair and maintenance has been deducted.
    Mr. Younger: I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. Galbraith: On the information which is available to my hon. Friend, can he say whether the return from letting after deducting the cost of maintenance is more or less than the return on the capital if the house is sold? If it is more, would not such a sale release extra funds to help the needy? My hon. Friend must have some idea.
    Mr. Younger: It is difficult to make a precise calculation, because each authority—and each house—is in different circumstances, but I am certain that my hon. Friend is correct in saying that in general it is in the interests both of the local authorities and the tenants for tenants who wish to do so to be allowed to purchase their houses.
    Mr. John Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what possible justification there is for a local authority selling council houses in an area where there is already an acute shortage of houses? Does not that mean, where there is such a shortage, that the Minister is selling houses over the heads of people who need them?
    Mr. Younger: That is not necessarily the case. At present a council tenant has security of tenure for ever, and if he buys the house in which he is a tenant, there is no difference whatever in the housing stock. The only difference is that he buys the house instead of renting it.

    Glasgow Families (Rehousing)
    Mr. Galbraithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Glasgow families were rehoused from slum dwellings in 1970; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Younger: About 6,500 houses were closed or demolished in the first nine months of 1970: figures for the last quarter are not yet available. As regards the number of families rehoused, central records are not kept for different local authorities. My hon. Friend could no doubt obtain the figure from Glasgow Corporation.
    Mr. Galbraith: Is not this substantial progress? Does my hon. Friend think that modernisation, which I believe to be a much greater problem, is going ahead equally well? Has he any plans to help Glasgow with this great problem, which the Socialist administration in the city has neglected for so many years?
    Mr. Younger: I agree that the need to accelerate the improvement of older houses is now one of the greatest priorities in the housing programme generally and particularly in Glasgow. As my hon. Friend will know, the Glasgow joint working party of officials suggested last year that about 75,000 houses in the city were below a tolerable standard. I intend to give every possible assistance and encouragement to Glasgow Corporation to tackle this massive task.
    Mr. McElhone: Will not the hon. Gentleman accept that, in spite of the Government's promises, the present authority in Glasgow managed to build less than 3,000 houses last year? Is he aware that we are still waiting for the special aid promised by the Government?
    Mr. Younger: The present administration in Glasgow had an extremely successful year of improvement last year. Last year, the local authority housed by all means a record number of Glasgow families. I am making good progress

    1661
    in working out with the corporation what special help is needed for Glasgow, and I hope to make an announcement before long.
    Mr. Hannan: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that a declining number of new houses has been provided by the Glasgow local authority although there is a waiting list of 50,000 people? Is not this part of a shoddy campaign to try to buttress the failing political prospects of the Glasgow Conservatives?
    Mr. Younger: As the working party showed with crystal clarity, the need in Glasgow is no longer to build any houses anywhere, of any kind; the need is to provide the right houses in the right places, where people will want them and at a decent standard. This is where the priorities have to be re-assessed. It is still the case, in spite of what the hon. Gentleman says, that a record number of Glasgow families were moved into houses last year.

    Pea Growing
    Mr. MacArthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has held regarding the future of pea growing in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am aware of the concern caused to pea growers by recent announcements made by processing firms. My right hon. Friend discussed this question recently with the leaders of the Scottish National Farmers' Union and I have seen one of the firms principally concerned. We are keeping a close watch on developments in the processing field.
    Mr. MacArthur: Is my hon. Friend aware of the pressing need for more crop-processing plants in Scotland? Can he give any hope of progress?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful for the help which my hon. Friend has given me in this difficult matter. The fall-back in pea processing in Scotland is on account of falling demand in recent years, but we hope that this will be put right and that we shall see an increase in processing in Scotland.
    Mr. Mackintosh: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are promising developments in this direction in the
    1662
    Eastern Borders and that the Government should look with favour on them and give all the assistance they can in a large area which is entirely suitable for growing vegetables to be processed?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. There is tremendous scope for co-operation among producers, processing firms and others. We are encouraged by what is happening on the Borders and elsewhere, and the Government will give all the help they can.

    Drainage Works
    Sir J. Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what acreages of agricultural land in each count of Scotland has been improved by drainage works assisted by Government grants in each of the last five years; what sums of money have been expended; what estimate he has made of the amount of drainage needed now to be undertaken; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: With permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. There has been no recent survey of drainage requirements in Scotland but I am aware that there is scope for drainage improvement in various parts of the country. Substantial Government grants are available but it is for individual farmers to decide whether to undertake this work.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Would not my hon. Friend agree that, due to the policy of the last Administration and the intolerable squeeze on farmers' incomes, farmers have been unable to finance the necessary part of their contribution? I know that my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friends will put this right at the Price Review, but will my hon. Friend extend the present favourable rate of drainage in order to tackle this urgent problem in agricultural production?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The stringent conditions under which agriculture has had to operate in recent years have made it extremely difficult for the farmers. However, I hope that in future they will be able to take advantage of the generous grants available for this important work.
    Mr. Maclennan: Was not that a misleading reply? Have not many schemes

    1663
    of land drainage put forward by farmers been vetoed or prevented by intransigent landlords who prefer to use the land for other than agricultural purposes?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is complete nonsense.
    Mr. Maclennan: No, it is not.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If the hon. Gentleman has specific instances, I am prepared to consider them.
    Mr. MacLennan: That answer was misleading in that the hon. Gentleman

    ESTIMATED ACREAGE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IMPROVED BY DRAINAGE WORKS ASSISTED BY GOVERNMENT GRANT*

    Thousand Acres

    County

    1966

    1967

    1968

    1969

    1970

    Aberdeen

    …

    …

    2·1

    2·5

    2·0

    2·3

    3·7

    Angus

    …

    …

    0·8

    1·1

    2·0

    0·8

    2·5

    Argyll

    …

    …

    7·0

    5·8

    9·7

    11·9

    5·6

    Banff

    …

    …

    0·8

    0·6

    0·8

    1·1

    1·3

    Berwick

    …

    …

    0·5

    0·7

    0·4

    1·2

    1·6

    Bute

    …

    …

    0·1

    0·5

    1·5

    2·3

    0·4

    Caithness

    …

    …

    0·4

    0·5

    0·9

    2·5

    0·9

    Clackmannan

    …

    …

    †

    0·1

    1·1

    0·5

    0·1

    Dumfries

    …

    …

    3·2

    6·6

    5·8

    6·3

    4·0

    Dunbarton

    …

    …

    0·1

    0·1

    0·1

    0·8

    0·3

    East Lothian

    …

    …

    †

    0·2

    0·1

    0·6

    0·2

    Fife

    …

    …

    0·3

    0·7

    0·4

    0·9

    0·8

    Inverness

    …

    …

    0·6

    0·2

    0·6

    1·5

    0·8

    Kincardine

    …

    …

    0·4

    0·5

    0·4

    0·4

    0·4

    Kinross

    …

    …

    †

    0·4

    0·1

    0·1

    0·3

    Kirkcudbright

    …

    …

    2·0

    1·6

    4·4

    4·7

    1·9

    Lanark

    …

    …

    1·6

    2·8

    1·4

    5·8

    3·4

    Midlothian

    …

    …

    †

    0·6

    1·0

    0·9

    0·3

    Moray

    …

    …

    0·2

    0·8

    1·0

    1·9

    0·7

    Nairn

    …

    …

    0·1

    0·1

    0·7

    0·1

    0·3

    Orkney

    …

    …

    0·3

    0·4

    0·6

    0·7

    0·4

    Peebles

    …

    …

    0·6

    2·8

    0·8

    0·8

    0·1

    Perth

    …

    …

    6·7

    7·9

    12·0

    25·3

    13·8

    Renfrew

    …

    …

    0·1

    0·7

    0·6

    0·7

    1·6

    Ross and Cromarty

    …

    …

    1·5

    3·6

    1·4

    11·8

    8·7

    Roxburgh

    …

    …

    2·3

    1·9

    2·8

    4·7

    4·1

    Selkirk

    …

    …

    0·8

    1·4

    0·9

    1·8

    1·9

    Stirling

    …

    …

    0·8

    0·6

    4·0

    2·8

    1·7

    Sutherland

    …

    …

    3·6

    0·9

    2·5

    5·3

    7·0

    West Lothian

    …

    …

    †

    0·1

    †

    0·1

    0·2

    Wigtown

    …

    …

    0·5

    3·6

    0·6

    1·2

    3·3

    Zetland

    …

    …

    †

    †

    Nil

    †

    †

    Scotland

    …

    …

    41·1

    53·8

    66·7

    106·8

    76·5

    Grant paid (£'000)

    …

    …

    308

    383

    419

    601

    677

    * Grants authorised by the Agriculture Act 1937 (supplemented, for hill land, by the Hill Land Improvement (Scotland) Scheme 1967) and the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act 1958. Works comprise arterial schemes, ditch works, field and hill drainage.

    † Less than 50 acres.

    Cupar Sugar Factory
    Sir J. Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now
    knows that I have written to him about specific cases and—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must make his comment in the form of a question.
    Mr. MacLennan: Will the hon. Gentleman now withdraw that misleading statement?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There is no evidence that actions of the kind which the hon. Gentleman so wildly alleges are holding up drainage schemes in Scotland on any scale.
    Following is the information:
    make a statement on the estimated costs at 1971 prices of modernising and equipping the British Sugar Corporation factory at Cupar.
    Mr. MacArthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the financial considerations which influenced the decision to close the British Sugar Corporation factory at Cupar.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The original decision to close the factory was taken by the last Administration. The main financial considerations were the losses incurred by the Corporation through operating at Cupar and the need to invest in re-equipment without prospect of an economic return.
    At 1971 prices the estimated cost of modernisation would be about £2 million.
    Sir J. Gilmour: As the British Sugar Corporation has continually refused to disclose on what the £2 million would be spent, and as everyone engaged in the sugar-refining trade knows the answer—for there is nothing secret about it and nothing to hide—and as the Chairman of the British Sugar Corporation is appointed by the British Government, for the information of the people who work in the factory and those whose work will suffer by the closing of the factory, will my hon. Friend insist that these figures are now published?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but as I have already explained to the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, it is not customary to make available detailed commercial costings which are obtained in confidence.
    Mr. Lawson: Since the hon. Gentleman when in opposition repeatedly expressed hostility about the decision of the previous Government in this matter, will he now apologise for his misleading remarks?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Because of the very serious agricultural implications of this closure, which I do not believe hon. Gentlemen fully appreciated, we believe that it was necessary to reassess the position. That is what we undertook to do in opposition, during the election, and that is what we did.
    Mr. Buchan: Is not the hon. Gentleman thoroughly ashamed of himself and his hon. Friends for the callous way in which they raised the expectations of Scottish farmers? Is it not a fact that the farmers in his area are absolutely
    1666
    right when they accuse him of grossly misleading the farmers of Scotland?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There is absolutely no question of misleading. Our position in this is absolutely straight. All I can say to Members of this House and to members of the farming community in Scotland is that we have looked at this far more thoroughly than hon. Gentlemen opposite did.
    Sir J. Gilmour: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Mountain Rescue Units
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider providing financial or material support for the Glen Coe mountain rescue unit and other recognised voluntary units in similar areas.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Government support is given through the police authorities in the areas concerned. Their expenditure on financial or material assistance to maintain rescue teams ranks for 50 per cent. police grant and for rate support grant.
    Mr. Deakins: Is the Under-Secretary aware of the devoted service given to the community and to the Scottish tourist industry by these brave men and women, at their own risk and expense? Does it not justify rather more support than that which is given indirectly? Is he aware that these mountain rescue units, in particular the one at Glen Coe, have to burden themselves with the expense of buying a great deal of equipment which cannot be obtained from the local authorities?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I congratulate the hon. Member on venturing into Scottish Questions. I appreciate his interest in the subject of mountaineering since it is one in which I have an interest. We believe that the police authorities are the right bodies to co-ordinate work in this area. The Glen Coe team, which he mentions, has never requested financial or material aid. Through the police authorities we do assist these bodies very much. I endorse most strongly the tribute which the hon. Gentleman paid to the work of these teams, not only the voluntary effort

    1667
    but the work of the police, too. If he has any specific instance which he would like to raise, I should be pleased to discuss the matter further with him.

    House Building
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of houses built in Scotland in 1970.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: 44,537.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the fourth of four record years and the best of those years? Will he accept a challenge and for the very short time that he will be in office, will he give one year over which he will preside when he will beat our figure?
    Mr. Campbell: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes". As all of the houses completed in 1970 must have been started in the time of the Labour Government, I take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. Member —on missing his target by only 5,463 and on failing dismally to meet the pledge of the Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman fix a target for us so that in five years' time he can tell a Labour Government by how much he has missed that target? Or does he have a target in mind so low that it will be impossible not to achieve it? At all events, will he answer my hon. Friend's question and say that he will achieve in any one year a figure similar to that achieved by us?
    Mr. Campbell: No. I will make no attempt to emulate the foolishness of the Opposition. My scope is restricted by the fact that in 1969 there were only 39,000 starts and only 18,000 in the first half of 1970.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Scottish Special Housing Association
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many
    1668
    houses were built by the Scottish Special Housing Association in 1970; and how many he estimates will be built in 1971 and 1972 by the Association.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: 3,542 in 1970, exclusive of houses built by the Association as agents for local authorities and others. It is not possible to make accurate forecasts of completions in 1971 or 1972.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the Association is concerned about its rôle in the Scottish economy? Can he confirm that it is the rôle for which it was scheduled during our term of office and that the target is to reach 5,000 houses for the promotion of industrial expansion in Scotland?
    Mr. Campbell: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the starts made by the S.S.H.A. in both 1968 and 1969 were fewer than 3,000. I will have something further to say in the coming debate about additional work for the S.S.H.A.

    Salmon and Grilse Catch
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total catch of salmon and grilse recorded in Scotland each year over the last eight years.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the Under-Secretary aware that there has been much claptrap talked in the last eight years about the imminent collapse of the salmon and grilse fishing industry owing to drift netting and drift-line methods in the oceans? Do not these figures contradict those forecasts over and over again? Will he accept that they have been misconceived and will he reconsider this question of allowing drift netting under licence as is already allowed in England?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I do not think that the answer is quite as simple as that. Salmon stocks as measured by catches are liable to be affected by a large number of factors and the effect of each cannot be isolated and measured. This difficulty was recognised by the Hunter Committee

    1669
    which recommended that the banning of drift netting should be made permanent.
    Following is the information:

    SCOTTISH CATCH OF SALMON AND GRILSE IN NUMBERS OF FISH, 1963–69

    Salmon

    Grilse

    Total

    1963

    …

    …

    267,295

    166,906

    434,201

    1964

    …

    …

    269,566

    286,462

    556,028

    1965

    …

    …

    226,708

    217,501

    444,209

    1966

    …

    …

    228,363

    221,020

    449,383

    1967

    …

    …

    261,534

    342,597

    604,131

    1968

    …

    …

    213,993

    213,879

    427,872

    1969

    …

    …

    209,965

    348,781

    558,746

    1970

    …

    …

    Not yet available

    Agriculture (Employment)
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are now working in agriculture in Scotland; and what proportion of these own their farms.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In June, 1970 16,200 full-time and about 15,000 part-time farmers owned 60 per cent. and 33 per cent. respectively of their holdings. The total number of farm workers was 48,200.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: What proposals does my hon. Friend have to meet the difficulty of present and future entrants into this industry in relation to moving lap the management structure of the industry and particularly owning their own farms?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. The whole question of manpower in the industry to expand production is extremely important. We hope through the structure of agricultural wages, through the training given, and through the work of agricultural colleges that we shall provide a sufficient way to help people to go forward in the industry.

    Investment Incentives
    Mr. John Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will cause the Scottish Development Department to undertake a comparative review of the advantages and disadvantages of tax allowances as opposed to direct grants for the attraction of industry.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is keeping a careful watch on progress under the new system of
    1670
    investment incentives, which his Department with its direct industrial contacts is in the best position to do.
    Mr. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman not admit that the change from investment grants to free depreciation was made as the result of a decision to cut public expenditure and not as a result of a thorough study of the comparative advantages for regional development? Will he agree that the result of this change is that Scotland will get a lot less investment from the Government than it used to get?
    Mr. Campbell: The answer is "No" to both points.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the C.B.I. in Scotland also put forward the point of view that a discontinuation of investment allowances would be detrimental to Scottish industry? Is he further aware that industrialists in my constituency have put forward the same point of view in relation to grants? Will he not reconsider the position, bearing in mind the unemployment situation in the development areas?
    Mr. Campbell: Various industries will see advantages in the new system, for example, labour-intensive industries and the service industries, which previously had no help. There will be an opportunity in the debate later today for all of this to be discussed.
    Mr. Dell: How can the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry consider this matter when the figures for tax allowances cannot be divided regionally but can be given only for the country as a whole?
    Mr. Campbell: The Question was about the attraction of industry. My right hon. Friend has direct contacts with industry which makes his Department the best to carry out this review.
    Mr. Brewis: Is it not the case that the Department of Trade and Industry inquiry showed that 60 per cent. of industrialists prefer the free depreciation? Is it not possible that the customer is right on this occasion?
    Mr. Campbell: We have always accepted that there may be some capital-intensive industries which may not find

    1671
    the new system as beneficial to them as the old. But there are many other industries which will regard the new system as better for them.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very serious matter of concern to all which he should reconsider? I refer to the answers which he gave a moment ago, both in the negative. Are not the Government pledged to keep the proportion, not the total, of money for regional aid the same as it is at present for Scotland? Is not the amount of money to go down? This is a public expenditure exercise. In view of the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), if the study is going on, should not the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing the results of it in a year or so to demonstrate whether what he asserts is true?
    Mr. Campbell: We have already stated several times from the Dispatch Box that, broadly, the amount of money in the differential for the development areas is to remain the same and the proportion is to increase.

LAOS
Mr. Denis Healey (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether in view of the urgent threat to the neutrality of Laos he will make a statement on the action taken by Her Majesty's Government as co-chairman of the 1962 Geneva Agreement on Laos.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): Communist North Vietnamese forces have been making extensive and illegal use of Laotian territory for a long time in flagrant violation of the 1962 Geneva Agreement in order to further the war in South Vietnam. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary told the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on 25th January, Her Majesty's Government have made abundantly clear on repeated occasions their willingness to take any action, either as Geneva co-chairman or in any other way, which might help end the war in Indo-China. Unfortunately, the Russian co-chairman has shown no
1672
willingness to agree to joint action.—[Vol. 810, c. 34.]
Mr. Healey: While accepting that the neutrality of Laos has been violated for some time by North Vietnamese forces, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he accepts that the majority of people in this country, and, I believe, throughout the world, would regard it as a tragedy if needless suffering were inflicted on the innocent people of a country so far not directly involved in the Vietnamese conflict? For this reason, will the right hon. Gentleman answer three questions?
First, have Her Majesty's Government, as co-chairman of the Geneva Agreement, been approached by the Government of Laos about their attitude to the events now in progress? Secondly, as the right hon. Gentleman has just declared his desire to take action with the Soviet Union, has he on this occasion approached the Soviet Union with a view to take common action? Thirdly, can he say whether the United States Government have consulted Her Majesty's Government about the events now in progress?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Nobody wants to see the extension of this war. We have not yet been approached by the Royal Government of Laos. We are ready to take action at any time— and I made this clear to Mr. Gromyko when he was in London—to call the Geneva Conference if he would agree. But he has made no response at all to this approach.
We have no information from the American Government or any other source about the military action at present taking place, I think outside Laotian borders.
Mr. Healey: But would not the Foreign Secretary accept that it would be regarded as a great tragedy if there were to be the needless death of thousands more human beings in South-East Asia through aerial bombardment at this stage in the American withdrawal? As the Soviet Government have already expressed their concern about the events now in train, will not the right hon. Gentleman, as co-chairman, take the initiative to see whether it is possible at this late date, after so many disappointments, which I concede, to get the British

1673
and Soviet Governments to carry out their obligations under the 1962 Agreement?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have several times taken the initiative with the Soviet Foreign Minister. Each time he has said that he will not co-operate. I say publicly that I would be only too glad if he would come forward at any time and cooperate in trying to end this war. I regret that he has shown no signs of doing so.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said that the slaughter in this war may be increased in a part of Laos. That may be true. The North Vietnamese Government cannot escape the responsibility for starting the war.
Mr. Mendelson: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that there are definite reports from the semi-official Japanese news agency Kyodo that 4,000 to 5,000 South Vietnamese parachutists and several thousand Thailand troops, accompanied by American military planes and helicopters and with the direction of some American military officers, have invaded Laos and that there has been no request from Prince Souvanah Phouma for any military aid from outside? Will the right hon. Gentleman express the opinion of the large majority of the people of this country that this further extension of the war under American instruction is creating new dangers and imposing new punishment upon innocent people? Will he not get hold of some courage and let the Government in Washington know that the majority of the British people disapprove of this extension of the war?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Gentleman said at the start of his question that this information was semiofficial. It has not been corroborated so far. I shall not say what the situation is because I do not know. But there are operations near the frontier. The information is that they are not over the frontier into Laos. When the hon. Gentleman seeks to lay the blame on one side or the other, he must remember that in Laos and in Cambodia the Communists violated the neutrality first.
Mr. Goodhart: Can my right hon. Friend remind the House of how many protests have been made by hon. Members opposite in the last eight years at
1674
repeated incursions into Laotian territory by North Vietnamese forces?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It is a fact that North Vietnamese forces have constantly violated the neutrality and broken the arrangements of 1962.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that the embargo on information which apparently affects the American Press extends to the British Government? Is he also saying that the British Government acquiesce in this embargo which is obviously designed to allay protests in the United States?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am saying that information has not arrived on which I can give an accurate opinion to the House.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The Foreign Secretary will agree that the devastation which has laid waste so much of Vietnam in the last few years should not be allowed to spread first to Cambodia and then to Laos if it is possible for our Government to do anything to prevent it. In these circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman take a current initiative—that is, an initiative on the basis of the current reported events—to inquire from the American Government what their current position is and then approach the Soviet Government afresh with a view to recalling the Geneva Conference?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Of course that can be done, but the Soviet Foreign Minister knows perfectly well that he has only to send word to me that he would like to activate—[Interruption.]—because he is co-chairman with me. I have invited him to come forward at any time he thinks fit and tell me that he is ready to reactivate the machinery of the Geneva Agreement. He has simply said to me so far that, in his opinion, the time is not appropriate. The moment the time is appropriate I shall be glad to hear from him, and no doubt our ambassador has told the Soviet Foreign Minister this since I met him in London.
Mr. Healey Mr. Healey rose—
Mr. Speaker: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me first to call one of his hon. Friends who has risen several times? Mr. Allaun.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the 400 bomber saturation raids on Laos have caused many times the Mai Lai casualties? In view of that, will the Foreign Secretary protest—never mind the Russians—to Washington, where the main cause of this war lies?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his point of view, but I happened myself to negotiate this agreement and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the ink was hardly dry on that agreement before the Communists broke it; they remained in Laos from which they were supposed to withdraw; and never from that moment have the Communists tried to keep that agreement at all.
Mr. Healey: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for reminding the House that he has personal responsibility for maintaining the neutrality of Laos as the man who negotiated on behalf of the United Kingdom this particular agreement. While understanding, though not approving, his reluctance to take further action till the reports of the crossing of the frontier are confirmed, may I ask him, in view of the feelings expressed in this exchange of questions, whether he would assure the House that, if it proves to be the case that there has been a large scale crossing of the frontier by South Vietnamese forces, he will take the initiative in seeking to meet the Soviet Government to try to bring this tragic conflict to an end?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Of course, I will always consider any further action which I might reasonably take, but I do not see how I can reasonably go further than say privately and publicly to the Soviet Foreign Minister that I am willing at any time, as he approaches me, to reconvene, if that is to his satisfaction, the Geneva Conference in order to try to deal with this matter.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Walker—statement.

NEW TOWN, CENTRAL LANCASHIRE
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, I will make a statement.
1676
As the House knows, the previous Government designated the site for a new town in Central Lancashire. I have reviewed fully the case for this project and have concluded that it is right to proceed with the development of this area under the New Towns Act. There will be no question of imposing some theoretical or arbitrary pattern of development such as a long linear city. I shall be asking the development corporation in due course to see that the new development is primarily based on the existing towns in the area. I expect the private sector to play a much larger part than it has done in new towns built hitherto; and I look to this project to make an important contribution towards the improved infrastructure which the north west region needs. I shall accordingly now proceed with establishing a development corporation under the Act.
Mr. John Silkin: May I thank the Secretary of State for his commendably short statement? He will know, of course, that the Labour Government's decision was dependent on proper safeguards being given to the towns of northeast Lancashire. May I ask him whether, in continuing our decision, he will also continue our undertaking that the growth of those towns will be helped and not impeded? I am referring, of course, in particular, to the question of intermediate status, dealing with derelict land, and the commitment to press ahead urgently with the Calder Valley Road. In that connection, can he tell us when phase 2 is due to start? Secondly, he will be as aware as I am that in planning the new town it is necessary that amenities also shall be properly planned. What one wants is a proper new town and not a large housing estate. Will he give us his assurance that those amenities will be planned right from the start?
Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I will certainly give assurances on both the matters he raised. I will certainly see that action does not handicap other towns in north-east Lancashire. As for the Calder Valley Road scheme, I have decided to speed up phase 1 by at least 12 months—I hope more—and I am in urgent discussions with the local authorities concerned on the priorities we can give to phase 2 and phase 3. As for derelict land, I hope

1677
that expenditure generally on derelict land will in the next financial year be treble that of the financial year before last.
I hope that the north-east towns will designate far more improvement areas and take advantage of all the facilities available. On amenities, I am very anxious that the members of the board of the new town will have particular skills and talents in the provision of amenities and will work with other people with like skills.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether the new town itself will have development area status or intermediate status?
Mr. Walker: No, Sir.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Of course the right hon. Gentleman is right to proceed with the new town, not least because of the grievous shortage of houses to rent in Lancashire. In view of his apparent sympathy for this viewpoint now, will he say to the local authorities throughout Lancashire that they should stop disposing of their existing houses to rent by selling council houses?
Mr. Walker: No. I shall continue to encourage them to sell council houses.
Mr. Green: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that this decision is extremely welcome not only within the designated area but outside it, because a lot of uncertainty is now removed? Is he also aware that, from my point of view, the terms of what he has said are very welcome indeed?
Mr. Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I did, before deciding to go ahead with this, get the latest information and statistics available for the needs of the area, and I am satisfied that this new town will be a success.
Mr. Dan Jones: Is the Secretary of State aware that all responsible opinion in north-east Lancashire, including that of members of his own party, will welcome this decision only if the benefits of intermediate area status are preserved and if the environmental needs of the area are added to, and if, in addition, the needs for communication are attended
1678
to, albeit belatedly, in line with the information given by him? With respect to him, I should like him to confirm this point without any ambiguity at all.
Mr. Walker: Yes. Certainly I can. Before coming to this decision I particularly studied the problem of the northeast towns. On the four points: the new town will not have intermediate development status, whereas the other towns do; communications will be speeded up; the derelict land project will be speeded up; I will do all I can to encourage the maximum use of improvement grants.
Mr. Waddington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have always said in north-east Lancashire that it was most important to improve communications between the M6 and the north-east Lancashire towns? Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, recognise that we in north-east Lancashire are very pleased to hear that there is to be a speeding up of the commencement of the building of the Calder Valley highway, but will he do his best to see that the third phase, which involves the construction of a new road from Burnley to Colne, will also start as soon as possible?
Mr. Walker: All I can say on that is that I am discussing with all local authorities concerned to see that the correct phasing of the priorities is given to this particular work.
Mr. J. T. Price: Speaking as a Lancashire Member whose constituency is closely related to the site of the proposed new town, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the important statement he has just made will be received with mixed feelings in my native county, that many of the authorities neighbouring that site have already expressed grave anxieties about the industrial and cultural repercussions, and that, whatever view may be taken in the long term about this project, the merits of which I cannot discuss in a supplementary question, those of us who know Lancashire from end to end and are native-born Lancastrians look on the spectacle of Skelmersdale new town where grave errors have been made—in unsatisfactory housing, in using factory building methods to put people into great structures like Bastilles—and that we hope that this error will never be repeated by any Government of any colour?

1679
We give a warning to him and his successors never to commit this kind of error again.
Mr. Walker: I am well aware of the fears and doubts of many people in Lancashire about the nature of the project. I will do everything in my power to see that the project improves the quality of life and environment in Lancashire as a whole.
Mrs. Monks: Will my right hon. Friend see that there is the fullest cooperation between the development corporation and the eight local authorities concerned and bear in mind the recommendations of the Skeffington Committee?
Mr. Walker: Yes, certainly. I am anxious to see that there is the closest co-operation between the existing local authorities and the new town corporation. I will bear in mind the report mentioned by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Denis Howell: Will the Minister help us with two matters arising from his statement which might cause concern? The statement contained a sentence which suggests that he will be asking the development corporation to ensure that the new development is primarily based on existing new towns in the area. What exactly does that mean? What practical effect will it have, for example, on the planning of the new town as a whole? Will he assure us that it will not inhibit the master plan?
Secondly, he said that he expects the private sector to play a much larger part than hitherto. The Minister will know that the previous policy has been that there should be a 50–50 arrangement between local government housing and private housing. In view of the answer which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), this sentence is a matter of considerable concern to us.
Mr. Walker: In reply to the first point, the situation here is that, unlike almost every other new town, there is already a population of 250,000 people within the designated area. On looking at this and the schemes which have been mentioned previously, I considered that it was in the interests of those 250,000 people that the
1680
development should take place in conjunction with what exists there already, rather than by the imposition of some architect's theory of a major linear new town across 30 miles of Lancashire. Therefore, I have expressed that view. On the second point, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is no new town with a 50–50 ratio. Most of the new towns were started with a 100 per cent. ratio of rented accommodation, and both sides of the House have come to the conclusion that that has disadvantages. Therefore, this new town will have a far higher proportion of private enterprise houses for owner-occupation.
Miss Holt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be warmly greeted by all right thinking people in the Preston/Leyland/Chorley area, where a massive injection of capital is very much needed? May I remind my right hon. Friend not to repeat the mistake of his predecessor in trying to give an imaginary name to the new town. The name Redrose was greeted with the utmost scorn and derision in Lancashire, the inhabitants of which are quite capable of providing their own postal address.
Mr. Walker: I have no intention of providing a red rose for this area, and I do not consider that it would be a good idea to pursue that name. On the question of the project being welcomed by the people of Preston, I hope that this will be a public investment which will affect and benefit the whole of Lancashire. A total investment of £500 million, public and private, will come into the area, and this will be of benefit to the whole economy of Lancashire.
Mr. Meacher: I would like to raise the problem of south-east Lancashire. As the advantages of this proposal, such as there are, are likely to be postponed for 10 years or more whilst the impact of the disadvantages is likely to be immediate in areas like south-east Lancashire, will the Minister say what specific interim relief he intends to apply to areas like south-east Lancashire whose economies are already precarious?
Mr. Walker: In south-east Lancashire communications are going ahead and ambitious schemes for derelict land, house improvements and improvement areas will

1681
help to raise the standard of activity in those areas. There is already a great deal that can be done.
Mr. Bray: I thank my right hon. Friend for clarifying the somewhat distorted picture left behind by the previous Administration. I also welcome the improvements in the infrastructure which is so vitally important to north-east Lancashire, particularly road communications, but we must not overlook the needs of the railways with regard to solid and liquid fuels. All these factors should receive urgent consideration. Will he give an assurance that our intermediate towns will have at least the same priority as that afforded to the new town project?
Mr. Walker: Intermediate towns will certainly have priority over new towns, and the new town will not get intermediate status. There will be a study of the transportation problems.
Mr. Arthur Davidson: Is the Minister aware that his statement will not be greeted with universal enthusiasm in Lancashire, particularly in north-east Lancashire? No one will envy him having to come to the decision which he has reached. Will the Minister assure the House that he has every intention of continuing intermediate area status at the very least for the industrial towns of north-east Lancashire? Is the Minister aware that, if he were to advance that status, perhaps for a limited period, to full development area status this would go a long way towards allaying the fears in north-east Lancashire that industry will be attracted to the new town instead of to the old industrial towns?
Mr. Walker: As I have said, regional policy is not a matter for me but for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It would be wrong for me to commit him for all time on exactly what the scheme will be. In conjunction with him I have made the decision that the new town should not have equivalent status to that enjoyed at present by the northeast towns for the very reason which the hon. Member has in mind.
Mr. Laurance Reed: What guarantee can the Minister give that a future Secretary for the Environment will not break his welcome assurance that the new town will not be given special financial incentives to attract industry?
Mr. Walker: I cannot commit all future Ministers and Secretaries of State for the Environment. I think that both sides of the House will agree that this is the sensible answer in the present situation. It would obviously be wrong to accept such a commitment.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the Minister give an assurance that he does not intend in any way to weaken the authority of the proposed development corporation when he says that there will be a greater use of private enterprise?
Mr. Walker: No, the new town corporation will have the authority and will put up the scheme. I know the hon. Gentleman has a special interest in new towns, and I think he will agree that all opinion on new towns is that in future these should be a much bigger participation by free enterprise.
Mrs. Kellett: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the massive injection of capital referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Miss Holt) does not mean that Lancashire towns which do not enjoy intermediate area status will be inhibited in the growth of house building and in their urgent search for jobs?
Mr. Walker: There is no intention of putting inhibitions of that type on any towns in Lancashire.
Mr. Freeson: The Minister referred to the need to extend the improvement area policy in north-east Lancashire. Will he bear in mind that many towns and local authorities in this area are short of resources and have difficulty in establishing the right kind of organisation for this purpose? Will he, therefore, consider extending the work of the consultancy team sponsored by his predecessor for studies in the area in support of local authorities?
Mr. Walker: This is a valid point. Since taking office, I have used the National Building Agency to advise half a dozen authorities on how to go about setting up an area and administering it. From these experiments, I hope that we shall obtain expertise which we can apply to various towns. I agree that this is an important facet.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 19th FEBRUARY
Members successful in the Ballot were:

Dr. John A. Cunningham.

Mr. David James.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Boyden: On a point of order. Arising out of Questions, Mr. Speaker, what is the point of having an asterisk against the name of the Minister for the Civil Service to answer Question No. 35, when the previous long-winded propaganda from Scottish Ministers effectively prevents any Answer to such a Question? Are we not put at a disadvantage in serious Questions to Civil Service Ministers in this House when this sort of thing happens and when the Prime Minister, who might be in a position to answer such questions, refuses to do so in detail?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is on a valid point. Without apportioning blame between the sides, there is no doubt that today both Answers and supplementaries were in my view too long. This is a matter on which the House must discipline itself. If we are to get on and to achieve a reasonable number of answers to Questions, supplementaries and Answers should be shorter.

SMALL CLAIMS COURTS
4.3 p.m.
Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for Small Claims Courts to try certain civil claims; and for related purposes.
The Bill is designed to set up Small Claims Courts, which will provide justice for claims up to £100, as special divisions in the county courts.
The starting point for this Bill is the patent inadequacy of the present county court arrangements for the handling of such claims. This arises for several reasons. The first and most important is that the county courts as at present constituted are scarcely used at all by individuals. A Consumer Council survey, involving a 2 per cent. random sample of all ordinary summonses and default summonses recorded during 1967 in six courts, involving a total of 1,238 entries, found that a mere 9 per cent. of cases only were initiated by individuals, whereas 89 per cent. of cases were initiated by businesses; and even some of the very small proportion initiated by individuals were probably small businesses suing in the proprietor's name.
The clear function of the county courts therefore at present is debt collection on behalf of mail-order houses, hire purchase companies and other firms who sell consumer goods or services on credit. It may be argued that the total of company initiated claims is inflated by the business need to verify bad debts in the eyes of the Inland Revenue for the purpose of reducing taxation liabilities, but this does not detract from the extreme lop-sidedness of the current function of the county court and its lack of use by individuals. Indeed, the survey did not find a single consumer case, that is a case of a person suing because goods were faulty.
Secondly, it has been found that a person who consults a solicitor about a consumer problem is likely to be told that his claim, however sound, is not worth pursuing. The costs of skilled legal assistance are so high that it is not worth risking taking action which one might lose. Other contributory reasons for the comparative lack of solicitors' support

1685
include the reluctance of many solicitors to represent the client themselves in court and their preference to brief counsel, as well as the feeling that court procedure at present is unwieldy for handling such matters.
The costs of pursuing even a relatively modest claim can be prohibitive under the existing rules. For a day's hearing counsel's fee might be as much as £35; the solicitor's bill might perhaps be £50. At £6 per hour that is only eight hours' work. This means that something like £85 has already been spent, without counting postage, court fees, witnesses' expenses and so on. If the person loses he has to pay a similar amount for the other side. In effect, an individual may be risking a total of £200 to £300 to win £100. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that most individuals, unless they are persons of some substance, do not regard such a risk as worthwhile.
It may of course be argued, though acknowledging the defects of the present system, that the proper response should be a modification of county court rules. It has been suggested that a simple form might be completed by the plaintiff beforehand setting out the nature of his grievance and he might then be advised about the way to present his case. Although this would be helpful in guiding the claimant through the initial stages of procedure, it is not likely that it would sustain him for long against an experienced solicitor peppering him with demands for discovery of documents, further and better particulars, and so on.
It is also asserted that county court registrars and judges as a matter of practice go out of their way to assist and protect individual litigants who come before them. Although this may generally be true—and indeed it is—it does not on available evidence outweigh in the minds of individual claimants the rather formal, awe-inspiring, cumbersome and expensive image of the county courts with all their complicated procedural rules, as witness the paucity of those who enter claims. Furthermore, the judge at a trial cannot, however helpful he tries to be, produce evidence which the claimant did not bring along, nor can he throw overboard the rules of evidence to allow an unskilled claimant to tell his own story in hearsay evidence because he had
1686
omitted to bring along the relevant witness.
If the revision of the procedural rules is unlikely to be more than merely palliative, how might a small claims court be expected to meet the requirement of the situation and how would it work? It is proposed that the registrar of each county court should be charged with running an informal court for small claims, as a branch of the county court, designed for individuals who have their claims adjudicated without legal representation. The court would have jurisdiction for claims up to £100 in contract and tort, the latter including, for example, personal injury, negligence and damage to property.
The aim would be that it should function as a genuine people's court. For this reason companies, partnerships, associations and assignees of debt would not be allowed to sue to prevent the court becoming appropriated by firms for the purposes of debt collection. Since the object of the court would be, in the words of the Franks Committee on Administrative Tribunals,
"cheapness, accessibility, freedom from technicality, expedition and expert knowledge of their particular subject"
scope for appeals would deliberately be limited to cases where the judge certified that an important point of law was involved.
It is also proposed that representation by practising lawyers should be excluded in the small claims court. This is not said lightly in view of the hallowed English tradition of the advocacy principle. But the point is that in practice, because of the expense, most individuals would not have lawyers even if permitted to do so. Once lawyers began to appear in the small claims court, people would feel that they could not proceed without a lawyer, as is the situation at present in the county court. Once again we should face the position that small claims would not get proper attention and would be deterred from coming before a court. The introduction of lawyers would undermine the whole aim and purpose of the small claims court.
The parties will, of course, be unequal in skill and experience, though less unequal than if one side had a lawyer and the other did not. It follows that, to compensate for this inequality, the court

1687
must have certain investigatory functions so that enough facts are known for a just decision to be made. A certain precedent is provided by the tribunal system where the chairman questions the parties to elicit their cases and action is taken to ensure that essential evidence is produced, irrespective of the capabilities of the individuals involved. So here it is intended that the criterion shall be, the way in which a reasonable man with a knowledge of the law, if asked to decide a dispute, would proceed. On this basis, the registrar would let the parties tell their stories, asking questions where he required further information and searching out other evidence, in a manner at his discretion, until he felt able to apply his judgment reliably in assessing the parties' stories.
The cost of investigation would normally be met out of public money, except where the registrar directed that one of the parties should pay. This would discourage frivolous use of the court by enabling the registrar to ensure that any party who had behaved irresponsibly should pay the cost.
Basically, this is the system the application of which has been so powerfully demonstrated recently by four consumer cases detailed in a Daily Telegraph Supplement. It is also the system which has just received the considered approval of Justice, the British section of the International Commission of Jurists, which
1688
yesterday issued a statement regretting that the proposal had not yet been allotted the Government support which it merited, and noting that its inquiry into civil procedure, chaired by Lord Devlin, had made a preliminary finding that
"… there is a substantial denial of justice to the ordinary member of the public in this field."
I hope very much that the House will recognise this proposal as a uniquely effective solution to the dual problem of the prohibitive expensiveness of pursuing many individual claims at present and the deterrent image of the county courts as at present constituted to many potential claimants, and on these grounds will permit the Bill to proceed to its next stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Meacher, Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones, Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John Foster, Mr. John Golding, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. Alexander W. Lyon, Mr. Ivor Richard, Mr. Robert Sheldon, and Mr. Keith Stainton.

SMALL CLAIMS COURTS
Bill to make provision for Small Claims Courts to try certain civil claims; and for related purposes, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 2nd April and to be printed. [Bill 99.]

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State to move his Motion, I should inform the House that I have selected the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), in line 2, at end add:
'but condemns Her Majesty's Government for adopting ill-considered policies which, to the detriment of the current performance and future prospects of the Scottish economy, eliminate direct investment incentives, weaken industrial development certificate control and reduce the level of regional assistance given general acceptance in the Report'.
4.15 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in Session 1969–70 on Economic Planning in Scotland (House of Commons Paper No. 267).
I welcome this opportunity to debate the Report. The subject affects several Government Departments, and the Report provides a lucid description of the rôle of the central Government in economic development in Scotland. The Report points out that, while the Secretary of State for Scotland has statutory responsibility for a wide range of subjects through his four Scottish Departments, other Ministers are also involved in economic and financial matters. But the Secretary of State has responsibility for planning decisions and, as Scotland's Minister, he is expected to be, and must be, concerned with problems and decisions affecting the Scottish economy.
The Select Committee investigated how the Government machine is geared for economic planning. It also looked at the consultative machinery. I have already made clear that I agree with its findings concerning the Scottish Economic Planning Council, as it used to be called. This body meets in private, but it has become clear that it has no executive planning powers. Nor did the Committee recommend that it should have such powers. I have decided that a council with this kind of composition has a useful rôle as an advisory body on economic matters as a whole. I have accordingly announced that it will in future be known as the Scottish Economic Council, and that its rôle will be an advisory one to the Secretary of State and the Government
1690
In this, I am following the views of the Select Committee.
The Select Committee also considered the whole question of investment incentives for regional development. While it commented on the advantages and disadvantages of various kinds of incentive, no particular one or combination was recommended. For example, the Report points out that the investment grant system encouraged capital-intensive industries, and that, though some of these are required in Scotland, they are less able to provide the numbers of jobs in a shorter term that other industries can. It was also noted that the service industries were left in the cold.
The Select Committee's Report followed a Report of the Estimates Committee of the previous year which had called for an investigation into the effectiveness of investment grants—an investigation which the last Government duly started. That investigation was still going on, and the Select Committee's Report had just been published, when the present Administration came into office at the end of June.
It was clear to us that new measures were urgently necessary and that changes in the system had to be made. We lost no time in carrying out an urgent, but full, review. On 27th October, our first decisions on new measures were announced. While the system of investment grants is being discontinued, other grants for development under the Local Employment Acts—those more directly related to new jobs—are to be used more extensively. Thus, a combination of grants and loans, and a new system of capital tax allowances, is aimed to gain the advantages of both systems described in the Select Committee's Report. A wider range of industry will benefit, including service industries. The level of regional assistance is not being reduced. Assertions to the contrary are entirely wrong, though we have become used to such mis-statements from the benches opposite.
Broadly, the total amount of the differential in favour of the development areas remains the same. But it is a more flexible combination of incentives, more closely geared to the employment that we need, and likely to be more effective. Changes were needed. Four years of the previous arrangements have brought us to a state of very high summer

1691
unemployment, stagnation and a bleak winter. How have members of the previous Government the temerity to criticise changes, when they had brought Scotland to this state? The sheer irresponsibility of their attitude is staggering.
However attractive any incentives may be, 1 must agree with the Select Committee, in paragraph 4 of its General Conclusions, that the results will depend on the industrial growth attained in the United Kingdom. If there is a limited supply of mobile industry and little scope for expansion, despite what one hopes to get from abroad, development in the regions concerned is restricted.
That is no doubt one reason why there has been such an alarming net loss of jobs in Scotland in the last 5 years. From March, 1966, to March, 1970, there was a decrease of 82,000 in the estimated number of employees in employment in Scotland. Employment expanded in Scotland in the first half of the 1960s and declined in the second half. There has been a serious falling off in the amount of new industrial development in Scotland, as recorded by i.d.c. approvals, in the last 2 years.
Since 1965, the whole economy has been subjected to increasingly severe fiscal and monetary policy. The squeeze and freeze were applied, and then there followed devaluation and the 1968 Spring Budget, with the biggest increase in taxes for many years. Further seventies ensued and the pace of inflation was allowed to increase dangerously last year so that there was no prospect of encouragement being given to expansion.
In May and June, before coming into office, I was pointing to this gloomy prospect and publicly asking the then Government what they intended to do about it. The answer was nothing. No response. I pointed out, over several months, on television and elsewhere, to the then Secretary of State that high unemployment was inevitable if things were allowed to drift. Again nothing happened.
It is perfectly clear now why there was a General Election in June. There was no need to hold it then—the Labour Government could still have been in office today and until April. But they decided not to wait even until October.
The reasons soon became clear in Scotland. A few days after the Labour
1692
Government's departure, the unemployment figures in July showed that 93,000 people were out of work in Scotland. That was the height of summer when unemployment should be low.
What did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) expect the figures to be in September and December? Did he expect them to improve? Did he, for example, think that there would be only 80,000 out of work in January? No, of course not. He knows, as well as everyone else, that the figures could not fail to get worse as autumn and winter approached. Standing at 93,000 in July, they were bound to go well over the 100,000 mark during the winter. Nothing that the new Government could do would have been in time to stop that happening.
The clear evidence of the deteriorating position in Scotland before the last Government left office is shown in the following figures. The i.d.c.'s issued in Scotland in the twelve months from June, 1969 to June, 1970, the period of a year before the June Election, reflected a reduction of 34 per cent. in the number of jobs involved, compared with the previous 12 months.
I mentioned earlier the net loss of jobs since 1965. The position before then was clearly set out in the last Government's 1966 White Paper on page 9. There it is recorded that in the four years 1960–64 new jobs were being created at a rate of very nearly 40,000 a year—over 39,000. Although the run down of jobs in agriculture and the older industries was taking place during the whole of the decade, the important fact in those four years was the net gain of over 7,000 jobs a year. The new industrial development was more than compensating for the disappearance of jobs in coal mining and the other industries.
The extraordinary paradox was that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock was at that time moaning and groaning in his well known way, and urging that a target of 40,000 new jobs a year should be set. The statistics in his own White Paper later showed that he had no grounds to criticise, because that figure was indeed being reached.
Unfortunately, we cannot start that scale of growth and industrial development again—and increase it—in a situation of wildly inflationary wage

1693
claims. Before the last Government abandoned office they allowed a wild game of wages leapfrog to start, following their disastrous attempt to freeze wages by stature. This is the situation which we must get under control now.
I must emphasise as strongly as I can that inflationary wage claims will simply price us out of jobs. Those who urge their fellows to press claims which are totally unrealistic may in fact be losing their jobs for them altogether. Employers will be forced to reduce their activities and labour forces rather than expand.
The Times Business News of Friday, 22nd January, clearly stated:
"… it may well have been that the very rapid rate of increase in pay in the fourth quarter has helped to push up the unemployment rate. Organised workers have been pricing themselves out of the market, or at least reducing the ability of employers to employ other people."
Mr. John Robertson (Paisley): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to speak later.
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Campbell: All right.
Mr. Robertson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that workers are trying to push up their wages to meet demands in prices which his right hon. Friend promised would be brought down "at a stroke"?
Mr. Campbell: If that is so, it is the result of the disastrous freeze imposed by the last Government and their total failure to control the subsequent inflationary wage pressure.
When I and my colleagues took over this gloomy situation in June, we set ourselves two immediate tasks. The first was to make the changes in regional development measures which were announced in October. These will in time help to improve the situation.
Secondly, we brought in—
Mr. Douglas Jay: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell: I should like to continue. I have given way once to a Scottish Member.
1694
Secondly, we brought in urgently a special works programme, for Scotland only, for this winter.
An Hon. Member: Chicken feed.
Mr. Campbell: Wait for what is to come. This is helping to relieve unemployment now.
When a deputation of Labour Members of Parliament came to see me during the recess in September, they agreed that a winter scheme of this kind would help, though they recognised the limitations of any such scheme, and urged me to arrange and announce it as soon as possible This I did.
I now have an important announcement to make which should be very welcome to the House. The Government have decided that the problems of industrial West Central Scotland require a new approach—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] This will be no surprise, because I have just been describing the situation which we found on taking office. The Government have decided, in principle, that a substantial part of the area of West Central Scotland should be designated as a special development area in which additional financial inducements to new industrial growth will apply.
Briefly, these inducements include a higher rate of building grant of 45 per cent. for all new developments; operational grants based on labour costs; and a five-year rent-free period for new rented factories. The exact boundaries of the area and other relevant details will be announced in due course, but I can say now that the special development area will, of course, include Glasgow and the Clydeside conurbation.
Mr. David Lambie: Will it include Hunterston?
Mr. Campbell: Against the background which I have described—
Mr. William Ross: Will this require legislation or will it start right away? Will it be available as from tomorrow?
Mr. Campbell: I cannot give precise details at this stage. The Government have decided to designate a large part of this important area as a special development area. I cannot at this moment go into all the details. The answer is that it will begin as soon as

1695
possible. If it can be done without legislation, it will be done without legislation.
Mr. Ross: It cannot be done without legislation; neither can some of the proposals announced in October. We want to know when we shall get this legislation. If it is as urgent as the right hon. Gentleman says, the legislation should have been ready today.
Mr. Campbell: Despite the non-cooperation of the Opposition on practically all parliamentary business at the moment arising from their attitude to the Industrial Relations Bill, I sincerely hope that there will be no opposition to this legislation when it is put forward.
Hon. Members: When?
Mr. Campbell: I am making the announcement now, but I cannot give the details. If legislation is necessary we shall bring it in as soon as possible.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell: No. I must proceed. I have another interesting announcement to make.
Mr. Maclennan Mr. Maclennan rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. It is obvious that the right hon. Gentleman is not giving way. The hon. Gentleman had better wait.
Mr. Campbell: I am amazed that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite should not welcome the announcement, and should appear to be picking nits at present. If legislation is required, it will be brought forward, but my advice is that it will not be necessary.
Against the background which I have described, we have also been considering what assistance we can give to Glasgow. Good housing is vital for the city's economic future as well as for social reasons, and since we took office we have been investigating how we can best provide the special housing assistance that we consider necessary. It is now clear that this can best be devoted to mounting an additional house-building programme outside the present city boundaries, an assential need for the next decade.
1696
We are prepared to make increased use of the Scottish Special Housing Association for this purpose, with an addition to the programme already announced for Erskine and also in other areas near Glasgow. We are also considering arrangements for further use of the new towns machinery at a fresh location outside Glasgow—one possibility would be to use the existing East Kilbride Development Corporation as the agency for carrying out a large development in the Stone-house area of North Lanarkshire. I cannot give more details now, but I shall of course be making a further statement when I am in a position to do so.
Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Does not the Secretary of State realise that on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) I announced precisely the same thing 12 months ago, and that he is under an obligation, because of what has been said by his leader, his junior Minister and himself, to provide special aid which we did not designate when we were in office. What is that special extra aid?
Mr. Campbell: What the hon. Gentleman announced was a mouse compared with what I am now announcing.
Inside the city there is a great and urgent need not only for the modernisation of older houses—and we are supporting the corporation's drive for this—but also for an intensive compaign to improve the general environment. The need for this is both economic and social. I hope soon to discuss with the corporation how this problem can most usefully be tackled.
Mr. Tom McMillan: Is the Secretary of State taking into account the fact that inside Glasgow at this moment children are dying in the festering slums, and that a public inquiry has said that bad housing contributes to deaths? What immediate proposals has the right hon. Gentleman for the alleviation of the problem?
Mr. Campbell: I am happy to have the hon. Gentleman's support for the programme I am announcing, and also his satisfaction that last year, I understand, was a record for the rehousing of families in Glasgow.
May I now remind the House of the methods of attracting and encouraging

1697
industrial developments. There are now three forms of assisted area. The most assisted tier is the special development area; the second is the development area and the third is the intermediate area. While there are special arrangements for the S.D.A.s, the main new measures for development areas are the advantage of free depreciation, which can be carried forward to later years for companies not making profits to start with, and the more extensive use of grants and loans under the Local Employment Acts which are directly related to new jobs. Amongst other things this will encourage improvement of infrastructure, especially clearance of derelict land.
In October it was announced that regional employment premium would continue for four years until the end of its guaranteed time. Service industries will now benefit from a 60 per cent. capital allowance and training and retraining arrangements will be increased.
For the development areas only, a new scheme will be coming in to help the tourist industry when the hotel incentive scheme comes to an end in April.
Evidence available so far indicates that the announcement of these new measures, far from holding up development, has increased it. In the last quarter of 1970, industrial development certificate approvals were issued in respect of 59 projects in Scotland, estimated to provide additional jobs for 3,300 people. In terms of new jobs this was considerably higher than the average figure for the first two quarters of the year. This means that in the last quarter of 1970 there was a higher rate of new jobs in projects than in the first half of that year.
On the I.D.C. system generally, we agree with the view of the Select Committee that it is an essential part of an effective regional policy. We have not accepted the majority proposal of the Hunt Committee, set up by the last Government, to the effect that I.D.C. limits should be raised outside the development areas to 10,000 square feet. On the contrary, we have adjusted the system to recognise what has been done in practice. In the South East and Midlands, the I.D.C. limit is restricted to 5,000 square feet, and it is only outside these two areas that the limit has been raised to 10,000 square feet.
Mr. George Lawson: The limit of 5,000—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Lawson: I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was giving way.
Mr. Campbell: No, I was not.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. All hon. Members know that they cannot get up and speak without the hon. Member who has the Floor giving way. I am quite sure that in due course the right hon. Gentleman will give way to all Members that he thinks reasonable. I am sure that the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) wishes to observe the rules.
Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. When we listen to what I take to be a deliberate piece of misrepresentation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we can be goaded into interventions like that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Whether or not the hon. Gentleman thinks that, the rules of the House must be scrupulously observed.
Mr. Campbell: The word "reasonable" was the appropriate one, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the remarks the hon. Gentleman has just made confirm that his question was likely to be unreasonable.
I was pointing out that outside the Midlands and South East the limit has been raised to 10,000 square feet. The effects of these small changes will be negligible. For example, in the whole of the year 1969, when the last Government were in office, not a single application under 10,000 square feet was refused outside the Midlands and the South East. That is the overwhelming evidence that the adjustment we have made will make no difference, but will reduce unnecessary paper work.
Let us not overlook the prospects and promise that lie someway ahead—the finds of North Sea oil off the Scottish coast and, for example, the massive tankers serving the petrochemical complex at Grangemouth, through Loch Long.
The Firth of Clyde has immense potential for the future. We chose a Supply Day and I opened a debate on this subject in 1969, to draw attention to this. I have followed this up by my planning decisions at Hunterston, and

1699
the way is open for worthwhile development which can bring prosperity and jobs while causing the minimum of damage to amenity. I must make it clear, however, that these are prospects for the future. There is nothing that can be done to exploit the deep water and other facilities in the Hunterston area which could materially affect employment in the near future. Besides attracting industry from elsewhere in Britain and encouraging industry in Scotland to expand, Scotland is mounting and co-ordinating promotional campaigns abroad. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development has been closely concerned with this, and he will say more about it when he winds up the debate.
Mr. Maclennan: As the Highlands and Islands Development Board felt it appropriate to spend £100,000 on industrial promotion, why does the hon. Gentleman think it is appropriate to spend £20,000 on the whole of Scotland, and to prevent the Board from carrying out its promotional schemes in the United States and Germany?
Mr. Campbell: I do not accept the last part of that remark. We have made arrangements, as we have announced, with the Scottish Council for the provision of some money, and they are raising the rest themselves—£20,000 has been mentioned. That is twice as much as the previous Government were supplying in the previous three years. We are naturally concentrating on a country like Germany, whose Governement has asked firms to expand abroad.
We are determined to ensure that the excellent sites and conditions which Scotland can offer are made known, and that our publicity efforts are used to full effect without danger of unnecessary duplication or apparent conflict. That is perhaps one of the important points which the hon. Member will himself appreciate.
Mr. Dick Douglas: If I interpret the Secretary of State correctly, he means that he wants to try to iron out the possible sub-regional competitiveness in industry and "sell" Scotland as a whole. That job should not be given to the Scottish Council; it is a job for him.
Mr. Campbell: I accept that, and I and my right hon. and hon. Friends—I
1700
would mention in particular the Under-Secretary of State for Development—have already shown, in the last six or seven months, that a lead can be given. But we need the support of industry itself, of course, organised in the appropriate bodies, and we need to co-ordinate the efforts being made by local authority associations and by bodies like the Highlands and Islands Development Board. Otherwise, the effect abroad can be of uncoordinated visits which appear to be cancelling each other out. This is what we regard as our job as a Government to try to help to resolve.
Mr. John Brewis: Would my right hon. Friend point out to the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) the denigrating remarks of his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) when his predecessor went to America?
Mr. Ross: That was because he came back.
Mr. Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for that remark. I have not yet started on peripatetic tours myself—[HON. MEMBERS: "More's the pity."]—but my hon. Friend has been doing this on my behalf most successfully.
Any action to prevent the situation which we now face this winter in Scotland would have had to be taken well over a year ago, but the Labour Government were oblivious to the warning signs and the deteriorating situation. Nothing was done and nothing said.
There was a debate in the House on the Scottish economy in May 1969. That was just about the time when new measures could have been discussed which would have improved the state of the Scottish economy by now. What part did the then Secretary of State play? He did not even speak in the debate. Of course, that was during the reign of William the Silent. It must be remembered that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) had decided that his best contribution to the future of Scotland's economy was to filibuster that debate. As it was precious private Members' time that he was eating into, I described him then as a parliamentary cannibal. But even he left time for a wind-up speech from his own Front Bench, but the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock disdained the opportunity.

1701
Later in 1969, we had the debate on future development in the Firth of Clyde with its valuable assets of very deep water and suitable adjoining land for a super-port and industrial development. Matters of great concern to hon. Members on both sides were discussed. What part did the then Secretay of State play? Again, he did not deign to speak at all.
Mr. John P. Mackintosh: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those of us who spent a long time on this Select Committee putting in a great deal of work studying regional planning hoped that his speech would take note of the detailed points and discuss the intricate problems of regional planning and not go in for this third-rate, trivial, partisan knockabout which we hoped would abandoned? This is a debate to take note of the Report of the Select Committee.
Mr. Campbell: In that case, the hon. Gentleman should have advised his right hon. and hon. Friends not to put down the Amendment which is on the Paper. It was clear from the moment that it appeared what was going to happen in this debate.
I and my colleagues arrived in office to find our worst fears confirmed. There was no movement in the economy other than successive depressing reports of closures and redundancies, with little countervailing development to replace them. Inflation was rife, giving no hope of early renewal of industrial expansion. Unemployment was at an astronomical figure for mid-summer and was bound to become very bad during the winter.
During the rest of this debate, it is clear that we shall hear accusations and charges from the other side attempting to attack us about this. All such criticism can only rebound on the previous Government. Brickbats from the other side will be found to be boomerangs.
Mrs. Judith Hart: While the right hon. Gentleman is embarking on this knockabout, as my hon. Friend described it, may I point out to him that on one matter at least—a matter on which he has made an important announcement this afternoon—the housing development at Stonehouse, we know that this has been on his desk since he entered office nearly eight months ago,
1702
yet all we get this afternoon is the vaguest of announcements. Before he sits down, I hope that he will tell us precisely how the proposals which he has announced are qualitatively different from those which the previous Government had already announced, and whether he will, in view of the considerable uncertainty which he has imposed upon many groups of people, tell us which agency will be responsible for the building.
Mr. Campbell: I can answer that one briefly by saying that the scheme which I have announced is a great deal larger than what I found when I came in—
Mr. Douglas: How much?
Mr. Campbell: I have already occupied a good deal of time in this debate. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will reply to the debate in due course——
Dr. Dickson Mabon Dr. Dickson Mabon rose——
Mr. Campbell: No, I have given way enough——
Dr. Mabon: Could the right hon. Gentleman say——
Mr. Campbell: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman several times.
Dr. Mabon: On a point of order——
Mr. Campbell: Oh, no.
Dr. Mabon: On a point of order. Would you take note, Sir Robert, that relevant information which we are seeking for this debate is to be announced at the end of the debate? Surely, as a matter of good debating and the practice of the House, we should know, out of courtesy at least, if not out of intelligence, what figures we are talking about.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. The right hon. Gentleman must make his speech as he thinks best.
Mr. Campbell: The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) has already complained that, although I have covered a great deal of the ground which the Select Committee covered, I have been concentrating on certain particular matters. Clearly, in opening a debate like this, it would be wrong for me to go into the details of

1703
this single announcement which we will be discussing and which the House will be able to consider later.
While no Government, taking over last June an inflationary and stagnant economy, could have taken measures in time to change dramatically the depressing winter scene in Scotland, we can take action for the future and we are doing so. I have outlined some of the new measures and the promotion effort which we are helping to mount. We are determined to get out of this rut and all who live and work in Scotland can help to do it.
Responsible and co-ordinated efforts are required if we are not to price ourselves not only out of jobs but out of export markets. As I said in a recent newspaper article, the world does not owe us a living. By our own efforts, and with the help of the resources of the United Kingdom through regional development policy, we must excel.
The Scots have set the pace and led the world in many fields, often in the face of initial difficulties. We need those characteristics and resources—[Interruption.] I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite are not echoing the feelings which I am expressing at this point—more than ever before and I am confident that, given a lead and the stimulus to inspire effort and working together, we can build new industrial success on firm, modern foundations.
4.50 p.m.
Mr. William Ross: I beg to move, at the end of the Question to add,
'but condemn Her Majesty's Government for adopting ill-considered policies which, to the detriment of the current performance and future prospects of the Scottish economy, eliminate direct investment incentives, weaken industrial development certificate control and reduce the level of regional assistance given general acceptance in the Report'.
I have been called many things in this House, but "William the Silent" is a new one. I am far from silent.
Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I wish the right hon. Gentleman was.
Mr. William Hamilton: I thought the hon. Gentleman was asleep.
Mr. Ross: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) is interrupting not so much from a sedentary as from a recumbent position. I cannot understand why earlier he urged hon. Members to exercise self discipline. I have hardly begun to speak than he is at me. He is getting more like his father every day.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State took me to task for not intervening in a debate on Hunterston. He should have stopped to think at least twice before accepting that piece of research from whoever conducted it. He should have known that the one person who could not express an opinion about Hunterston and about the deep water port and so on was the then Secretary of State, who had to sit in a semi-judicial capacity and eventually receive the findings of the inquiry.
I recall the right hon. Gentleman being discreetly silent on the subject, and I never pressed him on it because I recognised his position. This is the kind of level of criticism in which hon. Gentlemen opposite indulge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I will not ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark——
Mr. Gordon Campbell: I say straight away that if, in July 1969, the inquiry had already started, I immediately acquit the right hon. Gentleman of not taking part in the debate.
Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman must have known that by that time. Notice of objection and so on had been given. The controversy had started. That was why the debate was mooted. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hill-head will remember the many Questions that were put to me and how I had to answer to that effect. He accepted that, recognising the responsibility of the Secretary of State. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] As I say, I will not ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw. His speech was obviously written and made by him against his better judgment. Suffice to say that some of my hon. Friends have suggested that it was like a fairy tale. "Grim Gordon's Fairy Tale", they are calling it.
We are invited to take
"note of the Report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs"

1705
and it is worth recalling that that Committee spent the better of two years making what was probably the lengthiest and deepest probe into Scottish affairs covering not only the Secretary of State's Department but also the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Technology; indeed, covering anybody who had anything to do, directly or indirectly, with the promotion of regional development.
The Report was published on 13th May of last year and my hon. Friends asked for a debate on the subject. We are eventually asked to take note of it in February, 1971, when the Government have made announcements in respect of the core and centre of regional development and have obviously brushed aside, probably never even having read, the Report. I cannot think of anything more insulting to the work of a Select Committee.
It is customary, when a Select Committee reports, for the various Departments concerned to write their replies and for them to be given in a paper to the House, and then the whole matter is debated. That applies to the Estimates Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and all others, including the one covering the nationalised industries. But what happened in this case? The Government ignored the Report and, before we were even asked to take note of it, they had made their decisions. This demonstrates that they paid no attention to what the Report said.
I pay tribute to the Committee's Chairman, Mr. Tom Steele, and the 16 hon. Members who served on it, four of whom are no longer with us, for various reasons. I gave evidence before the Committee and I was satisfied, as a result of what I was told by my officials, with everything that had gone on and that the Committee was doing a thorough and first-class job. I was also satisfied that any Government would ignore to their peril what came out in the evidence and findings of the Committee.
The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office, who will reply to the debate, was a signatory to this Report. I remind him that it was presented not a century before the General Election but on 13th May, 1970, one month before the election, and that the Report said:
1706
"we think that economic planning in Scotland can be said to be organised on sound lines".
This was scarcely mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, though the Report said:
"We can attempt to assess this only in general terms … But it is certain that the structure and balance of industry in Scotland has greatly changed in the last few years. Many of the older industries which once flourished in Scotland have greatly declined."
This is about the question of the loss of jobs, which the Minister did not even try to analyse and certainly does not understand. The Report went on:
"while new and more competitive industries … have established themselves; there is no doubt that this represents a strengthening of Scotland's industrial structure".
The Minister agreed to that on 13th May, 1970, but something changed his mind a month later. This is the trouble with the Government. They make changes and then find out what the country feels about them.
We have taken this exceptional step of taking note of the Report but asking the House to condemn the Government simply because the work of the most important Select Committee ever to be set up for Scotland was insulted by being ignored. What has happened to this Select Committee? It has not been reestablished, though we were given a pledge that it would be. Why the delay? We are only able to guess. Is it that hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot, or are unwilling to, man their side of this Committee. I have even heard it suggested that we should have Members of the House of Lords put on the Committee.
This is because the efforts of hon. Gentlemen opposite in Scotland in the past have been such that they have been decimated in the last three General Elections in Scotland; and, meanwhile, Mr. Europe spends his time in the Committee Corridor waiting to vote on an Education Bill that should never have been introduced.
When will this Select Committee be re-established? Is this inability to man it the reason for the Government's weakness in this matter? Or is it that they do not want such a Committee to go into what the present Government are doing and have been doing?
The Secretary of State made two announcements today. We welcome one of them. I was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman could not tell us whether

1707
his announcement would mean legislation. At present the special development areas are limited to coalmining areas. A change is to be made, and legislation will be required. We have not been told what the global figures of expenditure will be. The Government have been less than fair with us. However, we welcome the proposal as far as it goes.
Mr. Ian MacArthur: At last.
Mr. Ross: That was the second time. Next, the right hon. Gentleman's proposals for helping Glasgow will sorely disappoint the Tory-controlled council in Glasgow. The Tory-controlled council was expecting to get additional money to help it with its housing programme. It was expecting to get as much help as we gave it when we changed the formula in respect of rate support grant, which gave the council an additional £½ million per year as a starting figure. All that the right hon. Gentleman has done is to repeat what we said we would do and in respect of which we were in active consultation with Glasgow about Erskine.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he has not even started discussions with Glasgow yet. I hope that his experience is a little better than our experience in respect of the hopes for Erskine.
The right hon. Gentleman told us, as a great tribute to Glasgow, that it had a record number of re-lettings. What the people of Glasgow are interested in is new housing in Glasgow. The number of approvals of new houses and the number of completions last year was lamentable; Glasgow let Scotland down.
The Report stresses the importance of infrastructure—the need for housing, jobs, and so on. Last year in Scotland we had another record of house building. The Tories might have given credit to the Labour Government for that. We saw plenty in the national newspapers about the parlous state of house building in England and Wales. We saw little in the Scottish Press about the fact that we had achieved yet another record in Scotland with nearly 45,000 houses.
The right hon. Gentleman might have explained why the number of approvals in 1970 dipped by more than 13,000. The Under-Secretary has been in charge for
1708
six months. If he was not satisfied with the rate of approvals for the first six months, the Secretary of State should have done what I did with my hon. Friend and my noble Friend Lord Hughes: he should have sent the Under-Secretary round Scottish local authorities to ensure that approvals in the second six months met Scotland's needs. That is why in 1970 there was that number of approvals. The record number was in 1966.
In the matter of infrastructure and housing we are going back to the calamitous state to which the Tories drove us in the early 1960s when the house building total in Scotland dropped to as low as 26,000. For the past four years, in each succeeding year it has been a record and we reached nearly 45,000 in 1970.
We should concentrate our attention on the terms of the Amendment:
'but condemns Her Majesty's Government for adopting ill-considered policies which, to the detriment of the current performance and future prospects of the Scottish economy, eliminate direct investment incentives, weaken industrial development certificate control and reduce the level of regional assistance given general acceptance in the Report'.
As to "ill-considered policies", does the Secretary of State suggest that the housing policy is well-advised in relation to the present needs and the present performance? At Question Time the right hon. Gentleman refused to put a figure on the number of houses he hopes to build. In 1964 the Tories did not leave us a great inheritance of houses under construction and those awaiting start. In 1970 we left them at least 8,000 more than they left us in 1964.
Other announcements as to policies were in relation to the I.R.C. and the Industrial Expansion Act. It was under the Industrial Expansion Act that we built the smelters. The Tories congratulated us on having done so, but there were some Tories on the Front and back benches who thought that we should not have done so. They did not take that view in the Highlands. I do not know how the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) can justify his colleagues' attitude on this. Let him tell the people in his area that the Act under which this could be done is being repealed.
The Industrial Expansion Act was helpful to us in respect of the motor car

1709
industry. I give credit to the Tories for bringing the motor car industry to Scotland, but the industry had troubles. At one time Rootes looked like going out. Leyland-B.M.C. had its troubles. Not only was the I.R.C. brought into play, but by following through the regional policies, which we insisted were not purely for the Scottish Office and the Board of Trade but were for every Government Department, we were able to ensure that the Linwood development would be protected and that the expansion, if it took place, would take place there. The same was true in relation to Bathgate. Now these things are to go. The Government's action is ill-advised.
As to what we say in the Amendment about the removal of direct investment incentives, are hon. Members satisfied that, with the removal of the direct incentive of the investment grant, which gave a 20 per cent. lead to Scotland, Scotland will be better served or investment will be better served by the change to tax allowances?
There was much discussion on this point at the time. The right hon. Gentleman will find no condemnation of the investment grant system in the Report. The S.T.U.C. was for investment grants. So was the Scottish Council. The C.B.I. in. Scotland was for them.
The only body which was against investment grants was the C.B.I. in London; and that body thought only that they should be removed in the future. The C.B.I. was speaking to a Scottish Committee. It might have expressed a different view if speaking to a Tory Secretary of State.
We have had plenty of information about what has happened. There is a down-turn in investment in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman has been in his post for the better part of seven months. The Tories have declared their policies. The fact that the day after their mini-budget and their give away of £350 million they tightened the squeeze meant that people just did not know where they were under this Government.
The Financial Times for Monday, 1st February states:
"The evidence of a downturn in manufacturing industry's spending on new plant and equipment is now virtually conclusive.…
1710
A downturn has been predicted for some months, by the Confederation of British Industry among others, and now all the indicators are pointing in that direction.….
Orders for new machine tools, which can be regarded as an even clearer sign of what is happening, began to fall away last summer and, according to the latest reports from the industry, the decline has accelerated in the last few months.
Many factors are being blamed"—
and it lists the factors, including—
"the Government's decision to switch from investment grants to capital allowances."
The Times reported, in a leader on 28th January,
"… serious doubts about the real net outlay —future investment will involve … much uncertainty about the real cost of investment…"
It said that the Government should clarify the switch from investment grants to allowances. Very few people are clear about this. Those who are are satisfied that the switch is to the disadvantage of the development area. The Scotland magazine, which examines in depth each month the topics which concern business and industry in Scotland, also condemns the switch from investment grants to allowances.
The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): The right hon. Gentleman said that the decline in investment started in the summer, but his scheme was going flat out until 27th October. How does he explain the decline?
Mr. Ross: On 27th October, the Government announced a new policy. This is relevant to some of the figures the Government have produced about industrial development certificates in Scotland. It would be interesting to know what the position was in the last three months under our policy compared with the first three months under the Government's new policy. There has been the acceleration of decline since the Government announcement was made. Has the hon. Gentleman read these articles? The Times on 28th January reported:
"Withdrawal of investment grants leads 30 companies to delay investment plans."
It clarified its headline as follows
"At least 30 major companies have told the Department of Trade and Industry that they must postpone, or even abandon, important development schemes following the withdrawal of investment grants in favour of a new system of capital allowances."

1711
The Government should face the facts as quickly as possible. I doubt whether the damage which will be done by their policy will be entirely discounted by the change they are making in special area development status for part of Scotland.
Mr. Alex Eadie: What my right hon. Friend is saying can be confirmed by reference to the experience of Midlothian County Council. It can substantiate his case by the fact that firms which previously had an interest in going to Midlothian are either no longer interested or are reluctant to go or are in a state of indecision about going.
Mr. Ross: That experience is certainly relevant to my case. The statements I have quoted relate to major companies. Of course, many of the smaller companies will not proceed and will not tell the authorities. The latest figures we had received before leaving office were that jobs resulting from industrial development certificates would total over 55,000. Last week, we were given the figure of 40,000. The attrition has started. The right hon. Gentleman cannot create alibis now. The Government have been in office since 18th June. They must accept responsibility for the climate of opinion and the lack of confidence in the economy —a lack of confidence they themselves created.
Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman has not quite understood the point I put. Can he explain why the downturn in investment started, as he says, in the early summer, when his investment grants scheme was still running until 27th October?
Mr. Ross: The Government proclaimed their intention. Perhaps that is one of their troubles. They think that no one is listening to them. Indeed, few people listened to the Conservative Party in Scotland and few took them seriously. It was on 28th September, 1969, that the present Prime Minister, as Leader of the Opposition, in a discussion with James Gordon on Scottish television, said that there would be a large cut in the money that was being spent in developing industry in Scotland. The Secretary of State still has to square his statements about the differential being the same and the amount of money being the same. Someone is kidding him, because I would
1712
not accuse him of trying to kid us. He has amply demonstrated his ignorance. Someone has taken advantage of his kindness of heart.
We were also told at the time that the regional employment premium, another direct incentive, was also to be cut. Has the right hon. Gentleman read the Select Committee's Report about the R.E.P.? It contains no indication of condemnation of R.E.P. Nor is there any indication of condemnation in the evidence. If the right hon. Gentleman studies Question No. A141 and the answer given by Sir Robert Maclean, he will see exactly what that very distinguished public servant had to say.
Mr. Gordon Campbell: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman is arguing about on this. As I said, the decision was that the regional employment premium should continue from last October for the four years remaining to the end of the seven years for which it was introduced.
Mr. Ross: We have been told that it is to be ended. We have not been told that it is going to be replaced by something else. We are told that the same amount of money is going to be spent on regional incentive in Scotland, but it just does not add up. Sir Robert Maclean was asked about all the incentives. He replied
"They are very significant. The investment grant is very important indeed. There is no doubt that the regional employment premium is very important. The availability of factories is very important. They are all of a piece. If any one of these three were taken away I am not sure the stool would not collapse."
The Government have now cut off two of the three legs. They have announced the ending of the regional employment premium and have already withdrawn investment grants. Yet, as Sir Robert pointed out, they all hang together—and that is certainly what the Government should be doing. He went on:
"I would hesitate to say which was the most important to an individual industrialist. You may get a firm which says it lays more emphasis on getting a factory quickly; they may say 'Give us an advance factory, we have enormous orders;'"—
I think we might have got an announcement about an advance factory today. The right hon. Gentleman cannot get the Elgin factory out of his system. Sir Robert continued:
—"'let us get going; this is what matters.' Another firm would say, 'This is carefully,

1713
calculated, deliberate policy and R.E.P. means a lot to us.' So that I would not care to distinguish between the force of these three incentives, the three incentives being R.E.P., the availability of a factory, and different rate of grants. They are like the three legs of a stool. If you knock any one away, the whole may collapse. I lay almost equal importance on each one of these three."
So, the Government have ignored the advice of those who know Scottish industry best. That is why we condemn the Government. There is plenty of evidence in the Report of the Select Committee besides that of Sir Robert Maclean's. For example, evidence was also given by the Chairman of Swan Hunter about the regional employment premium and other forms of aid given by the Labour Government. This is important when one remembers the whole climate of the new philosophy, although it is not a new philosophy, because in 1970 the Tories have caught up with the philosophy which Wolverhampton, South-West had in 1967. It is the philosophy of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), who is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State, the philosophy that if lame ducks cannot stand on their own feet, they should be allowed to go.
What effect did that philosophy have on the prospects of industries which are important to Scotland, the motor car industry and the shipbuilding industry, for example, which have been in receipt of considerable help through the Shipbuilding Industry Board or the Industrial Expansion Act, or in other ways? They were rescued by the Labour Government which made the money available to them. That speech guaranteed not to help them in their fight for strength and viability. I hope that the Secretary of State will assure us that he and the Government will fight to ensure the viability and continued existence of industries which are important to Scotland, and to do that he will need to do more than merely tinker with special development area status.
I come next to I.D.C.s. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) is still a member of the Government. He is becoming nearly as bad as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) at swallowing his speeches. It must be difficult for some of these hon. Members to live with their past. He is a signatory of the
1714
Report. The whole subject of I.D.C.s is discussed on page 61 and the conclusion is that which was reached by people who studied the position a long time ago—that one of the factors of a successful regional policy is the maintenance of tight I.D.C. control.
The hon. Member for Ayr said that Scotland should not be worried because in the South-East and the London area and the West Midlands the I.D.C. limits had been raised from 3,000 to 5,000 sq. ft., and outside those areas from 5,000 to 10,000 sq. ft., because no application within those brackets had been turned down. He did not say how many applications had not been made because of the existence of the limits. He must know that if he raises the limits, there will be pressure to go even further. Before long, the C.B.I. policy, which is to get rid of the I.D.C.s altogether and to allow industry to make its own choice, will be found acceptable for the whole of trade and industry. I cannot believe that any Secretary of State for Scotland would agree to that. I hope that I may give the right hon. Gentleman credit for fighting.
However, the credibility of the hon. Member for Ayr comes into this matter, for he signed the Report on 13th May and it says:
"We would be strongly opposed to a relaxation of the I.D.C. scheme."
There are no doubts about that.
"The fact that the statistics do not give incontrovertible grounds for regarding I.D.C.s as an effective incentive to move to a Development Area could indeed mean that the scheme needs to be strengthened or more rigorously applied."
That was the advice of the Scottish Select Committee. But the Secretary of State paid no attention to that advice. He brushed it aside and now he wonders why we condemn him.
We believe that the new policy will significantly affect the movement of industry to the intermediate or development areas. The right hon. Gentleman is pursuing a policy which must make areas dependent on maximising the amount of industry which may be steered there. It does not add up or make sense. He has not been fair with the House about the amount of work which has been done by the Select Committee, and he has not been fair about what has been achieved.

1715
The right hon. Gentleman made much play with the unemployment figures. The Committee considered the subject of the loss of jobs. This, too, was signed by the hon. Member for Ayr. I imagine that he believed what he was signing. On pages 88 and 89, he will find what the Committee had to say about the loss of jobs. The Committee pointed out that the kind of jobs lost could be the kind that Scotland would need to lose. That was implicit in some of the policies announced in the Beeching Plan, and one of the last statements which John Maclay made in the House was about closures to come in the mining industry. From 1964 to 1969, agriculture lost about 20,000 jobs. Do we want those jobs back, or was the decline an improvement in the efficiency of agriculture? About 20,000 were lost in mining and about 20,000 on the railways-I can imagine the right hon. Gentleman racing to end the closure proposal in his own area in the north of Scotland.
This kind of process accompanies rationalisation. Our forecast of the number of new jobs was well up to the mark and we achieved what we expected to get in the number of new jobs and we were able to insulate the Scottish economy from the worst effects of the measures which had to be taken to deal with the Tory legacy of a balance of payments deficit of £800 million.
Mr. Brewis Mr. Brewis rose——
Mr. Ross: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish the argument; it is a rather contorted argument, but it is not assisted by intervention.
The Report shows that, but for the measures we took, the fall in the number of jobs in Scotland would have been even greater. The Report says that but for the measures to insulate Scotland and other development areas from the effects of the policy of economic restraint, the figures for unemployment in Scotland would have been much greater. The hon. Member for Ayr and his colleagues signed a Report which was the result of two years' work and then he comes to the House and denies everything he signed in this calculated, considered Report.
Mr. MacArthur: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ross: I have taken a long time. If the hon. Gentleman likes, I will tell him what he wants to say. He is mesmerised by the figure of 82,000. He is a drug addict. He has a capacity for looking facts and figures straight in the face and then looking beyond them and through them. I call it Perthshire blindness.
Mr. MacArthur Mr. MacArthur rose——
Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman will get his chance to speak; we have heard it all.
Mr. MacArthur: The right hon. Gentleman has heard nothing yet.
Mr. Ross: About 10,000 jobs were lost in domestic service. These were the wonderful jobs in Scotland which the Tories would have preserved. They say that we should not have gone in for light industry and computers and so on, but should have concentrated on domestic servants for the lairds.
Mr. MacArthur: On a point of order. We are now in looking-glass-land. If the right hon. Gentleman is courteous enough to answer suspected questions now, will he not allow me first to put the questions so that the answers may have greater relevance to what I propose to put to the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Speaker: I do not recognise any matter of order in that.
Mr. Ross: Nice to have you on my side, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I must bring the right hon. Gentleman away from that view. I am strictly impartial.
Mr. Ross: The position is that once again we saw a run-down of the heavy industries in Scotland——
Mr. MacArthur: Why?
Hon. Members: Grow up.
Mr. Ross: There was a run-down of the old industries, which were replaced by lighter industries.
Mr. MacArthur: Read the Report.
Mr. Ross: I am reading it. The hon. Gentleman should read it and he would appreciate the position. We have

1717
youngsters staying on at school over the age of 15. I suppose that they should have left school and done milk and paper rounds. These jobs have gone, thank goodness. Youngsters are staying on at school, getting better qualifications for better jobs. We have more students; we have 2,000 more students in our technical colleges. If we take our colleges of education and universities, we can add another 12,000. Add to that the number of people over 65 and altogether there is a figure of 41,000. What the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate is that the older industries had begun to decline——
Mr. Younger: Can I help the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Ross: If I ever wanted the help of the hon. Gentleman it would be the last thing that I would take.
Mr. Younger Mr. Younger rose——
Mr. Ross: No, I am sorry I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman accused me of being something the other night which is contrary to the order of the House of Commons. He did not withdraw it, and I have no intention of giving way.
We come to the point when we have to ask whether I have justified the last part of the Amendment:
"— weaken industrial development certificate control and reduce the level of regional assistance given general acceptance in the Report."
I do not think there is any doubt, when we take R.E.P., investment grants and the rest of it, that the difference will be made up by the Local Employment Act. We have experienced the Local Employment Act. The last time it was changed was 1960. Scottish unemployment was 4·4 per cent., and three years later after these great improvement, it was 7·7 per cent. The position in the Scottish development area was worse than when they started.
The hon. Gentleman forgets this but he had better learn by heart that for 18 months, from the winter of 1962 right through the whole of 1963 and the spring of 1964 the average unemployment rate in Scotland was over 100,000 per month. That was the achievement of hon. Gentlemen. The result was that the other thing that we inherited was a net emigration rate running at 45,000 a year.
1718
When we left office we had halved that, bringing it down to 21,000. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot run away from their past. Their past has been a history of saving money on regional development and allowing big business to make its own decisions unhampered by intervention from the centre.
This has been bolstered up by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It was on 30th September when he announced his new measures, and said he would not ram down the throat of industry things it did not want. He said he would consult industry and do what it wanted. Industry wants to stay where it is. Industry is concerned only with itself and it has no responsibility for the welfare for the people of Scotland.
What we require is a ruthless treatment of I.D.C.s. We require an incentive scheme which will stand up to the demands of the area, not one meant to suit the taxation needs of industry, and we require a level of assistance which was envisaged by this Report as being presently just about right in the circumstances. Hon. Gentlemen have a lot to answer for. The right hon. Gentleman cannot write off the fact that employment was rising when we left office. He has been there for over seven months now. As a member of the Cabinet he has a partial responsibility for an economic policy which is leading to economic muddle. The Government have not solved the problem of inflation and are not likely to. They have scrapped anything they had which could help them control prices and they must accept responsibility for this.
I will end with a comment from Monday's Financial Times, which said:
"…industry will have to be given greater grounds for confidence if investment is to revive."
There is no confidence in the future of the economy and of this country under this Government. That is why we have taken the exceptional step of taking note of the work of our colleagues, not merely regretting that the Government have paid no attention to it but condemning them for what they have done.
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member I would ask hon. Members to be as short as possible. I have a long list of speakers.
Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. The point that I wish to raise, which has been raised by other of my hon. Friends, has to do with the practice of arranging a list of speakers before a debate continues, encouraging Members to send in their names and on this basis having a debate that is already cut and dried before it begins. Hon. Members on both sides who do not like this practice feel that there is no sense in their being here at all. If their names are not down, if they have not sent in their names, there is no chance of their being called. May I say that for my part, and I am sure that many hon. Members feel the same way, I deprecate this practice and should like to go back to the situation whereby we took our chance without this list of names?
Mr. Speaker: I agree very much with what the hon. Member has said. It is true that some hon. Members send in their names but I certainly do not make up my mind until I have seen what is happening in the Chamber and have seen who is getting up to catch my eye.
Mr. John Rankin: Further to that point of order. On various occasions we have heard Speakers urge those who hope to be called to speak as briefly as possible. We have already listened to two speeches which I am certain were as short as possible. I wonder whether you could give some guidance on what you mean by "as short as possible"? Is it 10 minutes, 15 minutes, before a Member should pack up?
Mr. Speaker: There was a report from the Select Committee on Procedure which suggested that any member on the back benches should be able to compress his thoughts and ideas into 15 minutes, to the advantage of the House. That was a guide given by the Select Committee which was not, however, accepted by the House.
Mr. James Dempsey: Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that many Members who send in their names feel that they have a much better prospect of being called to speak than those who have not gone to the trouble of doing so? As one who never goes
1720
to the trouble of doing so, may I point out that it is not because of disinterest. I am very interested in these matters. Would it not be worth while considering dispensing with the practice of Members sending in their names and letting us take our chance?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot prevent Members from writing to me asking to be called or writing to me complaining that they have not been called. The only advantage of a list is that it enables the Chair to ascertain how frequently Members have intervened in debates before and to try to call Members who have not done so.
5.40 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell: I shall be very brief. I sent in my name in the hope of intervening at the end of the debate when we had discussed the problems of Central Scotland and I should be able to say that the North-East had been neglected once again. I am sure that what I say will apply equally at twenty to ten tonight.
The problems of North-East Scotland tend to be overshadowed by the noiser debate on and noiser debaters from Central Scotland. I was slightly disappointed to learn that we have a new special development area there because even more time of Scottish Committees and meetings will be taken up discussing the Central Lowlands.
In those parts of the country from which a few of us come there is a feeling that industrial expansion, although it is paramount, has possibly got in front of a Government attitude which applies equally to this Government as to the last Government, that regional development has lost its social objective, and paradoxically, in the north-east of Scotland, agriculture and the preservation of the rural economy might well prove by the 21st century to have been a better long-term bet than some of the indiscriminate industrial expansion which is taking place today. When we hear the use on political platforms of phrases like "the quality of life", "leisure", "the requirements of tourism", and "the coming century of better communications", I like to think that the urban jungles which many of my hon. Friends represent are on the decline.
In the North-East industrial expansion simply means the word "jobs", and the

1721
rate of unemployment, the low activity rate, especially among women, and the widespread use of labour at low levels of productivity are extremely relevant to plans for attracting and expanding industries in the North-East.
I have already appealed to my right hon. Friend about the location of central Government offices in the North-East, and, as an ex-military man starting at the bottom of politics instead of in the conventional military way at the top, I should like to put in a plea to bring more commercial life to North-East Scotland by stationing and training Army units recruited in Scotland in our part of the country. Why should Salisbury Plain get all the money which could well be going into Aberdeen and other places in the North, like Inverness?
May I say as a newcomer to local politics that housing renewal and urban redevelopment must be placed squarely in the context of regional development. It is tragic that the extreme policies being followed in the North-East are deliberately running down our rural areas on the false assumption that the population will in this way be redistributed towards the major growth centres.
Those of us who have read and studied the Gaskin Report know that the North-East has been told that it can support only two main zones of concentration—from the outskirts of suburban Aberdeen running along the Lower Don Valley to Inverurie, and, secondly, the area around Elgin, Forres, Buckie and Keith. But this is at the expense of our other smaller, but viable centres of population. I believe, however, that the overall economy of our area is unlikely to be stabilised by this over-selective policy, and the conclusion of the Gaskin Report was that it is such stability towards which we should be working.
It is wrong deliberately to run down the villages and smaller towns. It is wrong to hasten the decline of any village or town in the North-East which has the ability to remain reasonably viable in its own right, or which could even serve as an attractive satellite or dormitory settlement for some of the larger centres.
A policy of concentrating population in fewer larger villages, if carried to the extreme, will do more harm than good.
1722
In my village, apart from the rise in the school population when I moved in with my family, it is the presence of a distillery which provides exactly 60 per cent. of the children in the school. But for this distillery the school would be closed. We have heard a plea for the children living in the terrible conditions in Glasgow which I well know and which I agree are disgraceful. These are the children who will be the work force of Scotland later in this century. If they are well-distributed, as they are now, in the North-East, this is an aid to both economic expansion and a better way of life.
The contraction of employment in agriculture in the North-East has gone far enough. Expansion in the agricultural industry should be sought just as much as it is in the heavy industries which have been discussed today. Perhaps the new policy on the rating of intensive livestock units will help. Retaining good agricultural land at the expense of attracting suitable sites for building and factory expansion is important in this context.
I believe—and I am glad to have been able to say this at an early stage because I shall be having my supper when other hon. Members are waiting to speak—that the North-East must be preserved in its unique entirety as far as possible and that social engineering—the dreaded phrase used in the books—which tends to ignore the importance of rural communities is short-sighted.
In Aberdeenshire we do not cry for the moon. But it is a terrible reflection on man's folly to be thinking in terms of settlement on the moon in the 21st century when the land mass at our very doorstep is being neglected.
5.48 p.m.
Mr. John Robertson: I shall not take up the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut.-Col. Mitchell). I am sure that we are happy to leave the North-East to him—at least as much of it as my party is prepared to leave to him. I found his speech very refreshing, but I wonder what the occupants of the Government Front Bench thought about it.
If the Secretary of State had dared to speak to the Report we might have had a much more interesting debate. Instead of that we have had a knockabout. I

1723
have been waiting seven months to hear what the right hon. Gentleman will do. We went in a delegation to see him and to ask him what he proposed to do. We said, "There is a problem. What will you do about it?". He said, "It is not my fault. The problem was there when I took office". We have not yet heard what he proposes to do about it.
Today we heard about special aid to Glasgow, but how many more jobs will that create? I have just heard, and I am very thankful to hear it, although I do not know the truth of it, that U.C.S. are not going into liquidation. What relief that will create. That is the message that has just been delivered to me. It may be true or it may not, but it is at least some relief till we get some official news.
Good gracious, imagine what happened today. We wait anxiously for the Scottish Office to tell us something of what is happening, but no news do we get. The Government do not know. There are those 80,000 jobs they talk about. They do not know where they have gone. They spend a lot of time chasing them but they do not know where they have gone. Meantime we are not just losing jobs in pits, in agriculture, in shipbuilding, on the railways, but we are losing jobs in the new electronic industries, in the new science-based industries which we have brought at so much expense up to Scotland. That is where we are suffering injury now, not in the old industries which were dying anyway, but in the new industries which were being brought to Scotland. Not a word did we hear about them today.
The Government seem quite happy to say that all these difficulties and problems were somebody else's fault. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite had taken the trouble to read the Report we produced at a good deal of trouble and some considerable expense to somebody or another, because we journeyed to all kinds of places, for instance, to Inverness where we did very well, and I shall be happy to go there again, that speech which we heard from the right hon. Gentleman today could never have been made. Hon. Members opposite have not read the Report and have not read the evidence in it.
One or two hon. Gentlemen opposite endorse the Report, and, indeed, so much
1724
of it is theirs, and recommendations of theirs are contained in the Report, but what do the Government say about it? All they significantly say about it is that they have not read it. That is what they have actually said. That is the significant point. That is the point made in the speech we heard from that Front Bench today: "We did not bother to read it".
Nor is there any use in their saying that the reasons for the closures and for the redundancies all arose from what happened before last June. It is probably true that these difficulties are due to things which happened before last June, because, for one thing, the right hon. Gentleman was stumping the country telling us what was going to happen if the Tory Party were not elected in June, and that was enough to frighten anybody away. There was that famous speech in Perth. Possibly hon. Members opposite do not remember it. If they do not remember it the industrialists in Scotland remembered it, and they acted accordingly. They started then to make decisions not to invest in Scotland, and that has been going on ever since. We went into the evidence and questioned a great many people about it, industrialists in Scotland, people with expert knowledge.
Although it is probably true that there were errors of policy which could be legitimately criticised, as I have myself criticised them, the last Administration at least attempted to find a whole solution of the problem. One could disagree with parts of it. Indeed, it can be seen from the evidence that there were some disagreements with this or that or another part, but everyone agreed that there was at least an attempt to grapple with the problem—not a problem which has arisen since 1964, but a problem which has been with us for hundreds of years, and with which the people of the Tory Party and in Tory Governments had failed to grapple through all that time, not only in the 13 terrible years, the 13 wasted years, but for years and years before that, during which we had this dreadful problem in Scotland. I know something about it, because I had to spend many years of unemployment in Scotland. At least there was by the last Administration an attempt to find a regional policy, even thought it did not do all the things it was supposed to do.

1725
What have we got now? If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen oposite have come along and said, "The policies of the last Administration have not been successful. They failed, and consequently here we are with a new kind of policy which will succeed", I would have been happier than I feel now, because all that the right hon. Gentleman did was to make a knockabout speech telling us nothing at all, except that he mentioned three schemes. Of the scale and detail of them we know nothing so that we cannot apply them to the problem, we cannot assess them. No one who heard that speech today can see very much future for Scotland or the Scottish people. It frightens me. It is far too serious a matter for just a party knockabout speech.
I had a special interest in the Committee's work, particularly about training of young people, although, of course, with adult retraining, too. Although there were weaknesses there, too, the picture was pleasing. For instance, the number of children leaving school with certificates was increasing and increasing significantly; and the number of young people taking training was also rising. Industry itself did not want too much specialised education and would rather recruit people with a broadly based education, and it would seem that they were the kind of people we were sending out.
The problem is that if we train a youngster, in the North-East or in a Border rural area, where there is no industry or factory in his immediate neighbourhood, it is very difficult to find him other than a dead-end job. He has to take whatever job is available even though his ability and aptitudes fit him for something much better. Even so, there were signs that the training boards recognised this problem, and they tried to set up schemes for training way up in the north of Scotland for boys and girls even though, at that point in time, they could not be employed in industry there. Industries recruited in the north and made arrangements to bring boys and girls down south or into the midlands of Scotland and give them the necessary training. We were making progress.
Two things bother me a bit now. The run-down of industry means that there will be fewer places for the trainees. It
1726
means that the needs of industry for the trainees are a great deal less than they were two years ago. Secondly, there is a fall off in adult training.
Moreover, with the cuts or probable cuts in the educational programme, training centres will not be expanded to meet the needs there are. The suggestion is being made that, when the school leaving age is raised to 16, pupils should be attending further education classes at least one day, or perhaps two days, a week, and that means that valuable places will be taken up which could be occupied by people from industry. So we can expect to find some problem over day release classes, though I hope it will not happen.
The great weakness of all the planning and thinking about regional policy is the complete lack of manpower forecasting, without which the right decisions on training, education and many other matters cannot be made. Unless the Government get down to this aspect we shall never give the right training to the right people in the right quantity at the right time.
Our investigation was a preliminary run to discover the scope of the question before us, and the breadth of our inquiry was narrow. What we need now, on the basis of this first Report, is for the Committee to be reconstituted to go in greater depth into some aspects of the matters raised in the Report, and to come to conclusions. I enjoyed my time on the Committee and I hope that it will be reconstituted so that we can continue with this job.
6.0 p.m.
Mr. John Brewis: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson), who did such a valuable job as chairman of the sub-committee which looked into industrial training, but I am sorry that the debate on the Select Committee's Report should have had a Motion of censure put down upon it, because a Motion of censure brings out the worst in all hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies, and we shall not be able fully to discuss the Report. It would have been much better if the Opposition had used a Supply Day if they thought that this was a subject on which a debate was worth while.

1727
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) juggled with figures to try to hide the actual facts, and told us that the redundancies which would occur were already known. His approach seems incredible when one looks at the figures given in his White Paper on the Scottish Economy, 1965–70 (Cmnd. 2864), when he estimated a yearly increase of 10,000 jobs. I find it extraordinary that anyone should say that the previous Government's measures for encouraging industry were comprehensive when they brought in selective employment tax, put up transport costs, which are so immensely important in Scotland, and discriminated against the service industries. Experience shows that regional policy and jobs depend on a satisfactory growth rate in the economy, which the last Government singularly failed to achieve during most of their term of office. When the economy is buoyant and industry sees good investment opportunities, the development areas benefit.
All parties are convinced of the importance of regional development, but we must see that the package of inducements is right to take advantage of the upturn of the economy. The Labour Party's failure was not that it did not give sufficient attention to regional development but that it failed gruesomely in the way in which it ran the national economy.
I do not want to spend much time on the change which has been made from investment grants to free depreciation. The reasons for the change are given in paragraph 2 of the White Paper "Investment Incentives", which was published in October, and they seem good reasons to me. The previous scheme favoured capital intensive industries. It was not tied to employment. Taking the projection up to 1974 and 1975 which is in the appendix, it is calculated that the cost would have been the huge sum of £725 million. The Conservative Government think that free depreciation will be cheaper and equally effective. When it was originally introduced in 1963 its reception was encouraging. Speaking from memory, in the first half year of 1964 there were four times as many applications for I.D.C.s in development districts as there were before.
Mr. Douglas: The hon. Gentleman is talking about free depreciation in the context of letting the national economy grow to achieve a growth rate at that period of 6 per cent. Is he saying that he will let the United Kingdom economy grow to get a 6 per cent. growth rate, because that is the only way under free depreciation to get growth of industry in Scotland?
Mr. Brewis: I am afraid I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, but if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he may be able to elaborate it.
The Select Committee heard a certain amount of evidence from industrialists that they preferred free depreciation, and this has been reinforced by the inquiry of the Department of Trade and Industry which was announced in a Written Answer on 14th December. This showed that 60 per cent. of the industrialists questioned, representing 60 per cent. of the amount invested, preferred free depreciation, while 20 per cent., representing 35 per cent. of investment, preferred industrial development grants. We must take into account the views not so much of academics and theoreticians but of the people who will establish industries in the regions.
Mr. Dempsey: Will the hon. Gentleman say how many industrialists were circularised and what percentage that was of all the industrialists in Scotland?
Mr. Brewis: I cannot say offhand, but I think from memory about 300 firms were circularised of which about 45 per cent. responded. The rest were followed up and interviewed. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the answer he will get the figures.
I should like to raise one question. What is to happen to firms starting up for the first time in Scotland and foreign firms coming to Scotland who have no British record of profits? Even if they get assistance under the Local Employment Acts, will that be equal to 100 per cent. free depreciation? Assistance under the Local Employment Acts is tied to the provision of so much employment for so much grant. With a capital intensive industry, might not a British firm like I.C.I., which has a profit record against which it can set free depreciation, be in a much better position than, say, a competing American or Common Market firm

1729
which would not have a profit record and might not get the grant in a capital intensive industry because the amount required was more than the limit of so much per job?
I turn to the other inducements, negative and positive, which we considered in the Select Committee. The evidence we had from the Scottish Office was that the I.D.C. system was a vital system of control. I do not question this, but I wonder how effective it is. Obviously, the officials of the Department of Trade and Industry have to exercise their discretion, bearing in mind the overriding importance of the national economy. The number of I.D.Cs refused in non-development areas seems disappointingly small. Between 1965 and 1968 during the term of the previous Government, 90 per cent. by number and 85 per cent. by floor area in the South-East and Midlands of England were granted. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock said that it was necessary to have ruthless treatment of I.D.Cs, but by 1969 the figures were worse—92 per cent. by number and 88 per cent. by floor area were granted.
I admit that these figures may be misleading, but we must bear in mind that a company could find vacant premises even in the centre of London and at the moment move into those premises without an industrial development certificate. Certainly the advertisements in the Financial Times or the Economist for new premises in industrial estates in the Midlands show that I.D.C.s are not so hard to get as they ought to be.
Mr. John Robertson: Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that we could scrap I.D.Cs altogether, or that we should put forward a tougher I.D.C. policy? The Committee recommended a tougher policy in this respect.
Mr. Brewis: I think we are in agreement on this. I am not recommending the scrapping of I.D.Cs. It is relevant in showing the comparative ineffectiveness of I.D.Cs that no other developed Western European country, with perhaps one exception, has adopted this system. Clearly the I.D.C. system needs reinforcement.
I wish to draw the Government's attention to the cost of congestion. We discovered
1730
in the Committee that no study had been carried out on this matter either by the Labour Government or by any other Government, except possibly by the Ministry of Transport in connection with motor cars. If people migrate from Scotland or Wales to seek work in the English Midlands, the cost of building new houses and of providing the social infrastructure will be great indeed. I personally recommend that thought should be given to the dissenting note in the Hunt Report by Professor Brown, in which he recommends a congestion tax. I cannot obviously enter into the arguments he deploys in that Report, but they are also to be found in the Report of the Select Committee. Such a tax might take the form of a graduated payroll tax and be phased to replace S.E.T. and probably regional employment premium as well. But such a tax would not discriminate against the service industries which can make a contribution to providing employment in Scotland.
We know the stock answer: "Why give inducements for a new shop to open up in the High Street which will take away custom from an existing shop?" But the service industries mean much more than just the retail trade. Merchant banks and insurance companies, for example, are heavily concentrated in London, which is the main financial centre of our country, but some 15 per cent. of financial business in the United Kingdom is transacted in Edinburgh. The logic of the suggestion I am putting forward is that Edinburgh should no longer be excluded from development area status. Much more study needs to be done of the service industries. We heard evidence from Professor Wilson of Glasgow University. It is interesting to see that the Highland Development Board has the power to encourage service industries in its area. I believe I am right in saying 60 per cent. of the new jobs in the Highlands are not in manufacturing.
I welcome the extension of the new tax allowances announced by the Government to the service industries. Scottish Members of Parliament who represent development areas have not perhaps realised that their constituencies are not now so near the top of the queue in the hierarchy for assistance. The first and the highest rank is the extra inducement given to industry in Northern Ireland; then there is the Highland Development

1731
Board, which has its edge; then there are special development districts, about which we have had a further announcement today, and which in general I very much welcome. Only fourthly do we come to the ordinary development areas, and competing to a certain extent with them are the intermediate areas. In fact, there are areas that are development areas with problems equal to or worse than the situation in the Highlands.
I turn to the Report, "A Strategy for South West Scotland" which covers the area I represent. Paragraph 4 says
"Since 1965, however, the rate of decline in population has worsened because of higher migration and lower natural increase. At the same time unemployment has risen in absolute numbers and in relation to the Scottish average."
It then mentions the male unemployment level as
"now one and a half times the Scottish average and two and a half times the United Kingdom rate."
On page 10, dealing with the Machars of Wigtownshire, it says
"it is clear that unless special measures are taken a continuing serious decline must be expected."
Certainly the unemployment figures are alarming. Male unemployment between 1966 and 1969 in Newton Stewart has gone up from 6·6 per cent. to 7·9 per cent. but that covers over 15 per cent. unemployment in the Whithorn area; in Stranraer the figure has gone up from 7·3 per cent, to 9·9 per cent.; in Sanquhar from 6·7 per cent. to 25·6 per cent.; and in Girvan from 5·9 per cent. to 10·6 per cent. The last two localities are special development areas, but it is surely intolerable that there should be 9·9 per cent. and probably higher unemployment in the Stranraer area now and that it should not be given special development area status.
I argued for this status for a long time when the Labour Government were in power, but was always told that such status could only be given to colliery areas. I therefore welcome the extension of the principle announced by my right hon. Friend today. But there is an alternative. Let us make more use of the Development Commission and give that Commission the same sorts of powers and edge in rural areas as has been given to the Highland Development Board. At
1732
present the Development Commission works mostly in Mid-Wales. Why should it not come to some of the rural areas in Scotland?
We had some exchanges in the Select Committee about small industries being allowed to go to Glasgow and other big towns. Such factories employing a dozen or two dozen workers can make negligible contributions to a big town, but they could transform the position in a rural area. Let us have a conscious policy of keeping such factories away from cities and give an edge to the Development Commission so that it can get on with the job.
I hope that the Government will take up some of these points, all of which were discussed in the Select Committee. They do not add up to a greatly increased expenditure. Indeed, if a congestion tax were adopted, it might reduce Government expenditure. I am convinced that we must have the right packet of inducements available to offer when the economy swings up again so that we can obtain the maximum advantage.
6.19 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) always speaks with a good deal of reason, and we would not disagree with much of what he says. The difference between his speech and that of the Secretary of State for Scotland is that at least the hon. Gentleman addressed himself to the Report which we are supposed to be debating. Our objection was to the fact that the Secretary of State dealt a calculated insult to the Committee.
The point was well made by the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), in a devastating exposé of the case, not only of what the Labour Government did, but of what the present Government are not doing. After hearing the Secretary of State, we begin to understand why he is coy and shy about making speeches in the House. If he is going to make that kind of speech, I hope he will stay away more often. It was no contribution to solving the problems that we are discussing. We can bandy figures around to prove that one Government was worse or better than another. The Secretary of State quoted the July, 1970, figure of 93,000 unemployed. I quickly looked up

1733
the figure for July, 1963; it was over 94,000. Where does one go from there? What is the object of making that kind of point?
I was interested in what the Secretary of State said about the need to improve infrastructure. The Conservative Party made this point at the General Election. The figures of public expenditure in the White Paper show how promises are matched by performance. Taking the housing figure, which I endeavoured to quote at Question Time today, one finds that projected public expenditure on housing is virtually the same for 1969–70 and 1974–75. This can only impose a cut in the total number of houses or a massive cut in the subsidies, or both. The Secretary of State steadily refutes these charges. He refused to answer my hon. Friend's question today. My hon. Friend did not ask for a target for housing, but whether the present Government would exceed in any one year during which they are in power the figure of 44,000 which we achieved last year.
The same applies to other infrastructure matters. For example, the figure in the White Paper for expenditure on education is, in round figures, £240 million in 1969–70 and £271 million in 1974–75. Presumably all of that is devoted to the additional expenses due to the raising of the school leaving age. What real improvement will there be in education in Scotland, which plays a very large part in its future economic well being?
What will be the future of the Select Committee? Anyone in Scotland who reads the Report will admit that nowhere at any time has such an investigation in depth of the Scottish economy taken place. It is almost incredible that we should have a virtually unanimous report from that Committee with one exception—and we all know what happened to her. We can commend ourselves that the Committee took such an objective view of the Scottish economy. Why then is the Government so chary about setting up the Committee this Session. We appreciate their difficulties as to both numbers and ability on their side to man the Committee. But they can rest assured that we shall object strongly if there are members from the other place on the Committee, for they have nothing whatever to do with us. Anyone who reads the debate on the Scottish Highlands which took place last
1734
week in the other place must realise the depths which the Conservative Party would plumb if it appointed gentlemen from that place to a Committee examining the Scottish economy.
I want to refer briefly to the appointment of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) to the office that he now occupies. He made reference the other night to the part which I played in a debate some two years ago. That was entirely a matter of private enterprise. which I believe in—in this place anyhow. I was under no pressure from anybody. I did that entirely off my own bat and I take full responsibility for it. What I was endeavouring to do then—I hope with success, and the Scottish people evidently believed it—was to defend the record of the Labour Government over the years. The hon. Member for Ayr has had as bad a Press in Scotland about the alibis which he has produced for his lack of activity over the last six months as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), who is a Common Marketeer and has done an about-turn on just about everything.
On regional policies in general, I agree with the hon. Member for Galloway that a buoyant economy overall is of far more significance than any incentives which any Government use to achieve regional differentiation. But there is much evidence that the Government's plans for regional development will have to be completely overhauled, even before they get off the ground.
In an article in the Sunday Times of 24th January Malcolm Crawford, the Economics Editor, wrote:
"Whitehall slates Tory regional plan. Conservative plans for regional policy are having to be completely re-thought as a result of criticisms contained in a confidential Whitehall study, which the new Government ordered when it took office. In view of the Government's commitment to abolish the £100 million a year regional employment premium in 1974 and its scaling down of capital plant incentives for development areas (by abolishing investment grants) the report concludes that additional support for depressed areas, in some form or other, will be needed if these regions are not to go rapidly downhill."
This is a report which has been presented to the Government by experts in Whitehall. The article continues:
"Tory policy is, in theory, to give whatever stimuli depressed regions need in the form of 'infrastructure' spending (public construction

1735
projects). But the departmental study is sceptical about the usefulness of this as a substitute for grants to industry. Infrastructure spending takes much longer to attract industry to a depressed area, officials hold, and the amount of money required to attract industry is much greater in terms of real resource costs."
There is no evidence in the White Paper on public expenditure that the Government accept that proposition. I want to know whether we shall see that report from officials in Whitehall which has been presented to Ministers and which directly challenges the efficacy of the Government's regional policy. The House has a right to see this assessment by Whitehall officials.
Scotland is in for some extremely rough weather in the next two or three years if the Government persist pig-headedly in their new pursuit. We can see it in Glenrothes. We have lost many jobs there in the last six months. There is a fear that American dumping of electronic components is losing us a lot of new jobs in Glenrothes and other towns. There is growing concern at the lack of clear Government policy. We understand that we shall be having a White Paper on regional policy. I do not know when that will come, but meanwhile the uncertainty is growing. Investment is virtually standing still. Unemployment has reached 100,000 men. That is significant. Never in any month in the six years of Labour Government did the figure reach 100,000. It is significant that in 1963 the average was 105,000, summer, winter, spring and autumn, and that after 12 years of the kinds of policy that the Government are now proposing.
The Secretary of State says that he intends to rely on the Local Employment Acts. I ask him to read the Report of the Estimates Committee which looked into the working of those Acts. That all-party Committee's Report made it very clear that investment was at its lowest when the need was greatest. These are the Acts on which the Government pin their faith. They have learned nothing since that Report was produced. Everyone knows it. Industrial experts, the C.B.I., the T.U.C.—every objective observer of the scene knows it
I come then to the article in the magazine Scotland, from which my right hon.
1736
Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) quoted. The Under-Secretary of State for Development goes piddling off to Germany and says that German industries will be coming to Scotland. I wager that he will not get one. Perhaps I might make one brief quotation from that article by Mr. Scott Nelson. He says:
"Cash assistance is the greatest attraction in terms of investment incentive. This is even more true of the foreign investor where the movement of funds and exchange complications make any local contribution to investment costs very acceptable. Of the O.E.C.D. countries Holland, Sweden, Germany, France and Italy give grants to attract private industry to the underdeveloped regions. Denmark and Norway give loan guarantees and Belgium offers cheap finance. All countries except Britain give favourable tax treatment for development area investment. … The overall picture however suggests that the United Kingdom as a whole must lose some ground to the other nations still offering cash grants. And on top of that if the foreign investment is attracted to the United Kingdom the incentives to select a development area rather than elsewhere are not now so strong."
Even assuming that the Government attract German industry, which I doubt, the incentives to go to development areas will be less strong than they were under the previous Government. However, because other countries in the O.E.C.D. give grants rather than the kinds of allowance that the Government have in mind, they are not likely to come to this country in any event.
The Government should be taking account of this kind of objective statement of the facts rather than heeding the skinheads in the Department of Trade and Industry. Skinheads there and skinheads from Wolverhampton will make no contribution to the economy of Scotland. We shall never get the kind of growth in Scotland that we want to see unless we pursue policies based on the acceptance of the fact that the economy can be planned. We cannot accept that the free play of market forces can provide the answer. But that is the essence of the policies of this Government.
If the Government allow that alone to influence them in their regional policies, we are in for the roughest time that we have had this century.
6.34 p.m.
Sir John Gilmour: I was encouraged to hear the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), who represents a constituency which has a

1737
fairly strong Left-wing bias, talking so much in favour of private enterprise. That is one of the troubles with the hon. Gentleman: he wants to hedge his bets.
One feature of debates on the Scottish economy which I find extraordinary is how definite people tend to be that they all know the answers. If we knew all the answers, there would be no problems in the Scottish economy. It is the fact that we have to change our policies and learn from experience all the time which makes it even more necessary to conduct a debate of this kind on a constructive level. It is no good hon. Members quoting figures for one year and comparing them with those for another year.
Mr. William Hamilton: The Secretary of State did.
Sir J. Gilmour: My right hon. Friend's reason for doing so was to protect himself against the totally unjustified Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). That preempts the argument by not wanting to begin the debate on a constructive basis. In this instance, the blame is on both sides. However, if it is done by one side, it must be taken up by the other. The time has come to knock a few heads together and get down to talking sense.
The former Secretary of State seemed certain that all the action taken under his leadership was right. The hon. Member for Fife, West quoted the unemployment figures in Scotland for 1963. However, I am certain that whatever happened to the unemployment figures after 1963 was probably the result of decisions taken back in 1962. That is the sort of time lag that we are dealing with when we discuss whether the number of available jobs is increasing or decreasing.
I do not believe that there is any relevance in the argument that because there happened to be a General Election in June there was a sudden difference to the economy. That is a matter which is tied up with the tenor of trade throughout the world and the number of orders which were on order books six or even nine months ago. It has nothing to do with the change in Government.
The Committee found that it was extremely difficult to pinpoint what it was that helped people. In my view, at the end of the day we shall finish up with a compromise between the two possibilities.
1738
When we get down to a consideration of investment grants and tax concessions, it is not easy to decide which is the better. Certain industries will do better with one sort of help. If we go on giving grants to others, we shall merely waste public money. In their case, it would be better to discontinue them.
Mr. Douglas: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of competition between the different types of incentive offered? Is he pressing his own Front Bench to offer a package of investment grants and tax-based incentives and allow firms to choose between the two?
Sir J. Gilmour: I do not think so, and I will give my reasons later. I will refer to one or two items in the Report and relate them to this point.
There are certain industries which have different problems and, therefore, need to be dealt with in a different way. That does not mean, however, that we should give an industry the opportunity to make its own choice. That would not be in the interests of the taxpayer. When we consider these matters, we must keep in mind all the time that we do not have unlimited money. We want to use the money at our disposal in the most efficient way to produce the desired results.
Turning to the Committee's Report, I want first to refer to paragraph III.4. It says that out of £308·7 million spent in the United Kingdom on support for industry and research and development in 1967–68, the Scottish share was £18·4 million, or only about 6 per cent. It became clear to the Select Committee that money spent on research and development generates jobs and that Scotland is not getting its fair share of research and development. That is one valuable contribution made by the Report, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friend will pay due attention to it.
Mr. Richard Buchanan: Is not the hon. Gentleman misreading the Report? Surely the amount spent on research and development in Scotland was about 11 per lent. of the corresponding United Kingdom total, not 6 per cent.
Sir J. Gilmour: The Scottish share was 6 per cent. Scotland has had a

1739
great turn-round from industries which were declining. This was another point which came out of the Report. The Scottish Office said that it was able to predict fairly accurately the number of jobs which would be won in new industries, but it failed to predict accurately the run-down in the older industries. This seems to suggest that we need to spend a greater proportion on research and development in areas like Scotland—not only in Scotland—than in other parts of the country. This was one valuable point which came from the Report.
Mr. Lawson: I think that, in fairness, the hon. Gentleman will agree that what emerged was that the industries predicted but failed to predict accurately.
Sir J. Gilmour: That is not entirely true. I should have to look up that point. I shall be glad to admit if I am wrong.
The Scottish Office witnesses said that they had found it easier to assess from what was being processed through the various Ministries about the growth of newer industries, but that they had not been able to make as good a judgment as they would like on the run-down of the older industries. It may be that they were misled by the estimates which were given. Indeed, many of the older industries were losing employment because of definite judgments which were being taken by the Government. In other words, if a squeeze is put on agricultural profits, the result is that fewer people are employed on the land. Therefore, the judgment which the Scottish Office and other people make at the time of a Price Review either accelerates or slows down what happens in this sphere. So it goes on in other industries.
On page 52 of the Report we come back to the point:
"The C.B.I. (London) considered that the grant exercised a marked influence only where the other benefits of location inside or outside the Development Areas were fairly evenly balanced".
What does not come out well enough in the Report is that the grant is very much influenced by the climate of the economy and the rate of interest at which people can borrow money. This has a great effect. This came out later in some
1740
of the evidence given to the Committee. A continuing hight rate of interest to be paid on borrowed money probably has a greater effect on slowing down the development of industry than anything else.
Mr. Ross: Surely, when considering the value of grants as against tax allowances, the fact of a 40 per cent. cash grant immediately reduces the amount which has to be borrowed and is prefer. able to an indefinite tax allowance?
Sir J. Gilmour: I agree. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that with a high interest borrowing rate for money the idea of getting a grant becomes increasingly attractive. This seems a matter of straight common sense. It is not easy to look at the matter in isolation and say that grants or other incentives are always better. There are times when the general economic climate of the country would force someone to change. We have to consider not only the industrialist's point of view but what, in the interests of the taxpayer, will get him the best value for money.
There are certain industries where consideration ought to be given to grants. One is the tourist industry. For instance, hotels in the Highlands area in out-of-the-way places with short seasons have to earn a return on their money in four or five months of the year. This type of industry needs its financial requirements to be judged in a different way from a factory which can operate on full capacity for 12 months of the year. That is why there is much to be said for not always saying that this is the only way that it can be done, and for having the possibility of choice so that certain means can be used for supporting certain industries and other means can be used for assisting other industries.
Mr. Brewis: Concerning the hotel which may be empty for seven months of the year, does my hon. Friend agree that some rebate on rates might be the better answer?
Sir J. Gilmour: I very much doubt it. It might be a more effective way of assisting, but I do not think so. The real trouble in the tourist industry, particularly in the remoter areas, is earning enough on the invested capital within a short season. If the investment is cut

1741
down by a grant, there is more hope that this can be achieved. I think that is worth considering.
Hon Gentlemen opposite have asked whether the Select Committee should be reappointed. The inquiry was very useful to those who sat on the Committee. It certainly taught us a good deal about how economic planning decisions are made. But, because the inquiry was so broad, it was difficult to pinpoint any way which would enable us to come back to the Government of the day, irrespective of which party was in power, and say "As a result of our deliberations, we believe that this is what should be done." If the Committee is reappointed, it would be more helpful if it could inquire into rather narrower areas which have been neglected in the past and look at certain items. I think that this would enable the Committee, if reconstituted, to carry out its work to the best effect.
6.47 p.m.
Mr. David Lambie: I should like to take up the point raised by the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) about the industrial future of Scotland depending on growth in the United Kingdom economy.
That point is brought out in the Report at page 92, paragraph VII.4, where it states:
"new industry which comes to Development Areas is certain to be a limited one at any period during which industrial growth in the United Kingdom as a whole is limited."
I am depressed that we should have a United Kingdom economy which is not buoyant. The Government's policy will not in the near future make the United Kingdom economy more buoyant. Therefore, as conditions get worse in Britain, the position in Scotland must get much worse.
It is true that a prosperous Scotland is dependent on a prosperous Britain. But it does not automatically follow that a prosperous United Kingdom means a prosperous Scotland. We had fairly substantial growth in the 1950s under a Conservative Government, but that growth did not follow through to Scotland.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) gave figures covering
1742
that period. At one stage Scotland reached a figure of over 130,000 unemployed. It also had a net emigration rate of about 50,000 leaving Scotland for the more prosperous areas of the Midlands and south of England and countries like Canada and the United States. Therefore, it does not automatically follow that a prosperous United Kingdom means a prosperous Scotland.
Despite the new developments which took place under the last Labour Government and, to give them some credit, developments which took place during the previous Conservative Government's period of office, the economy of Scotland has been running down. That is not because the new developments have not been coming in. They were coming in in ever-increasing numbers under the Labour Government. We were reaching our targets, but what we did not see was that the old, basic industries of Scotland were declining faster and faster. We were not bringing in new jobs quickly enough to overtake the rundown in the traditional industries.
Moreover, with the modernisation of existing plants and the introduction of automation there has been an automatic decline in the demand for labour. I have heard statements that the electrification of the Carlisle-Glasgow line will mean a loss of 400 jobs; the modernisation of British Rail means an automatic loss of 400 jobs in areas in the South of Scotland that are among the hardest hit by unemployment.
Therefore, we must look for a new base, for new policies to put Scotland on an equal footing with the other areas of the United Kingdom, so that when the next Labour Government gets the British economy going again Scotland will be in the forefront of further development.
The prosperity of Scotland was based on cheap raw materials, on our native products—iron ore, coal, limestone and water. Those were the basic raw materials on which Scotland's heavy industries and her prosperity were built. Unfortunately, the new light engineering and science-based industries, instead of going to the traditional heavy industrial areas, went down to the market areas in the Midlands and Southern England. During the 1950s a triangle was built up of the prosperous

1743
Midlands and London area and the depressed heavy industrial areas of North-West England, North-East England, and the industrial areas of Scotland.
Scotland needs a new base to compare with the tremendous attraction of the large market in the Midlands and the south of England. That is why it was very disappointing to hear the Secretary of State's statement today, and to hear him make only a passing reference to the tremendous industrial development that could come from using the deep water facilities on the Clyde. I was very disappointed that he said that even development at Hunterston would give very little immediate aid to the unemployed in Scotland.
The Government have been floating a great winter relief scheme, and the Secretary of State took great credit for it today. The sum of £1¾ million is to be spent on Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman does not know how many jobs that will give us and how he will spend it, but it is to meet all the needs of the unemployed in Scotland—115,000 people.
Mr. Gordon Campbell: I made it clear that it was an emergency scheme to provide help. That is what the deputation of Labour Members who came to see me in September recommended. They agreed that it was limited in what it could do. In answer to Questions and in letters I have indicated the allocation of money to different areas.
Mr. Lambie: The right hon. Gentleman made a great claim in his speech that the £1¾ million would solve the problem, that it would help to provide jobs for the 115,000 unemployed. Yet he is stopping a £40 million development by not giving a decision on the Hunterston inquiry. An American oil company wishes to spend £40 million to build an oil refinery in one of the areas of highest unemployment in Scotland, and the right hon. Gentleman is dithering, not giving any reply. The only information we have is leaked through the national Press. Therefore, I deny the right hon. Gentleman's statement that developments at Hunterston will not give any immediate benefit to the unemployed in Scotland. If he had taken his decision six months ago, as he should have done as the representative of the Scottish people, the refinery
1744
would have been under construction now, and 2,000 people would be preparing the land and putting in the services on that site. The total of 2,000 people who would be working but for the Secretary of State's lack of action is greater than the total who will obtain jobs as a result of the £1¾ million relief aid that he has given to the whole of Scotland.
Mr. Gordon Campbell: I could not possibly have taken the decision then, because that was the moment, just under six months ago, when the Report of the inquiry came to me.
Mr. Lambie: It is the right hon. Gentleman's job to make a decision immediately he receives a report that is vital to Scotland. He knows that every individual who took part in the inquiry was given the evidence to consider two or three months before the publication of the Report. The only thing the right hon. Gentleman received about six months ago was the findings of the inquiry. It was his job to make as quick a decision as possible.
Scotland needs a new base. We must have an attraction that no other area in Britain has, and we have it in the deep water facilities in the estuary of the Clyde. It is the only estuary in Britain, and is one of the few estuaries in Western Europe, where the large new super bulk carriers can enter without any dredging and without any danger. During the past two or three months ship after ship has been involved in a collision or near-collision in the Channel. In the Clyde we see the best entry into the United Kingdom not being used because the Secretary of State is not prepared to give a decision that will alienate some of his Tory friends who live in the Hunterston and North Ayrshire area.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will reply to this matter truthfully at the end of the debate. It is all right sending men to Germany to obtain work. The Secretary of State should send his hon. Friend to Ayr County Council, who are prepared to go ahead with a project involving £600 million. It is ready for the go-ahead, but the Secretary of State is not prepared to give it.
The need for a decision by the right hon. Gentleman is even more urgent because, according to newspaper reports, the British Steel Corporation, in making

1745
its plans for steel development into the 1970s and 1980s, has decided that its first major project will be at Scunthorpe and its second at Redcar. Scotland is not mentioned. Yet at Hunterston we have an area already designated for a new integrated green field site. But unless the right hon. Gentleman speaks up for Scotland we shall not be in the list of priorities now being drawn up by the Corporation.
Mr. James Hamilton: My hon. Friend is on a very important point for Scotland, the question of steel production. I learnt from a very reliable trade union official last Friday that within the next five years the British Steel Corporation will close five steel plants in Scotland, and that no provision has been made yet to deal with this problem. I have a Question on the Order Paper about this, and I hope that the Government's reply will be that they are fighting to ensure that some of the steel industry is captured for Scotland.
Mr. Lambie: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. I will go even further: by 1980 the Scottish steel industry will be liquidated, with only one ancient plant at Ravenscraig remaining.
Here we have a Secretary of State who never makes a statement in Parliament. All the information in Scotland comes through leaks in the Press. We are being governed now by reporters leaking information to the public. Unless the Secretary of State gets off his hind legs, brings back his man from Germany and sends him down to London, where the decisions affecting the future of Scottish steel will be made, Scotland will be bypassed again——
Mr. Paul Hawkins: Not so.
Mr. Lambie: It is all right for the hon. Gentleman, from his seat at the end of the Front Bench, to say that it is not true. He represents an English constituency. The Secretary of State and I represent Scottish constituencies, and want a voice in the future of Scottish steel.
I read in The Scotsman last week that the Secretary of State had received a memorandum prepared by the Department of Trade and Industry on the developments at Hunterston. He knows that during the Adjournment debate which I
1746
had on this I challenged the Under-Secretary to deny that an English Minister was interfering in a Scottish decision. That night he said that what I was saying was not true, and that the Secretary of State would take the decision himself.
Yet within a fortnight we had the Secretary of State's decision, stating that he was delaying making any decision on the Chevron Oil proposal at Huntersdon until he had considered a memorandum from the Department of Trade and Industry. Indeed, we know—not by a statement in the House but again through a leak in the Press—that the Secretary of State has that memorandum and he has said, according to the reporters, that he is not giving out information about the memorandum until he can give information to the objectors.
Mr. Gordon Campbell: The hon. Member is misleading, and I must therefore intervene. Hon. Members can look up what he said in his Adjournment debate. When I took my decisions later, almost everything that he said was proved to be wrong. I decided to postpone the decision on the refinery—it was my decision—because I found that the information on which the reporter's report and recommendations had been based was by then out of date and the best way in which I would get the latest information was from the Department of Trade and Industry. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if he reads too much in the newspapers and thinks that it is all correct, he himself will be greatly misled.
Mr. Lambie: If I do not read the newspapers I do not know what is going on, because the Secretary of State never speaks. He never makes a statement in the House. I agree with the Secretary of State that what I said was wrong, but, as a good Scotsman, when I heard that an English Minister was interfering in a Scottish political decision I assumed that he was doing that to harm Scotland.
Unfortunately, we have now to look to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for help—the biggest Tory of them all. We have to depend on him to tell the Secretary of State not to come down on this development, that the United Kingdom economy needs it. So that Secretary of State should be here to hear the pleas of the Scottish people. We have some faith in him, because he

1747
interfered with the Secretary of State for Scotland. Our only hope is that he acts on his memorandum and overcomes the indecision of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. James Hamilton Mr. James Hamilton rose—
Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: Sir Robert——
Mr. Lambie: On a point of order. I had given way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton).
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The lion. Member did not indicate what he was doing and his last words sounded like a very good end to a peroration, so I assumed that he had finished. However, if he had not, but was only giving way to his hon. Friend, I would ask the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) to wait a moment.
Mr. Lambie: On that point, Sir Robert. I have been fair with my time allocation but I think that I am overstepping it now. If you think that that was a good ending to my speech, then I will stop there.
7.5 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: Whatever the merits or demerits of the hon. Gentleman's peroration, and whether it was his peroration or not—if it was not, what would his peroration have been?—I should like to get back to the matter which we are supposed to be discussing, the Report of the Select Committee. I greatly value the hard work which many hon. and distinguished colleagues have obviously put into it. I do not know whether it is commendation or not, but I shall certainly keep this Report as extremely useful reference material for much of what is going on in Scotland.
However, I must admit that my general reaction was that a good deal of time, effort and probably money had been spent on confirming the general sense of much that is going on at present, and also recognising the general sense of what may be likely in future. I am not surprised at that. Not having been a member of the Committee, I have been struck today by the general desire to get a concensus on the points discussed. I am not surprised
1748
at that either, because the average norm of our administration is good common sense, whatever the politicians may get up to. It is only in particular instances that one meets examples of the excessive stupidity or the great brilliance which can be the bane or inspiration of us all. To deal with particular instances like that is hardly the function, and could not be the function, of a Select Committee like this.
That conclusion is, I think, borne out by what the Report says about, for example, the machinery for co-operation between the Scottish Office and those Departments responsible for the whole of Great Britain. It says that that machinery is fully available but not necessarily always used. It is part of our function to see that it is always fully used.
I was glad to have the confirmation of the Committee, in its first paragraph, that economic planning has been the function, whatever it has been called, of Government to a greater or less degree since the 1930s. One might have thought in the early days of the last Labour Government that economic planning was a totally new idea and that all that was needed for the development and success of the Scottish economy was to plan it economically. The truth, of course, is that economic activity has required, and always will require, planning, but it is important to see that the planning does not get totally out of perspective.
I wish to deal with some of the more angled, so to speak, comments in the Report, many of which are particularly interesting. For example, we read in paragraph VII.8 that the then Secretary of State told the Committee
"that he thought that assistance through regional policy measures had not yet reached the peak that will be necessary; after the peak has been reached, he thought that a high level of assistance would be needed for a considerable number of years before assistance starts to taper off."
I am surprised that the Committee did not press the right hon. Gentleman further to find out precisely the sort of figures he would put to that statement and the number of years he would regard as reasonable. I hope that some flesh and blood will be added to the right hon. Gentleman's statement.
We in the North-East feel this question of regional development personally, It

1749
is a matter of great moment to us. We tend to look at the central belt of Scotland as a highly developed area of Scotland, though today we hear that a section of it must be made into a special development area. What guarantee do we have —even if the aid going to development areas is extended more than it is at present—that this aid can ever be withdrawn, particularly in view of today's statement?
We read in paragraph III.27 that the Committee
"were surprised to find that the Board of Trade neither appears to play an important part in decision as to what kind of air services Scotland should have, nor regards itself as closely responsible for identifying the needs of the community or for encouraging the airlines to meet them"
beyond its function of running some Scottish airports.
I recall that in 1969 I went into great detail about the administration of Scottish airports, and, in particular, into the situation at Aberdeen Airport. At that time considerable dissatisfaction had been expressed and there had been a discussion to see whether a better method could be adopted to overcome the difficulties. The impression I got—and this Report confirms it—was that the Board of Trade had more or less given up all idea of the future development of these airports. Yet Aberdeen and the North-East in an air-conscious part of the world. Whenever I make the journey I find many people travelling by air, even though the service is linked more to the 'fifties in terms of speed and comfort than to the 'seventies.
It appeared then that the Board of Trade was completely uninterested in this subject and unprepared to develop its assets, these airports, and the services that were being provided. While the saga of operational and navigational losses continued, nobody wanted to have a go with this form of communication in Scotland. I hope that one effect of the impact of the present purposive Government, on wherever the Board of Trade has disappeared to in the Ministry of Technology is that the air communication services in Scotland in general and in the North-East in particular will be greatly developed.
Mr. Rankin: Is Aberdeen a municipal airport? If so, what part is the local authority playing, in liaison with the
1750
Board of Trade, to maintain and improve the airport?
Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Aberdeen is not a municipal airport. It is owned, administered and run by the Board of Trade.
I hope that the Board of Trade will be encouraged to develop the opportunities that it has at this and other airports, that B.U.A.-Caledonian will have a chance to come to Aberdeen and that B.E.A. will not turn aside from this captive marked which has indulged it so long but will proceed to put jets on the route and open up the opportunities that undoubtedly exist.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman say what happened to Channel Airways, which tried to compete with B.E.A. from Dyce? When I last went to Dyce I did not see the firm operating there.
Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I am afraid that Channel Airways started rather too soon from the point of view of anybody wanting to take part in private enterprise. I hope that that firm will reconsider the opportunities for private individuals to play a part in developing, expanding and improving air services throughout Scotland and that private firms will have a chance to come back. I hope that Channel Airways did not lose too much money during the repressive era of Socialism.
I have no doubt that communications, and particularly air communications, have an important part to play in Scotland, just as we must pay attention to road communications and haulage generally in our regional development policies. In this connection, we read in the Report that one character from the Scottish C.B.I. estimated that the extra cost of remoteness for Peterhead, which is in my constituency, was such that wages needed to be between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. lower than in the central belt to make up for the difference. I am sure that the House recognises that to have been an exaggeratedly provincial view, which I am afraid sometimes comes from those in the central belt.
Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is most unfair to call a man of the standing of Mr. Perry, who took considerable trouble to establish a factory in that area, a character? I

1751
advise the hon. Gentleman to be rather more careful in choosing his words.
Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman emphasised the point because the gentleman's name is not given in the Report.
Mr. Ross: But it is given in the evidence.
Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Quite so.
Nevertheless, one tends to accept too easily this question of a wages differential, with the result that people say of it, "It is just too bad". I submit that if one is prepared to accept wages differentials one should be prepared to accept differentials in transport costs because in the development areas distance means money. This is, therefore, an extremely important factor for our development. Our development is not helped by the men and women of that area having to accept that they should receive much less money for work of the same type and requiring the same skills as that performed by people in the central belt. We must try to redress this imbalance if social justice is to be achieved throughout the whole of Scotland and not just in one part of it.
In the Common Market agriculture is having its prices fixed in relation to a place called Duisburg. Cannot we have something like the same formula in relation to our transport charges? If anyone believes, as I do, that our country gains —Professor Wilson takes this view in IV 57 —from a spread of industry and opportunity, then a transport subvention is our best bet; because what is needed in an area like mine is not so much a subsidy or a loan as a chance to compete on equal terms in the mass markets. This will be true even more for us if we do not enter the Common Market.
Mr. George Watson, the Aberdeen sub-area chairman of the Road Haulage Association, is reported as having said that over the past year the Association had to request two rates increases, and a third came into effect at the beginning of this January. One Inverness haulier pointed out that during 1970 fuel costs rose by 2d. per gallon, the cost of new vehicles rose by up to £500, the price of each new tyre rose by up to £5, and drivers' wages have risen by as much as 27 per cent. since October, 1969.
1752
Even though I believe that the hauliers in Scotland do a good job and offer per haps better ton-mileage rates than those in other parts of the country, the fact remains that the distant areas are the ones most affected by haulage, and it is there that the most attention should be given to allowing us the same opportunities to compete as everybody else.
I want to comment on Chapter V of the Report—Industrial Training and Retraining. I am surprised by the complacency of the Report as to the training boards. It does not reflect the feelings of my constituents. In Peterhead, thanks to the devoted work of some splendid people and the assistance of the Engineering Training Board, a satisfactory training centre has been established; and we are grateful for that.
Otherwise, from the Agricultural to the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board, to the Construction Industry Training Board, to the Road Transport Industry Training Board, and the Wool Industry Training Board the moans have been heartfelt and serious. One has to pay for what one does not get and the boards are presented as a tax on production, providing—this is the feeling in the area—employment for non-productive young men in shining motor cars who come in and out.
The theoretical arguments about the value of training in industry, the need to avoid poaching, and so on, simply do not apply in my part of the country, because in many cases these firms cannot get the training and they pay their contributions for nothing. It is simply an extra tax for another bureaucracy. For instance, since the Construction Industry Training Board was established employers still have to pay for training of staff but they also have to pay a levy to the C.I.T.B. from which some of the training costs are provided. Without the C.I.T.B., the costs to the industry would be much lower without any lessening, in the view of my constituents, in either the quality or the quantity of the training provided.
One trouble may be that no percentage limit was originally placed on the administration of the boards, with the result that small empire builders have popped up all over the place to swell their domains and ask their captive industries

1753
to pay for them. We saw it in agriculture. It can be seen in the C.I.T.B. I have a letter here from a constituent saying exactly the same thing about the Road Transport Industry Training Board. The Government are expected to do something about it, and I hope that they will.
Industrial training seems to have been tackled the wrong way round, rather as the Report in this chapter looks at the problem from an overall standpoint—from on top of the whole thing—and accepts an expensive administrative remedy. I would much prefer it to have been tackled from the grass roots first, for a proper assessment of training needs and deficiencies to have been made by a few people industry by industry and place by place, and then for the chance to have been given for local firms, industries and businesses to make their own recommendations and proposals as to how to meet the problems of the industry as a whole and to contribute the finances needed. If it had been done that way, they would have regarded these boards as their own.
Mr. Douglas: The hon. Gentleman is denigrating a marvellous advance in industrial training, something which the Report substantiates. Individual firms cannot be left to do this job, but within the purview of the training boards individual firms have flexibility and can contribute.
Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I am genuinely glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman takes a contrary view, based on his experience in his part of the country. Probably the same can be said for the central belt as a whole, I hope that it can be said. In my part of the country the feeling is very much in a contrary direction—that the advantages are not substantial in any way and that the costs are outrageously high.
If that approach had been taken and the training boards had started slowly rather than with an enormous bang, smaller firms in particular and industries and businesses as a whole could have come to regard the boards as their own, the training as their own, and the services that the boards provide as their own, whereas at present they do not, and the antipathy to the boards and the gap between the boards and the firms are
1754
great and disadvantageous to what we want to achieve.
7.28 p.m.
Mr. George Lawson: The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) has said much about the shortcomings of the Labour Government. I take it that he is aware that the Act which set up industrial training boards was a product of the former Tory Government: it was one of the good things done by that Government. For generations the training of youngsters had been left to work itself out as best it could, with no one having any general supervision over it. There was constant complaint about firms that did no training and that had no apprentices but which poached the trained staff of other firms.
Each industry pays for the skill it needs. This is a sound principle. It may be true that improvements need to be made in the present system of training boards and that waste is occurring.
It is strange that the hon. Gentleman should complain about lack of facilities in his area. He complains that there are differentials in earnings in his part of the country and he insists that a man there should get as much as a man in London or one in the central belt. He is a member of the Tory Party, whose great flag-waving effort is on the virtues of free enterprise, which produces this kind of thing. If he wants this equality in different parts of the country, it can be done only through more and continuous intervention in some form or other by some kind of public authority —by the State, in fact. He should get out of the habit of picking out those things which suit his argument and ignoring the other factors which do not.
Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) seems to be supporting the other point of view.
Mr. Ross: I was not. I was castigating the ignorance of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) who really was slurring an eminent individual in Scottish industry—an American, incidentally—who is doing a lot of work in his area. The hon. Gentleman does not even know the man he was talking about.
Mr. Lawson: My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has answered the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East sufficiently.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) is not here—I appreciate that he was here for a long time—because I was interested in the points which he made. He was a member of the Select Committee. I was interested in his statement that the Committee had difficulty, and it is on this aspect that I want to dwell. Sub-Committee A was given the job of looking into financial incentives. We probed the matter as far as we could with the limited time and powers we had. We tried to come up with answers that were agreed. The Under-Secretary of State for Development was a member of the Sub-Committee. He will recall that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) was the convener. I am sure that he would be the first to admit that, had we on this side of the House—and I include the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) in this—been drafting the Report, it would have been much more forthright than it was on certain of the recommendations which we came up with. But we tried to reach a consensus, an agreed view.
The difficulty was that the experts we called in could not be precise. The witnesses included two university professors and top businessmen. Indeed, we had really top businessmen like Sir John Toothill and Sir Robert Maclean. We had experts from the then Ministry of Technology and the advice of the Treasury. We could not get from them precise answers to our questions. They could not tell us how effective the different forms of incentives were. They had ideas about them but they could not be precise, and I do not blame them for that.
My own approach—and I do not think the Under-Secretary of State will challenge me on this—was that our practice in this country was much ahead of our theory. The theory had not been worked out. It so happens that men do things and afterwards attempt to explain or justify what they have been doing. I thought that our British practice in terms of incentives for regional development was substantially ahead of
1756
our theory. We could find no theoretician who could tell us precisely what the facts were. The answer we got repeatedly from those answering on behalf of the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Technology was, "These are questions which are now being studied in depth." It seemed strange to us that so much money had been and was being spent without adequate study of the effects, but we all agreed that the general set-up seemed to be desirable and to be achieving results.
We did not say that these measures were transforming the whole set-up of our country overnight, but none of us, including the Under-Secretary of State, challenged the efficacy of these measures up to the point which was clear to us. At the end, having said that, we looked forward to or hoped to see the Ministry of Technology getting down to the business of studying these things in depth and telling us what their real value was. That was our overall conclusion. We welcomed the information that the matter was being studied much more thoroughly than ever before.
Without being derogatory to anyone else, I regard Sir Robert Maclean as perhaps the most important witness to give evidence to us. No one will challenge me when I say that surely he should know what he is talking about. No one else has had such extensive experience as he has had over such a long period. He used the illustration of the stool with three legs. It was not done in any offhand fashion. He thought that the mix of incentives—a term used frequently—was about right. He thought that we had to have a mix of incentives simple to explain and simple to understand by the people we were trying to attract into an area. He pointed out that we also had to have something to offer them that they would have confidence in and which would not be changed next month or next year.
The importance of simplicity was emphasised over and over again, together with the need for confidence that the system would not be changed in a short time. Sir Robert explained what the three legs of the stool were—the investment grant, the regional employment premium and the industrial development certificate policy. He told us,
"If you knock any one away, the whole may collapse."

1757
As my right hon. Friend said, the Government have knocked away all three. They have scrapped the investment grant. My particular complaint is that they have done it without knowledge of the facts.
I have asked before what happened to the prolonged and deep study that was being made. Were we to have access to it? Where was the information? Had the Government, in deciding to scrap the investment grant in favour of the income tax allowance, taken the Select Committee's Report into account? I defy the Under-Secretary of State to tell me honestly that the Government, when they took the decision to scrap the investment grant and replace it with the allowance, did so as a result of a systematic study of the efficacy of the one as compared with the other. He knows that, during our discussions on this question of investment grants and allowances, he repeatedly sought—I do not blame him —to question the witnesses in order to get from them some expression of preference for the tax allowance. The hon. Gentleman knows that he constantly tried to do that, but he never succeeded. He was very skilled and I compliment him on his ability to cross-examine, but from those whom we questioned he never got the answer he wanted.
Even before they became the Government, right hon. Gentlemen opposite were clearly saying that they would scrap the investment grant. That is a matter of political doctrine. It is fair enough for them to say that they will base themselves on political doctrine and that they are entitled to do so, but they should not tell us that they made this decision after prolonged and careful study. They made it as a matter of political doctrine and without any knowledge of its implications.
The hon. Member for Inverness might give some other reasons, for he constantly harped on the point that one great advantage of an income tax allowance over an investment grant was that by the former one could hide the amount of money being paid. The Government also told us that they were to be more discriminating and to ensure that we got better value for money. I defy the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) to tell me how one could discriminate by the use of an income tax allowance. It is not a discriminating instrument. The firm
1758
which gets the income tax allowance is the firm making sufficient profit. That may be good or bad, but an excellent new firm might not make a profit and in such circumstances it would not get an allowance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) might have made the point when he talked about Hunterston. I am more concerned about Hunterston than he is, for I represent the greatest steel-producing area in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) comes second to me in that concern and my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) follows. I was interested in the ore terminal even before it was mentioned in the Press. If we fail to get the ore terminal, we may fail to keep the existing steel industry going.
Forgetting the steel complex which might some day come there, and there has not yet been a plan for the building of a steel complex on the site, although it has been discussed, how would the ore terminal be financed? Are doubts about how it is to be financed holding up the decision? The investment grant has been scrapped. Is the Clyde local authority to have to pay £15 million out of its resources, and that was only the first figure and the amount is now probably very much larger? Will there be any grants? Will there be assistance in the form of income tax allowances? What sort of income tax allowance could be expected? How long would the project take? What kind of inducement would be offered to the British Steel Corporation to take part in the scheme? I should like some information on these important matters.
I have talked for as long as, and perhaps longer than, some of my hon. Friends and Members opposite want to hear me, but I should like to mention the two other legs of the stool. The Government have scrapped the regional employment premium. I know that they will say that they have not scrapped it and have said only that it is to be terminated on a given date, that being the date which we fixed. But we did not say that it was to end on that date: we guaranteed it until the date, and that is very different.
The result is that each firm knows that the premium will finish on that date, and it will shape its policy accordingly.

1759
Those thinking of coming into the area will put that fact into the scales against coming in, and companies thinking of pulling out will put it into the scales in favour of pulling out. There is an important distinction between saying that the premium will finish on a given date and guaranteeing it until that date when there is a great chance of its going on beyond that.
Mr. Younger Mr. Younger indicated dissent.
Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I am sure that all my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Inverness would have been with me in voting for its continuation, because we have had plenty of evidence of the value of this leg of the stool.
The third leg was the I.D.C. policy. Not a voice has been heard against the policy of controlling industrial development in the crowded areas of the Midlands, the South and South-East. One of the most powerful voices in Scotland, that of Sir John Toothill, said that for him this was the most important of all the elements of a regional employment policy. It was his view that the existing policy should be tightened up. It has not been working well enough, and we have had evidence of that, because it has not been applied as we should like.
The hon. Gentleman may say that the Government have not adopted the recommendations of the Hunt Committee, but they have taken a long step towards doing so. The limit in the crowded South has been raised to 5,000 sq. ft. When we were last in Opposition and the present Prime Minister was President of the Board of Trade, we frequently discussed the industrial development going on in areas other than Scotland. The answers which we then received I have subsequently found to be misleading, although I do not have time to discuss that tonight. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ayr knows something about this, because the Report mentions how misleading were the answers which we were then given.
At a time when the limit was 5,000 sq. ft., there were advertisements on the Underground and elsewhere about new factories in places like Slough. The reason that such advertisements could appear was that nests of factories, each just under 5,000 sq. ft., say, 4,999.9 sq. ft.,
1760
were being built and then linked into industrial estates. That was what was happening under the right hon. Gentleman when this policy-was supposed to apply.
The hon. Gentleman is committed, as I am committed, to what is in the Report. It has been watered down specifically to meet his point of view, and I would have gone much further than he. But he is a member of the Government who have scrapped these Measures after having said that they had studied what they were doing. "Lie" is not a parliamentary word and nor is "falsehood", but this is deliberate deception of the House and of the country, and my hon. Friends and I will not tolerate it for a moment longer than necessary.
7.50 p.m.
Mr. Hamish Gray: The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) has made an interesting speech to which we have all listened with pleasure although we do not agree with all of it.
The purpose of the debate must be to focus attention on the economic needs of Scotland. I acknowledge that the Select Committee which undertook the investigations into this vast subject is to be congratulated on the comprehensive nature of the work. It must have spent many hours in reaching its conclusions, and we owe it a debt of gratitude. Unfortunately, it is reasonably clear that the detailed statistical information which might have been of use to it, on a United Kingdom basis, was not available in an identifiable form for Scottish purposes. While this is regrettable, I do not think that there is any doubt that in 542 pages of evidence and a further 115 pages of report there is sufficient material to arouse the enthusiasm of any Scot.
While the Report does not necessarily provide all the answers, we must accept that it pinpoints the strength and weaknesses of the present structure and provides useful guide lines for future legislation. The announcement about the future of local government which we believe will be forthcoming soon will probably highlight some of the findings of this Committee, particularly in respect of regional planning and development and economic planning. In this respect, I agree entirely with the Committee when it said in Chapter 1, paragraph 130:
"It is clear to us that the machinery for economic planning in Scotland outside the

1761
Government service is purely consultative, apart from the limited rôle of the Highlands and Islands Development Board."
The consultative machinery in Scotland functions reasonably well but there are few things quite so frustrating for any policy-making advisory group than to frequently recommend and advise without ever having the executive power to see those recommendatons or that advice being implemented. These decisions are still made to a large degree by the Government Department concerned. It seems to many of us at times that the consultative machinery is either forgotten or ignored despite the fact that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), the former Secretary of State, stated in his evidence to the Committee that he considered that the advice provided by these bodies was of inestimable value. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman was being extremely loyal to his civil servants and to the people who provided the advice. I do not think that the advice is very often taken as seriously in the Department as it could be.
When it comes to local planning it is regrettable that the local planning authorities are not kept fully informed about the overall planning policy for Scotland and, indeed, for the United Kingdom. The Scottish Economic Planning Council, of which the Secretary of State is Chairman I believe, could keep the local authorities more informed than it does. It would be an aid to the Council if in addition to the local authority representatives who sit as individuals there were officials from local authorities. I would like to suggest that the Highlands and Islands Development Board comes nearest to being able to see the results of its deliberations but even it can sometimes be thwarted despite the fact that it has executive and financial powers.
It is interesting to note that the Committee felt it was easier for the Scottish Office, for example, to transfer expenditure from one programme or one project to another than it may be in certain other Government Departments. At times it would appear that there are considerable sums involved. This speaks well of the flexibility within the Scottish Office, and I have no doubt that this is something that is envied by other Departments.
The Report deals at length with the question of infrastructure, particularly
1762
within development areas, and no one would deny that it is well-nigh impossible to entice industry to areas which do not offer adequate facilities for housing, schools and other basic services but perhaps most important, adequate transport systems for all modes of traffic at all times of the year. I feel particularly strongly about the transport question because in my constituency we are faced with the possibility, and I sincerely hope that it is no more than that, of a rail closure. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider very carefully the serious implications of a closure in this area at this time.
Present Government thinking must be welcomed. In the eyes of Scotland, the promised new fast road from Inverness to the North is a basic essential and should have been initiated many years ago. The objective must be a continuation of the present dual carriageway north of Edinburgh, not only to Perth, not only to Blair Atholl but right over the Grampians to Inverness, where one would hope it would link with the proposed fast road, which must not stop at Evanton but must proceed right to the North and continue to Wick and Thurso. This kind of infrastructure-thinking is what must be encouraged. Provide these essential communications in the Highlands and further incentives to attract industry will be unnecessary.
Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman will have heard the Secretary of State speaking about the very road he is describing, and he will have noted with disappointment that the Secretary of State is still talking in terms of plans but not in terms of roadbuilding.
Mr. Gray: The hon. Member knows that it is necessary to plan before one can build. When plans are laid for a road it is a number of years before the road ever appears. These things do not happen overnight. Meantime it is imperative that encouragement is given in the short term to potential industrial developers in Scotland, particularly in the Highlands.
English Members may often wonder—when they come in and listen to our debates—why it is that every Scottish Member who gets up seems to be plugging his own part of the country. The reason is obvious. We have to do it because

1763
the tendency is for expansion to take place in the southern central belt of England and we have to use every means we can to attract industry to Scotland. Tax allowances are certainly an attraction for the established concern but they offer little to the new company just starting up. The Local Employment Acts can help where the provision of jobs is important but in the Highlands some additional inducement, not readily available elsewhere in Scotland, is absolutely essential.
This has been a problem in the remote areas for a long time, and, while I warmly welcome the infrastructure proposals, I consider that the greatest help which the Government could offer now would be the creation of a Highlands of Scotland special development area similar to that which has been described. It was not sufficient to say that the Highlands and Islands Development Board has special powers. The Board would need a very much greater amount of money available to it before the special powers incorporated in its charter could really be effective.
There are plenty of hon. Members prepared to speak for the west central belt of Scotland, so I do not propose to spend time on the problems there, but if we are not careful we shall create a situation in west central Scotland similar to that which exists in the South of England. Every possible method must be used to try to influence people to move from that area to the widest area of land available in Scotland, which we hope will soon have the necessary communications.
The Highlands and Islands Development Board has weathered the ailments of infancy and it must now be encouraged to develop into manhood as the driving force of Highlands opportunity. The Board must pay no attention to the Jonahs and those who for reasons known only to themselves persist in their strange beliefs about the area and its needs. Of course, industrial development in the Highlands is not only necessary but desirable. There is no reason why it cannot be integrated without affecting the tourist industry and without interfering with the natural beauty of the area. Space is not one of our problems in the Highlands.
We in Scotland are faced with a critical unemployment problem which is not of
1764
our making but the result of a complete failure by the last Government to come to grips with the problem. It is the result of years of ostrich-like tactics over the problem of unemployment. The Labour Government's forecasts, like their performances, left much to be desired. They estimated in "The Scottish Economy, 1965–70" that there would be a net increase of 10,000 jobs per year in all industries and services between 1965 and 1970—that is, 50,000 jobs in the period. That is confirmed in the Select Committee's Report's reference to the White Paper Cmnd. 2864 which forecast a net increase in jobs available over the period of between 50,000 and 60,000. Yet in March, 1970, when the then Secretary of State made the statement which I have quoted, there were 11,000 fewer jobs in Scotland than in March, 1969, and no less than 33,000 fewer jobs than three years earlier.
Hon. Members opposite may shake their heads, but they are too late. They should have been thinking about the problem six years ago. The frequent warnings of my right hon. and hon. Friends were completely ignored.
Mr. Maclennan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the advice of his hon. Friend who is now Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State had been followed the developments at Invergordon would never have come about?
Mr. Gray: I am not dealing with that point. I would not accept what the hon. Gentleman said for one moment. But it is interesting to note——
Mr. Douglas: Would the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gray: No. I have just given way.
It is interesting to note that, despite investment grants, there was nothing of any magnitude in the pipeline for my area at the time of the change in Government.
Mr. Ross: What about Grampian Chemicals?
Mr. Gray: I do not want to mention any company by name, but were the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and his party interested in providing grants for that concern at that time? I doubt it.

1765
The monetary incentives through the Local Employment Acts for the creation of new jobs must be made attractive and many more concessions should be offered to companies prepared to move to development areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) mentioned the case for a congestion tax in already overpopulated areas. That is sound thinking, and I hope that the Government will consider it.
Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman will remember that until we had the Highlands and Islands Development Act the Highlands were controlled by the congested areas Act.
Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. I shall be glad to hear it explained in detail by him at some future time. I am not dealing with that point.
The whole concept of growth areas was outlined in the Toothill Report in 1961. The recomendations of that Report were accepted by the Government at that time who in 1963 produced a White Paper on Central Scotland and followed it with special financial provisions in the Budget of that year. This in turn led to industrial expansion which took place not only in Scotland but in the North of England.
The Report, in referring to the Scottish Office, rightly states in paragraph 73, Chapter 4—and this point is vitally important—
"No other Department can have the same intimate knowledge of Scotland's circumstances and needs. The success of the Government's policy for encouraging industry in Scotland must depend very largely on co-ordination and collaboration between the Ministry of Technology and the Scottish Office."
That reference should now read "the Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Scottish Office". It is an omission that there does not appear to be a senior official of the Department of Trade and Industry located at St. Andrew's House. I may be wrong and no doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will correct me if I am. What is needed is an official with sufficient authority to take major decisions quickly so that matters can be co-ordinated. The two Departments must work in unison to
1766
provide immediate help to the Scottish economy.
The Government are tackling the legacy of a Socialistic shambles in a business-like and purposeful way. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) is always amusing with his interjections, but he is often amusing when he does not mean to be, so that balances matters out.
Desperate measures must be taken, and I am sure that the Government will take them quickly.
I have tried to be constructive, despite the abuse of hon. Members opposite which one gets used to. I should like to make one or two more suggestions. I invite the Government to give the most serious consideration possible to transferring the headquarters of the Forestry Commission to the Highlands. There is a much stronger case for locating the headquarters in the Highlands than in the South of England. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, speaking recently in another place and referring to the electronics industry, suggested that this type of development was highly suitable to the area of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. He said:
"So the Board are well advised to consider the importance of such an industry which does not necessarily have to start in a large way. One of the largest American concerns in this field, now employing more than 30,000 people, started less than a quarter of a century ago in the garage of its founder …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT. House of Lords, 27th January, 1971; Vol. 314, c. 962.]
I agree entirely with the noble Lord. Only last year the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board had a wonderful opportunity to locate in my constituency a computer which would have been extremely valuable from the point of view of the jobs which it would have provided. It saw fit to go to Aberdeen, and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) is, no doubt, pleased about that. But this was the type of work which was very suitable indeed, because the only essential service required for it would have been the postal service, which exists in our area—or will soon again exist, one hopes. The Board decided against this, and I consider that this was a most regrettable decision.

1767
The Report and deliberations of the Select Committee are helpful and constructive, but they must now be translated into action. In the meantime we will note the contents.
8.10 p.m.
Mr. Russell Johnston: It is inevitable, the unemployment position being as it is in Scotland, that many Members have turned their attention to this very pressing and real problem and have, therefore, turned from the details of the Report which we are seeking to discuss.
Before turning to those wider questions I should like, very briefly, to look at the Select Committee itself and ask how effective it has been as an instrument in examining Scottish government and, in particular in this case, examining the state of the Scottish economy and what ought to be done about it.
The House will know that the Liberals favour an elected Parliament in Scotland within a United Kingdom federal system, and hold strongly to the view that a genuine and significant improvement in Scotland's situation is unlikely unless there is created in Scotland a responsible decision-making body which can determine its own priorities. Nevertheless, I think there are improvements which can be made within the existing framework.
I think that probably the Select Committee had reasonable success in achieving what it set out to do, and in this it was greatly assisted by the character and personality of Mr. Tom Steele, the tribute to whom by the right hon. Gentleman I am very happy to go along with. Indeed, one also pays tribute to two hon. Members present here, the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) and the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson), for the very considerable amount of work which they did. The question arises, however, to me at least, having my first experience of a Select Committee, whether the objectives of an all-party Committee such as this were not rather too wide and whether an all-party Committee of this kind, meeting over a short space of a year, can operate adequately over a wide area, and perhaps ought not better to concentrate its attention on certain specific things. The problem of an all-party Committee is a very real one,
1768
which has been touched on already by many hon. Members, the difficulty of producing some consensus which is yet of significance and importance. That difficulty is a real one. The object of the Committee ought not to be to produce any learned political economic treatise but to isolate and point out important political questions which on certain specific issues ought to be answered. I am thinking, for example, of things like the delay on Turnhouse Airport and the future of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, or what we think about Oceanspan. There are many individual things which the Select Committee might very usefully have examined more closely.
The fact is that the actual impact which our Committee made on Scotland was pretty negligible. The Scottish Press was certainly not hanging avidly upon our words. This is true.[Interruption.] I think that matters a good deal, because the communications media is the only way we have as politicians to get over our ideas to the public. I think it was a mistake, for example, that the proceedings, the public hearings, were not televised, as my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) suggested. If we could televise the Royal Commission on the Constitution why not the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?
Then there is also the real problem of hon. Members' time. I must confess I found myself missing some meetings of the Select Committee. Again, attendance at Committee meetings is not necessarily even accurately reflected by the sederunt. It does not say how long one is there! One of the reasons for this is that one makes a decision of priorities in the allocation of one's time, and moreover, much of the time the discussions were of a very general nature and consequently the urgency aspect, if I may call it that, which is so essential in politics, was, to some extent, absent. If the Committee had been dealing with specific matters—matters on which one wanted an explanation, for instance—there would have been more zip, as it were, in the Committee.
In the end, there is no doubt, we produced a useful instruction manual on government machinery in Scotland—a lucid description, as the Secretary of

1769
State put it—and he should know; reference material, as it was called by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon).
Perhaps the most useful thing in it was our implicit recognition—I think it must be admitted by the Secretary of State that there is an implicit recognition —of the value of investment grants, and, indeed, further recognition that these grants were not yet at a high enough level. If one looks at the Report, on page 92, paragraph VII.4. We see it is clearly spelt out:
"Obviously the incentives would have to be pitched very high indeed if they are to have any chance of inducing the movement of any industry which is established elsewhere but not expanding significantly. We have no reason to think that the present level of incentives is high enough to have any such effect, and therefore the amount of new industry which comes to Development Areas is certain to be a limited one at any period during which indusrial growth in the United Kingdom as a whole is limited."
We stress the importance of the costs of congestion. I shall not go again over the ground which has already been covered very well by the hon. Member for Galloway, but the fact that there is no real study of congestion is a very valid point which we made and which ought to be stressed very strongly, and the value of I.D.C.s. Our Report and the major witnesses we heard stress the value of I.D.C.s, and that makes all the more extraordinary the Government's decision to relax their provision. Indeed, it is the Government's intended change of policy in this regard which has called forth the Opposition's Amendment today, and for our part we on the Liberal bench, if that Amendment leads to a vote, will support the Opposition.
I do not intend to labour the whole question of investment grants versus investment allowances because it has already been thoroughly aired, notably by the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), with a lot of whose remarks I agree, but it seems to me that there is in industry widespread agreement that the last thing the Scottish economy wants at the present moment is a reduction in the availability of liquid capital. I think the Government's intention is certainly having an adverse effect on industry.
I want now to touch on four specific things—briefly, because I know a number
1770
of hon. Members still wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I consider them all to be of basic importance to the Scottish economy. Firstly there is the future of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. I know that the Government have emphasised, and, indeed, re-emphasised, that they intend the Board to be the major vehicle for development in the Highlands. I know also that they have denied that there is any question of diminution of the Board's rôle. Nevertheless, I remain worried. It is, of course, true that the Board has done good work, but there is a very important question of scale involved. I have been looking at Sir Robert Grieve's foreword to the Board's first Report, and I want to quote a little from it. We must all pay tribute to the tremendous work he did when he was chairman. He said:
"It is therefore easy to flatter ourselves that an experiment in regional development such as the Board is carrying out is of world interest. However, such a statement is absolutely and strictly true. It is essential that we should realise this, all of us in Britain, and recognise that the Board is setting out to do a job now recognised as one of the important preoccupations of government in western civilisation."
Later he says:
"It is therefore, as I say, no exaggeration to claim that the efforts of this Board will have world significance."
He finishes by saying:
"That is the measure of our activity; that is the challenge which the Board has knowingly accepted."
If indeed this is the challenge, if it is of this scope and scale and importance, then I have grave misgivings about the capacity of the Board in terms of its expertise to meet the challenge. The Board was set up because it was agreed that the Highlands required distinctive and differential treatment, but the differential now is much more imaginary than real.
When the Select Committee was interviewing Professors Wilson and Brown, I asked Professor Brown, at page 293:
"In answering the Chairman, Professor Brown, you said that there were large areas of Scotland in which the incentives would have to be considerably higher than the present incentives if they were to have a chance of getting much new industry. That is roughly what you said. Does that mean in effect that, for example, the Highlands and Islands Development Board does not have a chance of getting much new industry under the present regime?"

1771
Professor Brown replied:
"As a snap judgment with strong reservations in view of my ignorance, I should say that that seems a reasonable proposition, likely on the whole to be true …"
On page 322, I asked Mr. Whitehouse, the head of the Distribution of Industry Division of the Ministry of Technology:
"When we saw Professor Brown, as I recollect, he said that the difference which the Chairman has referred to was not really sufficient to make any significant difference to the decision of an industrialist as to whether he was going to come or not; that in fact much of its success might well be related to its promotional activity."
I am referring to the Board:
"Does the fact that we have not really allowed any significant distinction of this sort mean that … the economic factor is much more the decisive one rather than any social factor? … It is seen as being a very expensive economic exercise and, although the Government goes through the motions of setting up a Board and making, if you like, noises, when you examine the actual argument the actual distinction is very little and the actual incentive is not very much greater than available elsewhere. Would you say that is fair or not?"
His answer was:
"Yes, I think it probably is."
The Under-Secretary of State for Development, in pressing the point, said to him:
"Professor Grieve did specifically state to us in his evidence that he certainly felt the need for an extra incentive to persuade people not merely to come to Scotland but to come to his part of the Highlands. Do you not think that that is quite a natural request?"
Mr. Whitehouse said:
"I agree it is a perfectly natural request. It is a fully understandable request."
It seems to me that the edge that the Board had is insufficient, as we recommend in the Report. The net result has been that the Board has had to concentrate on promotional activity. This it has done rather well, but it is indubitably a limiting factor. We can no longer ignore the fact that people are beginning to ask the question: would the unemployment and depopulation position be markedly different if there had been no board at all? This concerns me. This is not criticising the concept of the Board but criticising the way it has been applied and the freedom which has been given to it by the Government to vary national policy according to the area's need.
I want to turn to an area off Aberdeen. Like many other hon. Members,
1772
I am concerned that in a situation where our natural physical assets like coal are declining we should take full advantage of any new assets that may appear. There is the question of North Sea oil or gas. How is Scotland to benefit from this, because she could benefit enormously? On the other hand, she could get little out of it. If B.P. decided that the sensible and profitable thing to do was to ship the oil to Rotterdam, what is to prevent this?
Mr. Eadie: Or America.
Mr. Russell Johnston: Or America, although that is rather distant. Are B.P. and the Scottish Office in consultation about this? It is ironical, when one sees the oil-producing companies of the Middle East and South America getting together to try to obtain a larger share of the profits of their own assets that it could well be, despite Grangemouth and the talked of petro-chemical complex at Invergordon, that Scotland's contribution from this exciting asset would be employment from a few oil rigs.
Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman laughed when I said "America", but he is aware of the reports we have had that this oil is of the non-polluting type. Since in America there are strict laws about pollution, it may be that, because the oil has this special quality, it might be shipped to America with a consequent loss of Scotland.
Mr. Russell Johnston: This may well be. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) has already touched on the development of the Clyde. The Clyde Port Authority has taken a wholly admirable lead in this matter, but its reserves are limited and it cannot mount the major investment which the ideas in Oceanspan demand.
The present Government seem to be pledged to follow a philosophy of minimal involvement in economic matters. If the Clyde is to be developed and Hunterston is to be a major entry point, many questions must be answered and much expenditure undertaken. In the end the only body capable of facing these matters are the Government. It is only the Government who can decide whether a land bridge is on or is not. Only the Government can examine markets and the kinds of products to go for. With the spectre of

1773
the Mersey in the background the Government must surely take proper account of information at its disposal, as was shown by the Touche Ross Report. That report, commissioned by the National Ports Council, established clearly that no major port in Western Europe functions without substantial Government involvement, and involvement on a scale well above what we have been used to.
Fourthly and lastly, I want to make three short points. The first is that there is not enough consideration in terms of people. Our graduates are a great asset, an asset which we have failed to utilise properly, as is shown by the heavy wastage. In the Select Committee we gained a clear realisation of the difficulty of selective encouragement in terms of particular kinds of industry, and the situation in relation to some skills is virtually impossible. But surely some kind of differential treatment might be devised for companies with research and development facilities in Scotland. This could well have the double merit of retaining and encouraging more graduates and in getting under way more primary industry rather than secondary industry.
Related to this matter is the question of housing, and the report draws attention to the adverse effect on industrial development. This is especially true in terms of the provision of private housing, and in this respect the construction industry in Scotland is open to criticism as was shown by the recent Report of the Scottish Council. I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that lack of provision for private housing has been an important factor in frightening away some incoming industry. I hope that the Government will give careful consideration to, for example, the idea of giving cash grants to people who wish to buy houses, to help them to obtain mortgages. This is a practical way of providing help to people and this is something which has been advocated by the Liberal Party and for which the Scottish Council is pressing.
I will not dwell too long on the problems of transport in Scotland since time is getting a little short and many hon. Members still wish to speak. The fact remains that freight charges are a major distincentive to development, and we have still to devise some way in which to solve the problem in this respect on the peripheries of Scotland. We already face
1774
the closing down of rural services in, for example, Galloway and elsewhere. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) drew attention to the situation in the Kyle of Lochalsh in regard to rail closures. Expenditure is often effective in bringing development into places where the infrastructure has withered.
Looking at the matter against the background of Britain's negotiations with Europe, the position in Scotland at present seems to be critical. If our problems are to be solved, more urgent and radical measures will be necessary than have so far been taken.
8.32 p.m.
Earl of Dalkeith: I promise the House that tonight I shall not weary hon. Members with the subject of sheep breeding. That would appear to be the only matter that is not covered by this excellent and wide-ranging Report.
I must beg to differ from those who have suggested that it is an insult that this Report has not been debated earlier. In my view, it is a Report which will have enduring qualities. It is a report to be read, studied and to be acted upon rather than a report simply to be debated. I am sure that Scotland owes a great debt of gratitude to hon. Members who took part in the proceedings of the Committee at a considerable sacrifice to their own time.
I welcome the fact that the speech of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) was completely free of abuse, slanting and damnation which we so frequently hear on occasions when the Scottish economy is mentioned. He made a constructive speech. I was particularly interested in his points about North Sea gas and oil.
We all want to see industrial expansion, but I am sure that we all want industries with a real prospect of being successful. We want to avoid the tragedies of those industries which start off with a flourish and then later flop. In this context it is possible to put forward the argument that allowances are a better means of helping industry than are investment grants. This ties in with the remarks of the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) about cost-effectiveness. We must become more cost-effectiveness conscious than we have been in the past. At

1775
the same time, a good case can be advanced for saying that capital investment grants could be justified in very special circumstances. A project such as the Rootes plant at Linwood, involving such a scale of operations, might justify the use of the investment grant, as a special and exceptional circumstance.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), in a brief flash of somewhat uncharacteristic generosity, made favourable comments about Rootes coming to Linwood. But this ties up with what I have said about the danger of having industries which flop later. As we all know, Rootes has been going through a fairly perplexing time. The comment column of the Daily Mail summed it up well a few days ago when it said:
"Chrysler workers in Scotland must be delighted with the £5 rise they have won. Will they be so happy if Chrysler continue to lose money and have to shut down?"
All of us in Scotland must realise—the sooner the better—that our future prosperity is very much in our own hands and not wholly in those of some fairy godmother. The performance of the previous Secretary of State went a long way to convincing the population that he made very little pretence to be a fairy godmother.
Edinburgh's exclusion from development area status is a subject close to my heart and my constituency. The Report referred to Leith's promotion to intermediate development area status. I have always been convinced that the best way to achieve a booming economy is to build success on to success; in other words, to have a series of growth points which radiate success outwards from the centre. Edinburgh used to be a really prosperous growth point. What is more, it was not an artificially created growth point but a natural and naturally successful one, which is very much healthier. Yet, alas and alack, the previous Government, for reasons which they have never divulged, went out of their way to clobber Edinburgh in a way which did very little good to the surrounding area and caused immense damage to Scotland's capital.
I emphasise the damage which has been done by drawing attention to the unemployment figures for Edinburgh. In January, 1965, unemployment was 1·8 per cent.
1776
That was below the national average. In January, 1971, it has risen to 4·3 per cent. For many years Edinburgh had the proud record of having about the lowest unemployment percentage of any place in Scotland. But today Aberdeen is beating Edinburgh with a rate of 3·6 per cent.
I should like to translate these rather cold percentages into figures which are more revealing in terms of human disappointment. In December, 1964, there were 3,564 people unemployed in Edinburgh. In December, 1970, the figure had risen to 7,190, which is more than double. This is a tragic situation.
Let us examine the so-called promotion of Leith to the status of an intermediate area to see what good that has done Leith. When comparing the figures for unemployment in Leith over the last year with those for Edinburgh, one finds that unemployment has risen by 40 per cent. in Leith and by only 33 per cent. in Edinburgh. This shows that Leith, in spite of the more advantageous situation in which it finds itself, has done less well than Edinburgh. It appears, therefore, that this was not a genuine remedy.
Leith ought to be a very high priority growth point. It is only logical to follow up the massive expenditure of taxpayers' money that was sanctioned by the previous Conservative Government to improve the docks by attracting and encouraging ancillary industries to settle round those docks. To have missed the opportunity that we have had in the last three or four years is most unfortunate not only for the people of Leith but for the economy of our country.
Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: Does my hon. Friend agree that since Edinburgh was excluded from development area status and persecuted by the previous Government, no fewer than 42 companies have closed down and left the city?
Earl of Dalkeith: I am all too conscious of that horrifying fact, and it should be made widely known that this is so.
What I would dearly love to know is why Edinburgh was singled out for discriminatory treatment. We have never been told the answer. One has heard rumours that it was a sop to Wales,

1777
that certain parts of Wales were prospering and could not be included in development area status and that the Welsh would be very disappointed if some part of Scotland was not excluded; so, looking round, the Government of the day decided that Edinburgh was the most prosperous place in Scotland and would have to be excluded. If that was the reason, it was a very bad one.
Another possibility is that it was argued that Edinburgh did not need it because its unemployment percentage was too low to justify it. If Edinburgh did not need to be included in development area status because its unemployment percentage was low before, certainly it does today. It is now 4·3 compared with Aberdeen's 3·6, and, after all, Aberdeen is in a development area. In Edinburgh, unemployment is some 20 per cent. higher than it is in Aberdeen.
I come now to the subject of infrastructure. Housing was dealt with at some length in the Report, and, as hon. Members know, this has always been one of my deepest and most passionately felt interests. Looking at the picture today, there is a mixture of happy and unhappy news. The details that we heard earlier at Question Time about the improvement of Scotland's older housing is very good news. I hope that more advantage still will be taken of the grants which are available.
I would never dream of being so churlish as not to give credit where it is due, and perhaps I might give the former Minister of State, the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), a small pat on the back. I warmly congratulate him on what he did to increase improvement grants. What is more, I would not be so churlish as to deny him a word of congratulation on having produced a record number of houses in Scotland. One should recognise a record when it is a record. I am only sad that the figure did not reach the 50,000 that he hoped to achieve and that we would have hoped to achieve had we been in government then.
I am more than a little unhappy about the number of houses which have been approved and are receiving approval. I urge my right hon. Friend to concentrate the resources of his office on boosting the building of houses. This is vitally
1778
important if we are to get the infrastructure of our country right. It has a most important effect upon how people think and act.
I end with what I hope is a constructive suggestion which will percolate into the ears of the Treasury.
I believe that there is a strong case for somehow devising at Treasury level some means whereby we can encourage Scotland's expansion at a time when it is necessary for the United Kingdom to suffer from a credit squeeze. We have had a credit squeeze for many years. Yet nobody has devised a way whereby Scotland can be exempted from the effects of such a squeeze.
At different times I have suggested that there should be a difference in the rate of income and corporation tax for Scotland. At one point I received some interesting figures. On income tax alone, in an answer from the previous Government to a Parliamentary Question, I discovered, that if the rate of income tax was reduced in Scotland by 2s. in the pound, was kept at its present level in Wales, and was increased in England by 3d. in the pound, the Treasury would be £33 million better off. Obviously one cannot go round suggesting that income tax should be increased by 3d. in the pound in England.
Hon. Members: Why not?
Earl of Dalkeith: For the simple reason that we would soon see an enormous campaign mounted demanding Home Rule for England. I am not sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would welcome that any more than I should. However, I suggest that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer next has an opportunity of reducing income tax throughout the United Kingdom, he might say to himself, "If I keep it as it is in England for the time being, I can knock a great chunk off in Scotland." As I have pointed out, it would not be so expensive to the Treasury.
Such a proposal would be important because it would be backing people. It would encourage people to stay in Scotland, the people we need to make Scotland a dynamic place again. Far too many of our good people have drifted away, and we must win them back. Backing people in this way can do more good

1779
in restoring the health of the Scottish economy than backing possible dubious industries.
Therefore, although I welcome the Report—it will pay us to study it for many years—I think that points like those which I have put forward deserve consideration as well.
8.48 p.m.
Mr. Donald Stewart: The economic situation in Scotland has changed considerably since publication of the Report of the Select Committee—it has changed drastically for the worse. For that reason a number of hon. Members have concentrated, as the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) suggested, on the unemployment situation and the state of the Scottish economy generally.
The Opposition blame the situation on what the Government are or are not doing for the Scottish economy, and the Government blame the previous Government for what they did or did not do. I have not the time to put both these charges to the test. I will save the time of the House by pronouncing a verdict of guilty in both cases.
Unfortunately, although the Western Isles and the Highlands are often in advance of the rest of the country, there are times when we regret this, particularly when we are in advance on the unemployment figures. Last month, in the Western Isles, 26 per cent. of the insured population was out of work. In the Highlands generally the figure is 10 per cent. This is a portent of what might be coming to the rest of Scotland.
The situation is approaching a catastrophic level with unemployment up to 115,000. The complacency of the Government and the Scottish Office in this situation is beginning to make fiddling while Rome burned look like a rational way of passing the time. The Secretary of State must get down to urgent action, because it is needed in the present situation.
I hope that I am not distorting the words of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie), but I believe that he said that, while an affluent Britain does not necessarily mean an affluent
1780
Scotland, a depressed Britain means a depressed Scotland, sometimes in much greater degree. That is the situation. We are relatively worse off, because there are 20 people chasing every vacancy for males in Scotland while in England the figure is six. Therefore, we are four times worse off for employment.
The work of the Highlands and Islands Development Board has been hamstrung to a great extent by the selective employment tax. The Secretary of State was very vociferous before the General Election in demanding the abolition of S.E.T. and promising that it would go with the return of a Conservative Government. We are still waiting. The abolition of the tax would be of tremendous assistance to the Board.
I have some proposals to make about a Treasury for Scotland, even with the present set-up, which would allow the planning of fiscal and budgetary policies applicable to Scotland. At present, policies that might be quite rational for the rest of the United Kingdom are extremely damaging to the Scottish economy. I note with some gratification that the Conservative Party's Constitutional Committee admits the principle of applying different fiscal policies in Scotland.
I urge the Government to work towards the establishment of the Scottish Assembly. No one is more aware than I am of the inadequacy of such an Assembly for Scottish government, but it is a step in the right direction and should be implemented as quickly as possible so that the members of all parties in Scotland can get down to the urgent task of rebuilding the Scottish economy.
8.53 p.m.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: In the short time left to me I am glad to follow the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart). No part of Scotland suffers more acutely from unemployment and failures of economic planning than the constituency which he represents.
It is noteworthy that in his introductory speech the Secretary of State breathed not a word of the Government's policy towards the Highlands, although there has been no statement by him in the House of Government policy towards the Highlands since he was elected to office

1781
over seven months ago. The Select Committee's Report pays a great deal of attention to the unique problems of the Highlands area and makes some recommendations. It was characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman to pay no attention to those recommendations today but rather to indulge in fighting yet again a General Election campaign which in Scotland he lost last June.
The misfortune of the matter is that the Committee sat for two years, studied the problems very carefully and made extremely careful judgments, and this afternoon we had no verdicts from the Government on those judgments and no expectations that they will consider the recommendations.
The right hon. Gentleman made some remarkable announcements this afternoon which demonstrated the absolute poverty of the Government's thinking about regional policy. If he is so convinced that the switch from development grants to tax allowances is the cure-all for Scotland, why has he found it necessary to declare the West of Scotland a special development area? Is this not proof positive of the bankruptcy of his approach?
What is even more remarkable is that the right hon. Gentleman should be unable to inform the House when these measures will be effective. This is a positive disincentive to investment in Scotland. While he and his colleagues dither around trying to decide whether or not they need legislation before they can offer industry extra help——
Mr. Gordon Campbell Mr. Gordon Campbell rose——
Mr. Maclennan: No; I have only five minutes. The Under-Secretary can deal with the point in due time.
While the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues dither around trying to make up their minds whether legislation is necessary to enable this extra help to be offered what industry will invest in the west of Scotland when the prospect of greater Government help to the area is at some unspecified time ahead?
When we have record unemployment, when firm after firm is in difficulties and what is needed is capital investment, the right hon. Gentleman comes to the House and creates further uncertainty. This is utterly deplorable and in character with the fact that on 27th October——
Mr. Gordon Campbell Mr. Gordon Campbell rose——
Mr. Maclennan: No, I will not give way. I have only five minutes——
Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman did not hear: he must have been away.
Mr. Maclennan: Likewise, on 27th October the right hon. Gentleman produced his White Paper on the Local Employment Act provisions. He could not even tell us then, having had months of the summer, whether or not we were to have special legislation to implement his proposals on that score. What does he do in these long silences?
The Under-Secretary of State for Development has a peculiar responsibility for the Highlands. A signatory of the Select Committee Report, he appears, from the moment he gained office, to have ignored its every recommendation. The key rôle of industrial development certificates in the development of Scottish industry he now carefully ignores. I do not know how he has the effrontery to speak on this subject, in the light of what he has done.
We had the recommendation of the Committee that we should increase the flexibility of the Highland and Islands Development Board. The Under-Secretary knows that the former chairman gave in evidence the view that the limit of spending power of the board should be raised from £50,000 to £100,000 per annum. The hon. Gentleman went to the Highlands, to Inverness, in July, and after this meeting with the board it was announced that in the meantime the board would not press this on the Government. Clearly exercising his pressure, the hon. Gentleman made it embarrassing for the board to get what it had asked for and what he himself had recognised, in signing the Report was necessary.
I should have liked to ask the hon. Gentleman, had there been time, what action he and his Ministry of so-called Development are doing on the conditions attached to the grant-in-aid to the board, which, it was stated by the then chairman, should be modified to allow the board greater flexibility and freedom.
Although we have not had any statement on the Government's policy towards the Highlands since the Adjournment debate which I managed to get in the

1783
summer, we have had a speech, an extraordinary speech, demonstrating a total ignorance of Highland problems, in another place by the Minister of State. She demonstrated that she, too, is exercising pressure on the Highlands and Islands Development Board to limit its rôle and curtail its freedom.
I intervened earlier to point out what the Minister of State had admitted. It is reported in c. 970 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the other place for 27th January. She admitted what the Government had done for the promotional efforts of the Board. Because of the pettifogging £20,000 which was given to the Scottish Council for the promotion of the whole of Scottish industry, the Highlands and Islands Development Board has been prevailed upon—the word used is "persuaded"—to abstain from its promotional exercise in Germany and the United States. This exercise was following up its successful endeavours of last Autumn, in which it was estimated that almost £100,000 had been spent to promote industry, from which 839 positive inquiries had been received.
This retrograde action on the part of the Government has been contrary to the recommendations of the Select Committee, which specifically said that the promotional work of the Highlands and Islands Development Board had been invaluable and should be encouraged. But the Government, as in all other matters, have overlooked the recommendations of the Select Committee.
Most profoundly ignorant of all were the remarks of the Minister of State in another place about the kind of industry the Highlands need. It was this Government which, when in Opposition, upbraided us for coming down on the service industries. I accuse them of coming down on capital intensive industries, and nothing is more dangerous to the future of the Highlands, as for the whole of Scotland, than that.
This shows that the Government are completely lacking in awareness of the needs of Scotland. We cannot rely on dying industries. Old indigenous industries must, of course, be supported where they exist, but we cannot live on them alone. Had we not seized the nettle and backed the Invergordon scheme, as well
1784
as the Dounreay fast reactor, the position would indeed be sad today.
The Minister of State said:
"But as the House knows, such large-scale enterprises are capital intensive and do not in themselves bring much further employment to the area."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 27th January, 1971; Vol. 314, c. 968.]
The Invergordon scheme has brought 600 jobs to the area, and few places in the Highlands would not welcome 600 new jobs.
But that is not all. The Select Committee specifically pointed out that, in its view, capital intensive industries brought other industries in their path. Naturally, the service industries in the area have benefitted from this, including the shops, hotels, laundries and garages. But these industries will suffer if the Government do not help the capital intensive industries; and, unfortunately, these industries are being harmed by the switch away from investment grants.
Time does not allow me to catalogue the incompetence and muddled thinking in the Government's regional policy. They have adopted a piecemeal approach, introducing one measure and not being able to fit it into a rational plan for Scotland. We have had an announcement off the cuff, as it were, about proposed special measures for the West of Scotland, but not a word about what the effects of that will be on the rest of Scotland. I welcome what has been announced—one is thankful for small mercies—but the Government should be looking at the planned development of Scotland as a whole.
Last Tuesday the Secretary of State for the Environment said that the Government's review of regional policy was not yet complete. After seven months in office, it is not yet complete. Despite that, the Government bring forward this petty little measure today and they cannot even tell us whether they need legislation to bring it into effect. Scotland needs leadership, not this.
9.5 p.m.
Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I have managed to hear, if not all of every speech, at least part of every speech. Therefore, to some extent I have a slight advantage over the Under-Secretary, who must rely on the notes of his right hon.

1785
and hon. Friends for at least two or three hours of the debate when he was absent, if he is to refer to all those who took part in the debate.
Every speaker has made a valuable contribution. Those hon. Members who thanked the Select Committee—I join them—were perfectly right to do so and, in particular to single out our old colleague Tom Steele for his excellent chairmanship of the Committee.
I echo the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) about the need for the Committee to be reconstituted. I greatly hope that the Under-Secretary, apart from the political points that he will doubtless want to make, will try to answer this point as a Member of the House. We are anxious that the Committee should be reconstituted so that more of these matters can be examined in depth.
It was inevitable that the Committee chose such a wide remit which enabled it to identify possible points of future inquiry. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), who served the Committee so well along with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, made a good point when he talked about the good work of the Development Commission. Perhaps we in Scotland do not use the Development Commission as we should. In my time at the Scottish Office we helped to expand its activities, and many a row I had about taking the interests of the Commission from Wales occasionally up to Scotland.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), in his plea that the Committee should be reconstituted and given some more tasks, underlined the belief of many people that the Committee still has a great job to do.
There have been two very interesting developments in the debate. One was certainly predictable. I was a little surprised about the other.
The predictable development was that something had to be done by the Government about the crisis in West Central Scotland. There is no doubt that the collapse of industries there in such swift succession and the closures present a very serious challenge to the Government. The Labour Government recognised that with the rapid decline of jobs in the older industries
1786
something had to be done to bring cohesion to West Central Scotland.
The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) inherited the plans we had for reconstituting the Clyde Valley Advisory Committee. That was a very long and difficult battle. We wanted the Committee in its enlarged form to be an economic consultative group to promote the interests of the area. To some extent that plan has been abandoned or adulterated—I am not sure which is the more appropriate word. Certainly there is no money available for promoting the interests of West Central Scotland.
Perhaps there is a case for saying that the constitution of West Central Scotland as a special development area as announced today is a better solution or part of a solution. As we had no knowledge that the Secretary of State intended to make such an announcement, naturally we shall want to study the announcement; but prima facie it looks as if it is a good step forward.
I counsel the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell) and the hon. Members for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) and Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) not to be too distressed about the possible counter-productive effect in the Highlands or in Aberdeenshire as a consequence of West Central Scotland being declared to be a special development area. The North-East of Scotland always had a very bad rate of emigration. Indeed, at one time it had the highest rate of all the Scottish regions. However, times have changed and the figures have changed also, the highest rate being now in West Central Scotland and it is there that half of Scotland lies bleeding to death. This is why the strategy to some extent must be altered.
The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) very sensibly argued that regional policy is, after all, a continuing process; there is a legitimate time for changing policies. This is why we in our time were willing to examine our own policies. Even though the industrial incentives and other apparatus that we set up were established only in 1966 and began to take effect only in 1967 and 1968, we were willing, as all intelligent people should be, to examine our policy and see if it was being as

1787
effective as it should be. I shall touch on this point again later. We will facilitate the passage of any legislation involved in the establishment of the S.D.A. If none is required, we are glad.
Mr. Gordon Campbell Mr. Gordon Campbell rose——
Dr. Mabon: We shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman can clear up the position when he is able to see his way through his muddle. I want to give the Under-Secretary of State time to reply to the debate and it would be wrong if he did not make a constructive reply. As I have said, I have great regard for the right hon. Gentleman and would willingly sit down if I thought that he was going to make a useful point.
But the S.D.A., no matter how much we assist it, will in no way make up for the loss of investment grants and for the failure to announce new incentives to follow the regional employment premium which is to be abolished in 1974. In no way does this announcement of the S.D.A. compensate for what we are complaining about—the smashing of two if not three of the legs of this stool.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hunterston—I am sorry, for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie)—that was a truly Freudian slip—talked about Hunterston and was supported in his remarks on the consequences to the steel industry by my hon. Friends the Members for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton). I wonder whether one of the firms at Hunterston is one of the 30 mentioned in The Times report which my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) quoted. Thirty major firms have been chased away from Great Britain or have become unwilling to invest in Great Britain because of the Government's sudden switch in policy. Perhaps the Secretary of State, if he cannot refer to all the firms involved will refer to some of them at some stage, or perhaps the Under-Secretary of State in reply tonight will tell us which of these major firms he knows about have refused to come because of the switch in policy.
I suggest that the total is more than 30. One by one we will winkle out the names. If the right hon. Gentleman is able to tell the Under-Secretary of State what comments he should make, it will no
1788
doubt improve the hon. Gentleman's speech no end. We will then be able to measure whether or not they are the kind of firms resented by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), who, as the one time financial correspondent of The Spectator, told us how wicked we were to give money to various aluminium smelter firms which established themselves in Wales, Blyth and Invergordon. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] He has gone to find out whether the Government need legislation or not.
The speech by the Secretary of State was remarkable. He said that when the Government got into office they had to have an urgent and full review and announce the results on 27th October. The results swept away the work of the Select Committee. [Interruption.] I do not want to embarrass the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), but I will try. Having told us how important it was to do this, the right hon. Gentleman then said that it was not possible for him to deal with present unemployment quite so quickly. That was a curious contrast. I suspect that his speech was not written in the Scottish Office but in Tory Central Office. There was an interesting contradiction in the speech between the urgency of the future period which is not to end until 1974 and the non-urgency, apparently, of the present, which is this winter. It was a curious contrast in priorities.
The hon. Member for Inverness, when touching on the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire about Hunterston, spoke of the activities of the Minister for Transport Industries, the man who made a mess in the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board controversy, the man who has undermined confidence in private investment in the docks and who no doubt has made a contribution, an adverse contribution, to the help necessary for the Clyde port to provide the facilities which the Secretary of State for Scotland has sanctioned in a unique and equivocal decision letter which has still to be resolved. We do want to know what the British Steel Corporation is thinking of doing at Hunterston.
The Under-Secretary would be well advised to comment on this and, if we may know, what Chevron Oil is thinking of doing, whether it has been given the

1789
promised statement which was mentioned in the decision letter. I do not know whether Hunterston is to be in the S.D.A. area. I could not divine that from the Secretary of State's vague announcement. No doubt we shall find out tomorrow or later this week.
The Prime Minister is a prisoner of his own words about special aid to Glasgow, for on 11th June he said:
"I will give special aid to the city".
He meant special financial aid, or so he was interpreted by the Tory treasurer of the city. The friends of hon. Members opposite in the corporation believe that it is financial aid to the city. But the hon. Gentleman saved up his announcement for the debate. This is unfair debating, but this is the way in which he unfairly treats the House of Commons, and no doubt he will explain it all in his speech. He has made no mention of financial aid to the city, and we should like to know what financial aid, if any, it is to be.
If it is to be financial aid to the city may we know whether, in conformity with the Tory manifesto, "intolerable burdens" are to be placed on those areas outside Glasgow in which housing is built for Glasgow's needs? That means Stirlingshire, possibly Dunbartonshire, certainly Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire.
I agree that Dunbartonshire has made no compact and we cannot make any claims there. No doubt it is a mouse of a scheme.
In Erskine, after a bitter fight with the Tories in Glasgow holding us up for 18 months, we launched a scheme for 30,000 houses of which 20,000 were to be in the public sector. The Conservative convener of my own county, Renfrew, is asking for that ratio to be one to one instead of two to three, but I hope that the Government will resist that proposal and stick to 20,000 houses for the public sector and 10,000 for the private, for that seems a fair balance. The 20,000 houses were approved as an amendment by my right hon. Friend to the Renfrewshire development plan several years ago.
We authorised the East Kilbride Development Corporation to build 3,000 houses extra in East Kilbride to be set aside for Glasgow citizens, for the town council generously said that it would waive its rights to them because of the
1790
importance of Glasgow's problem. We also commissioned the East Kilbride Development Corporation to build a new town of 65,000 people at Larkhall/Stonehouse and we committed ourselves to 2,000 houses for the S.S.H.A. in that new town. Admittedly, we were not going to designate new town status at once, but we were doing all the planning work, The Tories skated out of office in 1964 having promised in the August of that year to build Irvine. We had to do all the legislative, statutory and promotional work to create Irvine and it took four years to start it properly. I can therefore hardly claim that we established a new town, but we began the work at Larkhall/Stonehouse.
Those are all the things we have done. At Cumbernauld New Town there were to be some 2,000 houses and in Stirlingshire 5,000 at Lennoxtown and Milton of Campsie. These were all to be provided for Glasgow, or at least 3,500. That is a formidable total of houses. The Secretary of State's announcement today, if it means anything, means more than that, but I cannot understand what he is doing more than that formidable total. Perhaps it was a non-announcement; we shall wait and see.
We have debated housing before and the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend have skated away from targets and commitments as fast as they see them coming. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) clearly demonstrated, the same number of houses cannot be built with the same amount of money without reducing standards. That is because of the present annual increase in housing costs, quite apart from inflation, largely because of wage rates and materials, common throughout the world. Then there is the famous S.E.T., which incidentally will become V.A.T. Do not imagine that its abolition means a bonus. The Prime Minister, if he takes the country into the Common Market is obliged to impose V.A.T. in place of S.E.T.
Mr. MacArthur: Not on housing.
Dr. Mabon: Yes. The hon. Gentleman does not know his common Market. Every service and manufacture. Within the Glasgow context, if all these houses which have been promised are to be built and yet the volume of housing in financial terms is to remain the same, it

1791
means that the number of houses built in the rest of Scotland will be much smaller.
There are no target figures. I asked the right hon. Gentleman today to confirm that he would try for 44,000 but he is not having that. At present the Government are heading for 30,000 a year—in other words, what their predecessors did 10 years ago. Yet I can remember the great revival of 1951 when the Tory Party claimed that they would build 300,000 houses a year. We debated these later targets in manifestos. In 1966 they said they could get 50,000, or 500,000 in the United Kingdom. Now the Tory Party are ratting on that.
Mr. MacArthur: What did you do?
Dr. Mabon: We did 44,537 and that is the very best year in Scotland's history. I ask: may we just get that in one of the next few years while the Tory Party are in office? It is not too much to ask, but I doubt whether we will get it.
The Under-Secretary went to a conference in Bonn. This was a conference of Ministers in charge of regional development and I read the interesting report. I attended a debate on the subject quite recently. The hon. Gentleman is on record as saying that the general position about infrastructure was splendid; there were improvements still to be done, a great rolling programme, but on the whole the picture was good and—this is a very good selling point for Scotland—we have very good roads, very good sewerage systems, plenty of good water, good water boards—and we all remember that wonderful Act of 1967. This is not my description, this is summarised at page 95 where it is said clearly in paragraph VII.20 that Scotland's infrastructure is splendid. That is what the Committee says.
Who created the infrastructure? We did. They printed all the papers and all the pamphlets, but we built all the roads. We doubled the road system in six years, from 100 miles of dual carriageway to 209 miles. We set a splendid example in housing, we spent a good deal of money on all kinds of infrastructure. It is said in this Report that Scotland, of all European countries, is well ahead in infrastructure. To whom does the credit go?
1792
Obviously to the Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman has given £20,000 to the Scottish Council, less than a penny a head, to promote the whole of Scotland. That was as a result of his visit to Germany. He thought that we ought to promote ourselves in Germany, little realising the costs of promotion.
The Highlands Board requires £100,000 for 250,000 people. It is right to spend that money. The hon. Gentleman suggests that Scotland should have £20,000 and tells the other areas and parts of Scotland not to ask individually for money, because the Government are promoting Scotland as a whole. He is being absurd. This is ridiculous. Scotland needs a £1 million promotion programme overseas to try to attract investors and to get industries in the South and Midlands of England to go to Scotland.
I turn to the Amendment. We have complained about the disappearance of the direct investment incentives. In paragraph IV.49 on page 55 of the Select Committee's Report there is reference to the pilot study which was carried out by the Ministry of Technology to discover whether a full survey should be carried out into industrial grants as against industrial allowances. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite took office and issued on 18th January, 1971, their own pejorative version of the summary. They say that they have decided not to do a complete study of this subject. But in fact they were committed by the Tory manifesto not to do so.
The Secretary of State, in a curious act of logic today said that because in 1969 we had not observed the restriction on industrial development certificates, imposed by ourselves to some extent, he could abandon it permanently. He thinks that because we did not observe it in one year the Tories need not observe it ever again. So we have this substantial concession to the 10,000 sq. ft. limit in I.D.C.s.
There is this curious argument on which we must have some answers about the reduction in regional expenditure. The figures as I understand them are these, leaving aside the difficult years of transition. The saving by the abolition of investment grants in 1972–73 will be £365 million. It will rise to £600 million by 1974–75. But the cost of capital

1793
allowances, which will replace investment grants, will be £235 million, rising to £485 million in 1974–75. So the Government will gain £130 million in the first year I mentioned and £115 million in the last year I mentioned. I do not know how one assesses the reduction in corporation tax, but there are itemised savings in other expenditures on industry, and so on. There is to be a saving of £44 million in 1972–73 and £105 million in 1974–75.
That represents a clear profit for the Government from the monetary, fiscal cuts in regional investment. Whatever the Secretary of State says, he cannot skate away from that fact. This is a saving of Government money. The same amount of money is not being invested.
I should like the Under-Secretary of State for Development to tell us how these figures are reflected in Scottish terms and how Scotland is to get out of its difficult situation. The Government have ignored the Select Committee entirely. They have even ignored their advisers. Professor Campbell, who as far as I am aware is not a dedicated Socialist, of the Chair of Applied Economics at Dundee University and an economic adviser to the Secretary of State and co-author of the Tayside Study together with the Chief Planning Officer of the Scottish Development Department—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is a good plan."]
—the plan is good; I am not sure about the prospects.
Last weekend, Professor Campbell described his plan as he saw it. He said that the Tayside people had to recognise that there were new obstacles to the realisation of his plan for Tayside. He said:
"Recent changes in regional development policy would also make it much more difficult for the region to attract the jobs needed both to counteract the decline in existing industry and provide a base for future growth."
Who, looking at Dundee and seeing recent events there, cannot be worried about what is happening in that great city and the hinterland and which is so valuable to us in terms of the study?
I charge the Government that they ignored the pilot study which we left them, the Select Committee, their own economic advisers and the officials in the Scottish Office in order to embrace, in a doctrinaire, blind way, their manifesto.
Mr. MacArthur: Hear, hear.
Dr. Mahon: There are none so blind as those who cannot see.
They embraced their manifesto and declared their position before they had any of the instruments of Government at their hand to decide how they should conduct themselves and what would be in the best interests of Scotland. In other words, they behaved irresponsibly; they behaved in ignorance; they behaved with that enormous conceit and arrogance which we always associate with the Tory Party in power. For that we condemn them roundly tonight.
9.30 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): I am very glad that we have had the chance of this debate today. It started off as a debate, for which we have all been waiting a long time, on the Report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. It also developed in part as that, but in part it developed into what was almost a survey of the Scottish economy.
I should like to start by saying just a very few words about the Select Committee itself, having myself been a member of it, and I would like to do so because I have felt for some time that I should like to say one or two things about it. I found it to be an absolutely fascinating, most enjoyable, most useful experience, which I thoroughly enjoyed, and which I would not have missed for anything, and I would advise anyone in this House who has a chance of being on a Select Committee to take that chance with both hands, because not only did I enjoy it very much but I found it most valuable in every way.
However, there are one or two things which I think ought to be said about Select Committees—this is a personal view of mine—as they affect Scotland. A Select Committee depends, I think, for its success on the feeling among the members of the Committee, the feeling of getting together and making, as it were, common cause to probe and find the ultimate truth from those whom it cross-examines. The most successful Select Committee—and most of them are successful—achieves this very well. The only question mark I would put, and I

1795
am speaking personally, is that I myself wonder whether we in Scotland do not know one another too well to get this particular form of dialogue between the members of the Committee and the people whom we cross-examine. This is a personal experience; it may not be the experience of other hon. Members on the Committee with me; I do not know.
Nevertheless, I myself have felt that we ought to think carefully about how we handle these things in Scotland, because I felt that we really were not able to get at the fundamental points, which we really thought we ought to investigate, because we were too much involved with one another in our daily political battles and because of the fact that we know one another too well, in a way, to get the best out of the Committee. This is a personal view, and any hon. Member is at liberty to disagree with me, but I felt it only right to say that, seeing that we are discussing that Committee today.
There are some very good parts of the Select Committee's Report, which are in every way very well worth while having. In particular I would refer to the remarkably interesting evidence presented by the then Minister of Technology, who gave a most impressive performance, very worth while measured by any standards, and, with respect, I would say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) gave evidence which was extremely fascinating to all of us in the Committee. It was at least to me. I thought it first class.
Having said that, there is one further thing which I would like to say. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree with me. I would say how very impressed I think we all were by the fairness and patience of Mr. Tom Steele who acted as Chairman of the Committee, which was, at times, by no means easy. I should like in this tribute to join with him the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), who acted as a sort of deputy Chairman, and did a very good job indeed.
Mr. Lawson: Would the hon. Gentleman say a word about the Clerks?
Mr. Younger: Yes. I thank the hon. Gentleman very much. As is the case with all Select Committees, we were helped immensely by the services of our Clerks and advisers, whose work was most valuable and helped us a lot with ours.
I will answer as many individual points as possible. This has been a most entertaining and interesting debate. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock came along with his biggest pair of gumboots and floundered around producing quotations from odd corners of the Report to support his case, leaving aside all the others that supported the case which he was not putting forward.
The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) was in one of his cost constructive moods. I much enjoyed his contribution. We had the usual speech from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie)—I am sorry, the hon. Member for Hunterston—who delighted us by his instruction to Scottish Office Ministers to get off their hind legs. I am not sure what one does when one gets off one's hind legs. The hon. Gentleman was doing what he has been doing since last July. He has been making the speeches which he was preparing to make when my right hon. Friend turned down every part of the Hunterston development. I wonder whether some time he will come back to earth and realise that things have not turned out as he expected. The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) was his usual knock-about self, and no one was in the slightest bit disappointed about his contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) asked the Secretary of State to give serious consideration to the economic and social aspects of the proposed closure of the Kyle railway line before giving his consent to the closure proposal. Yes, my right hon. Friend will take those very much into account.
The hon. Member for Paisley said that it was in the new industries rather than in the old ones that we were losing jobs. I do not think that he is quite right in that. It is still the case, as it has been for five years or more, that the main job losses are in agriculture, mining, shipbuilding, metal manufacture, textiles.

1797
transport and distribution. There have been one or two recent redundancies in newer industries. In Honeywell Controls there have been 400 redundancies, in Burroughs 370 and in Saxone 250. Inevitably, rationalisation leads to some shakeout in new firms as well as in old ones. There is no doubt, as stated by the firms themselves, that current world market forces are a material factor in this. Honeywell stated this publicly when the news came out. The longer-term prospects for firms of this sort continue to be good. For example, only last week my right hon. Friend opened a new Burroughs factory, offering substantial new employment opportunities at Glenrothes.
The hon. Member for Paisley also asked a specific question about U.C.S. It had not occurred to me that my wind-up speech would contain a list of firms which were not going into liquidation, but I understand that U.C.S. has this afternoon effectively disposed of any such rumours which may be around. This will cause great satisfaction to all hon. Members. Both sides of the House will welcome the great strides that U.C.S. has made in recent months in getting orders for its new standard ships, and we look forward to the realisation of the energetic plans for capturing a further share of the present buoyant world ship building market.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Minister dispose of the rumours by giving some indication of what the Cabinet meeting was about in relation to private industry?
Mr. Younger: Even if I knew what went on in Cabinet meetings it would he entirely out of order for me to tell the House.
Mr. Dalyell: I thought that it might scotch the rumours.
Mr. Younger: I hope that I have managed to scotch the rumours suggested by the hon. Member for Paisley.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire asked specifically about future plans of the British Steel Corporation. He made the rather unfortunate statement that Scottish steel would be liquidated by 1980, except for one obsolescent plant at Ravenscraig.
Mr. Lambie: I was quoting a statement made by the secretary of the steel
1798
workers of Scotland in an article in the Glasgow Herald. Certainly the representative of the steel workers of Scotland is a better source than is the Under-Secretary of State.
Mr. Younger: As the B.S.C. stated at the Hunterston inquiry, the corporation's policy is to increase its productive capacity in Scotland to over 4½ million tons per annum by 1975. Plans for production beyond that are now under consideration, and the Secretary of State's decision to give planning permission for an ore terminal at Hunterston must substantially strengthen Scotland's case for providing deep-water facilities for a new integrated steelworks.
Mr. Lambie: There is a feeling in Scotland that the British Steel Corporation will be willing to invest £6½ million in an ore terminal while at the same time it is willing to spend £200 million on a new integrated plant in the north of England. There cannot be an ore terminal without an integrated steel plant. My case—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]—and the case of the steel workers of Scotland is that when we get an integrated steel plant an ore terminal must follow. My criticism of the Secretary of State—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long!"]—is that he is doing nothing at present in these planning stages to influence the B.S.C.
Mr. Younger: I have been far too generous in giving way, and if I continue to do so we shall get nowhere. I have made the position clear in regard to the British Steel Corporation. It is beyond reason for anybody to talk about the complete disappearance of the Scottish steel industry by 1980. I hope that we shall hear nothing more of that.
Mr. Ross: Can we be assured that the Secretary of State is being kept informed of the plans of the B.S.C. on this long-term business of a new integrated plant and that, despite the policy of non-intervention, he still has powers to let the corporation know how we in Scotland feel about the future of the steel industry?
Mr. Younger: Yes, I can state that my right hon. Friend is in the closest touch with what is going on and that he is, and will continue to be, in the closest touch with the corporation about all its future plans, which are, of course, of great interest and importance to us all in Scotland.

1799
I wish to refer to what was said by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock. First, I wish to make it clear that legislation is not needed to set up a special development area in the Glasgow conurbation and Clydeside. The right hon. Gentleman was not correct in saying that the special development areas were only in areas of coal mine closures. We must remember the exception of Millom where, for special reasons, this policy was implemented. The policy is flexible to that extent. My right hon. Friend made an announcement on this matter today since he thought that the House would wish to be told that this was to be done.
I am glad that, apart from one or two discordant notes, the announcement received a warm welcome as a necessary and valuable addition to the pull which the Clydeside area should from now on be able to command in attracting industry to replace the jobs which it has been losing for some time. I hope that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. MacLennan) will not feel at a disadvantage that this is to happen. I am convinced that an effective improvement in the employment situation on Clyde-side would have an effect throughout Scotland in the general prosperity of the country as a whole. I am glad that this announcement was welcomed as a wise and statesmanlike move by my right hon. Friend and the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman then took me to task for ignoring the report of the Select Committee. He would not accept for one moment that all members of all Select Committees should be committed to everything recommended by those Committees for ever more. I do not think that that is what he was suggesting. It is not true that I have in any way ignored all the recommendations of the Report. For instance, the Select Committee made some very trenchant and helpful suggestions for improving the economic planning machinery in Scotland. To a very large extent the changes which my right hon. Friend has introduced go at least some way to meeting the points made very effectively by many people on both sides of the Select Committee. The Scottish Economic Planning Council, with the best of intentions, gave the impression of doing a job which it was not doing. That part of the Report is an
1800
example of what is being carried out following its publication.
The main tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks was based on the theory that the Select Committee had found clearly that investment grants were superior to investment allowances. One can find plenty of evidence to suggest that investment grants are a good thing, but the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to any of the evidence suggesting that investment allowances were a good thing. There is the evidence of Professor Wilson and Professor Brown, who were quite outspoken about this, as they were about discrimination against service industries, which was such an undesirable feature of the policy followed by the right hon. Gentleman when he was Secretary of State.
It is not true to give the impression that the Select Committee found in favour of investment allowances or grants. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that. [Interruption.] The effect of the Report was perfectly clear. The hon. Member for Motherwell was nearer than anyone else to this. It was that the Select Committee's Report was quite equivocal between these two different forms of incentive. It came to the conclusion that more study was needed. That is the only firm conclusion one can take from the Report on this matter.
The be-all and end-all of the argument about grants and allowances comes down in the end to a matter of opinion—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—between one side of the House and another, and a matter of opinion—[Interruption.]—between one industrialist and another, and a matter of opinion, as was perfectly clear—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Younger.
Mr. Younger: I must get on with my speech otherwise we shall never get anywhere.
The clear message of the Select Committee was that there were arguments both ways. The Government have decided that the balance of advantage for Scotland lies in the new system. It is a system not only of investment allowances but of better grants, bigger grants under the Local Employment Act, 10 per cent. higher building grants—we heard nothing from hon. Members opposite about that —and more generous criteria under the

1801
Local Employment Acts as to the number of jobs per pound of loan given—and we heard nothing about that. In the opinion of the Government, which I thoroughly support, the new package is one which is likely to do a better job in attracting new industry than the old one.
We must all listen to the right hon. Gentleman's views on this with great respect. But we must remember that, whether one likes one system or the other, it was crystal clear that the old system was not producing the right results. It the right hon. Gentleman had been able to say that the old system has produced such marvellous results and that we have gained jobs in Scotland all through the years in which it was in progress, it would have been very difficult to suggest making a change. Are we supposed to imagine that it is a coincidence that it was almost exactly the month of March, 1966, when the change took place from a steady gain in jobs to a steady, if not rather larger, loss in jobs in Scotland? One has to be extremely gullible to think that there is no connection between the change in investment incentives and the drastic change in jobs which has caused so much redundancy.
Mr. Ross Mr. Ross rose——
Mr. Younger: No. I am sorry. I must continue with my speech.
Mr. Norman Buchan Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrew, West)rose——
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not given way.
Mr. Younger: I normally give way, but I have been very kind to a number of hon. Members, and I must get on with my speech. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock asked me a number of questions, and I will not have time to answer them unless I am allowed to continue my speech.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for more details about the mention made by my right hon. Friend of the housing help for Glasgow. The hon. Member for Greenock also pressed me on this point. My right hon. Friend is aiming to secure the provision of 17,000 extra houses for the redeployment of Glasgow's population which was recommended in the report of the joint working party on Glasgow's housing.
Dr. Dickson Mahon: That has all been done.
Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman may have got it wrong. He referred to this in an earlier debate, and I should have corrected him then. These 17,000 houses are additional to all the existing commitments left by the previous Government——
Mr. Ross: They are not.
Mr. Younger: It is a fact that they are. That is why we are setting ourselves to produce the means of implementing the extra 17,000.
Dr. Dickson Mabon: How many in total?
Mr. Younger: The proposed development under new town powers together with the additional programme of S.S.H.A. houses between them should attain that total of 17,000 houses additional to anything calculated at the time that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office. This would provide good housing in good surroundings for something like 60,000 extra people.
What the hon. Member for Greenock did when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office was to talk in general terms about further out-county building. What this Government have done is specifically to earmark the resources to do it, first by co-operation in the working party which identified the problem, second by accepting the conclusions of that working party in full, which were not available to the hon. Gentleman, and third by providing the means through the S.S.H.A.—extra building to anything specified by the S.S.H.A. and the new town powers which are now specifically mentioned—for these houses to be built. I can be specific about this——
Mr. William Hannan Mr. William Hannan (Glasgow, Maryhill) rose——
Mr. Younger: No. Hon. Members are entitled to this information, and I cannot give it unless I am allowed to continue.
What the previous Government did was to announce on 17th January, 1969, that they were willing to pay for the cost of preparing a master plan for a development at Stonehouse and that the planning agency might be the East Kilbride

1803
Development Corporation. They did not say that they would do anything to implement it. The intention was to have the plan ready for implementation by re-organised local goverment. The only firm proposal was for a limited development plan amendment at Canderside Toll for 2,000 houses. The amendment is at present under consideration. Nothing else has been able to be done for that. This would have involved about 2,000 S.S.H.A. houses and an industrial estate associated with it.
What is new in this Government's proposal is not simply to prepare a master plan but to consider new town powers to get the building of a new community under way, irrespective of the timing of local government reform. This is completely additional to any of the plans made before. It involves a considerable financial commitment, too. Clearly, if the S.S.H.A. is to build something like an additional 7,000 houses, they will cost the central Government a great deal of money. This is part of a considerable contribution to the Glasgow Corporation's problems.
Mrs. Judith Hart: Are we to understand that there is a precise commitment to 7,000 houses in the Stone-house area in addition to the 2,000 which my hon. Friend earlier announced? Is the East Kilbride Development Corporation to be the agency for building the houses, or has a decision not yet been taken about it?
Mr. Younger: The decision has not finally been taken, but we are prepared to consider putting this proposal to the East Kilbride Development Corporation. It is us to the corporation.
I cannot tie myself to 7,000 extra houses at Stonehouse—[Interruption.]—but there will be a lot of houses in addition to the 2,000 at Canderside Toll. [Interruption.] I am sure that hon. Members opposite will greatly regret it if they laugh too much about this, because it is a real, genuine, extra commitment which has never been given before.
It is no use the Opposition coming to the House tonight at the end of a debate on the Select Committee's Report and making out that the whole of the regional development policy is being changed for the worse by the new Government. Nor
1804
is it any use saying that this Government have done nothing in the seven months that they have been in office. We have already changed the whole basis whereby the service industries were discriminated against throughout the Labour Government's period of office. All who are involved in the service industries are now thoroughly delighted and very thankful.
We have already put in hand changes in the regional development policy which, in our opinion, will make a better contribution and bring more jobs to Scotland than in previous years. The one thing which it was not open to us to do when we took office in June was to sit back and say, "Everything is running beautifully. We can leave it all as it stands."
In that context, I wonder what the Opposition think of the fact that their own investment incentives, which have had this effect over the past five years, were running throughout last summer and yet the slide continued.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock said that there was a change in investment incentives on 27th October. Surely the right hon. Gentleman must realise that if it were the case that everybody was dreading that change there would have been an avalanche of people trying to get in their developments before it happened. We would have been inundated with applications in July, August and September. That did not happen, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. Throughout last summer the inexorable trend of the last five years continued. We were losing jobs year by year. This Government were not prepared to allow that situation to go on. Today my right hon. Friend—
Mr. Ross Mr. Ross rose——
Mr. Younger: Today my right hon. Friend has shown that he recognises that special measures are needed to deal with the situation which we inherited and which we are honour bound to do something about. That is why my right hon. Friend introduced the proposal for a special development area in the Clyde-side and West Central Scotland areas where the main problem of redundancies and unemployment now lies. This is something which the people in that area can look to as a clear recognition that we know that they need an extra pull to get new jobs into the area.

1805
I should like to conclude by mentioning promotion. I hope that no one will sneer at the necessary efforts to co-ordinate and bring together the efforts of the many agencies in Scotland which are going out to England and abroad to encourage new investment and industry to come to Scotland. If we sit back and just complain about our difficulties and troubles we shall never get the new jobs and the new investment which we need. I hope that, irrespective of party political problems or anything else, we can have the
support of hon. Members on both sides of the House for our efforts.
Mr. James Hamilton Mr. James Hamilton (Bothwell)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 312.

Division No. 122.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

Albu, Austen

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Driberg, Tom

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Allen, Scholefield

Duffy, A. E. P.

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Dunn, James A.

Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)

Armstrong, Ernest

Dunnett, Jack

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Ashley, Jack

Eadie, Alex

Judd, Frank

Ashton, Joe

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Kaufman, Gerald

Atkinson, Norman

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Kelley, Richard

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Ellis, Tom

Kinnock, Neil

Barnes, Michael

English, Michael

Lambie, David

Barnett, Joel

Evans, Fred

Lamond, James

Beaney, Alan

Fernyhough, E.

Latham, Arthur

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)

Lawson, George

Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Leadbitter, Ted

Bidwell, Sydney

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Bishop, E. S.

Foley, Maurice

Leonard, Dick

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Foot, Michael

Lestor, Miss Joan

Booth, Albert

Ford, Ben

Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Forrester, John

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Bradley, Tom

Freeson, Reginald

Lipton, Marcus

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Galpern, Sir Myer

Lomas, Kenneth

Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)

Garrett, W. E.

Loughlin, Charles

Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

Gilbert, Dr. John

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Ginsburg David

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Buchan, Norman

Golding, John

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

McBride, Neil

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Gourlay, Harry

McCartney, Hugh

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Grant, George (Morpeth)

McElhone, Frank

Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

McGuire, Michael

Cant, R. B.

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Mackenzie, Gregor

Carmichael, Neil

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Mackie, John

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

Mackintosh, John P.

Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Maclennan, Robert

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

MacPherson, Malcolm

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Hardy, Peter

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Cohen, Stanley

Harper, Joseph

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

Coleman, Donald

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Marks, Kenneth

Concannon, J. D.

Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

Marquand, David

Conlan, Bernard

Hattersley, Roy

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Mayhew, Christopher

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

Heffer, Eric S.

Meacher, Michael

Crawshaw, Richard

Hilton, W. S.

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Cronin, John

Horam, John

Mendelson, John

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Mikardo, Ian

Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Millan, Bruce

Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

Huckfield, Leslie

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Dalyell, Tam

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Davidson, Arthur

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Molloy, William

Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Hunter, Adam

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Janner, Greville

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Federick

Deakins, Eric

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Murray, Ronald King

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)

Ogden, Eric

Delargy, H. J.

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

O'Halloran, Michael

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Oram, Bert

Dempsey, James

John, Brynmor

Orbach, Maurice

Doig, Peter

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Orme, Stanley

Dormand, J. D.

Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

Oswald, Thomas

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Tomney, Frank

Padley, Walter

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Torney, Tom

Palmer, Arthur

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Tuck, Raphael

Pannel, Rt. Hn. Charles

Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

Urwin, T. W.

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Short,Mrs.Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

Varley, Eric G.

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Wainwright, Edwin

Pavitt, Laurie

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Sillars, James

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Pendry, Tom

Silverman, Julius

Wallace, George

Pentland, Norman

Skinner, Dennis

Watkins, David

Perry, Ernest G.

Small, William

Weitzman, David

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

Wellbeloved, James

Prescott, John

Spearing, Nigel

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Spriggs, Leslie

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Price, William (Rugby)

Stallard, A. W.

Whitehead, Phillip

Probert, Arthur

Steel, David

Whitlock, William

Rankin, John

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Richard, Ivor

Strang, Gavin

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Woof, Robert

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Swain, Thomas

Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)

Mr. Alan Fitch and

Roper, John

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Mr. William Hamling.

Rose, Paul B.

Tinn, James

NOES

Adley, Robert

Cooke, Robert

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Coombs, Derek

Grylls, Michael

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Cooper, A. E.

Gummer, Selwyn

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

Cordle, John

Gurden, Harold

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Cormack, Patrick

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Astor, John

Costain, A. P.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Atkins, Humphrey

Crouch, David

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Awdry, Daniel

Crowder, F. P.

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Curran, Charles

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Balniel, Lord

Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

Batsford, Brian

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Haselhurst, Alan

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack

Hastings, Stephen

Bell, Ronald

Dean, Paul

Havers, Michael

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

Hawkins, Paul

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Hayhoe, Barney

Benyon, W.

Dixon, Piers

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Berry, Hon. Anthony

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Heseltine, Michael

Biffen, John

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Hicks, Robert

Biggs-Davison, John

Drayson, G. B.

Higgins, Terence L.

Blaker, Peter

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Hiley, Joseph

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Dykes, Hugh

Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

Body, Richard

Eden, Sir John

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Boscawen, Robert

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Holland, Philip

Bossom, Sir Clive

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Holt, Miss Mary

Bowden, Andrew

Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

Hordern, Peter

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Emery, Peter

Hornby, Richard

Braine, Bernard

Eyre, Reginald

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

Bray, Ronald

Farr, John

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Brewis, John

Fell, Anthony

Howell, David (Guildford)

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Hunt, John

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Iremonger, T. L.

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Fookes, Miss Janet

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Bryan, Paul

Fortescue, Tim

James, David

Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M)

Foster, Sir John

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Buck, Antony

Fowler, Norman

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Bullus, Sir Eric

Fox, Marcus

Jessel, Toby

Burden, F. A.

Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Fry, Peter

Jopling, Michael

Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&Nairn)

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Carlisle, Mark

Gardner, Edward

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Cary, Sir Robert

Gibson-Watt, David

Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

Channon, Paul

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Kershaw, Anthony

Chapman, Sydney

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Kilfedder, James

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Glyn, Dr. Alan

Kimball, Marcus

Chichester-Clark, R.

Goodhart, Philip

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Churchill, W. S.

Gorst, John

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

Gower, Raymond

Kinsey, J. R.

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Gray, Hamish

Kitson, Timothy

Clegg, Walter

Green, Alan

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Cockeram, Eric

Grieve, Percy

Knox, David

1808

1809

Lambton, Anthony

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Spence, John

Lane, David

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Sproat, Iain

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Osborn, John

Stainton, Keith

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Le Marchant, Spencer

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)

Paisley, Mr. Ian

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

Stokes, John

Longden, Gilbert

Peel, John

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Loveridge, John

Percival, Ian

Sutcliffe, John

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

Tapsell, Peter

MacArthur, Ian

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

McCrindle, R. A.

Pink, R. Bonner

Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)

McLaren, Martin

Pounder, Rafton

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

McMaster, Stanley

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Tebbit, Norman

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

Temple, John M.

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Maddan, Martin

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Thomas, Rt Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

Madel, David

Raison, Timothy

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Maginnis, John E.

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Tilney, John

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Marten, Neil

Redmond, Robert

Trew, Peter

Mather, Carol

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Tugendhat, Christopher

Maude, Angus

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Mawby, Ray

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Vickers, Dame Joan

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Rhys, Williams, Sir Brandon

Waddington, David

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Ridsdale, Julian

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Miscampbell, Norman

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Wall, Patrick

Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Walters, Dennis

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Ward, Dame Irene

Moate, Roger

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Warren, Kenneth

Molyneaux, James

Rost, Peter

Weatherill, Bernard

Money, Ernie

Royle, Anthony

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Russell, Sir Ronald

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Montgomery, Fergus

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

More, Jasper

Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

Wiggin, Jerry

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Scott, Nicholas

Wilkinson, John

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Scott-Hopkins, James

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Sharples, Richard

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Mudd, David

Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Murton, Oscar

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Worsley, Marcus

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Simeons, Charles

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Neave, Airey

Sinclair, Sir George

Younger, Hn. George

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Skeet, T. H. H.

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Smith, Dudley (W 'wick & L'mington)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Normanton, Tom

Soref, Harold

Mr. Hector Monro and

Nott, John

Speed, Keith

Mr. Victor Goodhew

Onslow, Cranley

Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in Session 1969–70 on Economic Planning in Scotland (House of Commons Paper No. 267).

VEHICLES (EXCISE) BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till tomorrow.

HYDROCARBON OIL (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till tomorrow.

TRAFFIC WARDENS (SCOTLAND)
10.13 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I beg to move,
That the Functions of Traffic Wardens (Scotland) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 14th January, be approved.
This Order extends and consolidates the functions which may be carried out by traffic wardens in Scotland, their existing functions having been laid down in the previous Orders of 1962 and 1966. This is in similar terms to the Order approved for England and Wales in December last year.
The main effect of the Order is to permit chief constables to employ traffic wardens on some functions which are at present undertaken by the police in connection with the regulation and control of traffic. These new functions will give traffic wardens, if so employed by their chief constables—I emphasise that it is only if they are so employed by their chief constables—power to control and regulate pedestrians as well as road traffic; power to obtain the names and addresses of drivers, owners of vehicles, and pedestrians when offences appear to have been committed against the laws they are permitted to enforce; and power to enforce the vehicle excise law. In addition, it will be an offence for pedestrians and drivers to disregard directions given by a traffic warden.
As elsewhere, the volume of traffic in Scotland is increasing substantially year by year. In the five years ending in December, 1969, the number of vehicles registered in Scotland rose by over 200,000 to produce a total exceeding 1,100,000.
By sharing some of the duties which were previously undertaken only by the police, traffic wardens will be able not only to play an increasingly important role in ensuring the free flow of traffic in our towns and cities but to assist the police further by allowing them to be released for other duties such as the prevention and detection of crime.
Since they were first employed in Scotland in 1962, traffic wardens have had
1812
their powers extended only once before. That was in 1966 when an Order was approved permitting them to direct and control moving traffic at road junctions and other places similarly liable to become congested. At the time when that Order was before the House there were only 120 wardens in the whole of Scotland. This number had risen to 566 at the end of 1970.
Traffic wardens are responsible to the chief constable, and they act under his direction. We believe that it is most important that traffic wardens should be adequately trained before undertaking their duties. Indeed, this is a requirement of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1967, and we have drawn the attention of chief constables to this Act.
Consultations on the Order have taken place with the organisations representative of the police and also with the local authorities and the motoring interests.
As I am sure the House will agree, the value of traffic wardens in relieving the police of some of their more routine traffic duties has come to be very widely recognised. All of us are now accustomed to the sight of traffic wardens on point duty, particularly during rush-hour periods; and I do not think that any of us, nor indeed the public generally, consider this as something exceptional.
I pay tribute to the contribution traffic wardens have made to the successful regulation of traffic in our burghs and cities. We hope that the Order will serve to provide further support for the police in their traffic duties and also in their primary task of fighting crime and maintaining law and order.
10.17 p.m.
Mr. Neil Carmichael: The Under-Secretary will realise that we would like to have a number of points elucidated, particularly about the power traffic wardens are to have to enforce the law.
The House has a right to know precisely what is meant by traffic wardens enforcing the law. I can understand their being given powers to ask for information and to take note of vehicles contravening the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1957, or of vehicles being parked in such a way as to be hazards to safety or the free flow of other traffic. However, the Order goes

1813
further, at least in words—unless the Under-Secretary has another interpretation—and empowers traffic wardens to enforce the law. Exactly what powers are these? Are they the same as those possessed by constables?
In Article 3(2), in the expression
"For the purposes of the discharge by traffic wardens of such functions, references to a constable or police constable in the following enactments shall include references to a traffic warden"
is there a difference between "constable" and "police constable"?
Have the police been fully consulted about this transfer of powers to traffic wardens? The Under-Secretary will expect me to ask whether he has consulted his fellow Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor). In the debate on the English Order, which gave English traffic wardens almost the same powers, the hon. Member for Cathcart, who at that time represented the Police Federation, said this:
"We should be thinking in terms of a fundamental change in our way of tackling the problem. The real answer lies in the development of the police forces as we now have them. The problems of traffic control are far too serious to be considered in any other way, and it is for this reason that I should be reluctant to give approval to the Order without more explanation from the Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1965; Vol. 712, c. 446.]
The hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned with the police and no doubt is fully aware of their views. No doubt also he has conveyed them to his hon. Friend.
How do the police view these new powers, particularly the power to enforce the law? Suppose, for example, a person in charge of a vehicle refuses to show his driving licence or in general is difficult. As a layman, I would regard the wording
"employed to enforce the law"
as giving the traffic warden the same power as the police constable in that he could apprehend the person and escort him to the police station. Is that envisaged? The idea that the traffic warden may be employed to enforce the law seems to be a big departure.
There is another point which causes certain annoyance in certain towns. In paragraph 3(3)(a) of the Order there is reference to lights or reflectors. I assume
1814
that the traffic warden will be able to check vehicles parked in the street, including their lights and reflectors. Will there be any change in local byelaws which permit the police to allow parking without lights, as is the case in many towns in Scotland? This provision has caused some confusion. The hon. Gentleman reminded us that there are one million vehicles in Scotland. All of us get a bit mixed up with the law occasionally in regard to our rights and obligations in charge of motor vehicles. Very often, in going to strange towns—as we all do—we are unsure whether we may leave our car under a street light or whether we must take it off the main highway or leave it with a parking light. It is a small point but it interests many people. Is there any basic change?
There appears to be a discrepancy between paragraph 1(1)(b) of the Schedule and paragraph 3(3)b) of the Order. The Schedule refers to a vehicle
"being left or parked, or being unloaded or loaded, in a road or other public place".
The Order itself makes no reference to any place other than a road. Is there anything significant in this difference?
I recall the unfortunate experience we had when I was at the Ministry of Transport in that there can be no amendment of Orders of this kind, so it is important to have a full explanation now. It might seem a minor point but the Order becomes law tonight and we should have a satisfactory explanation. I am sure that there is a simple explanation, but the traffic laws are complicated, no doubt necessarily, and are, therefore, confusing.
Paragraph 3(3) refers to the functions in the Schedule and to Section 14 of the 1960 Act, but that is omitted from the Schedule. No doubt there is a simple explanation, and I should be glad to hear it.
This is an important Order. When traffic wardens were introduced, there was much concern to ensure that their powers would be strictly limited. However, their powers were extended in 1962 and 1967, and this is a further extension. All that seems to be omitted now is authority to operate from a moving vehicle, and perhaps this is the point beyond which the police would not allow traffic wardens to encroach on their responsibilities. Was this the point at

1815
which a compromise was reached with the police, or are the police totally unhappy about traffic wardens being given these extra powers?
This debate provides us with one of our few opportunities to consider this subject. We seem to be moving inexorably towards some sort of special road police. This has been the view which hon. Members have voiced as Orders of this kind have been introduced for Scotland or for England and Wales, regardless of which party has been in power. Does the Under-Secretary think from his discussion with various organisations and with his officials, if it is the Government's intention that there should be such a force——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): To discuss new functions while we are dealing with the Order would quickly lead the hon. Gentleman into becoming out of order.
Mr. Carmichael: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was making the point that this was just one more step, and after taking one step, it is always easier to take the next, and so one goes on and on. This may not be the appropriate moment to ask, but I wanted to know whether the Under-Secretary thought that the Order would take us closer to having a separate road police force, as is the case in other countries. Are these new powers sufficient to permit chief constables or Ministers to set up a totally separate road police force, or does the Order fall far short of that point?
Will the Order take us much further, allowing for the present police pattern? Are there enough powers in the Order? What powers has the Under-Secretary had to omit because of the necessity to reach a compromise with the police, for instance, and what powers does he think he may require in future? Has he considered the whole subject of traffic and its increase while drafting the Order, and is he unlikely to need additional powers for a long time?
Whenever Orders of this kind have been brought before the House by Conservative or Labour Governments, all hon. Members have been fascinated to know whether it was the intention to establish a separate police force to deal with traffic offences, or whether the present powers would be sufficient to allow a departure
1816
from our pattern of police forces towards that of the separate traffic police, as in many other countries.
10.30 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: When I looked at this Order originally I thought it was fairly harmless, but the more I examine it the more suspicious I become. The House will understand that the debate of this type is necessarily short and narrow, and so I hope that my hon. Friends will forgive me if I appear to be unreasonably brief.
I want to pay a deserved tribute to the traffic wardens, as did the Under-Secretary in his remarks, which I thought were rather curt. This warrants a little more explanation than he gave us and I shall try to fill in a few of the gaps.
The traffic wardens are being given what might be called quasi-police powers. There are certain qualifications needed to become a member of the police force, relating to age, height, education, and physical fitness. There are no such qualifications as far as I know for traffic wardens. Almost anyone can be a traffic warden.
Mr. Ernie Money: Perhaps the hon. Member will accept that good character is a basic qualification for a traffic warden in any circumstances?
Mr. Hamilton: I entirely agree. That is a necessary qualification for police and traffic wardens. I am saying that there are certain qualifications required of the police which are not required of traffic wardens. This Order gives functions which have hitherto been performed by men and women with the necesary qualifications of education and physical fitness to those who do not have such qualifications.
The same applies to training. The hon. Gentleman said that traffic wardens will be trained, but we do not know anything about that—how long or how intensive the training will be, what training grants there may be and whether they will be paid during training.
The purpose of the Order is set out in the Schedule which specifies the functions of wardens. In paragraph (2) on page 2 it says, in effect, that the functions to be discharged by traffic wardens will in many cases be the same as are currently being discharged by police constables. The hon.

1817
Gentleman said that this was being done to allow the police to get on with more important work, such as the pursuit of criminals. But is it not being done because there is a shortage of police and the police have put in a substantial pay claim which the Government will resist'? The Government say that they propose to deal with the inflationary spiral in the public sector. Supose they take certain functions from the police and say, "Now you have less work to do. Therefore, your wage claim becomes weaker."
This is a very sinister part of the Government's prices and incomes policy. If the police threaten to strike, the Government can say, "We will get the traffic wardens to do your job."
Mr. James Sillars: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the traffic wardens took over more duties of the police they would have an irresistible case for a wage increase?
Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is jumping the gun. I have thought of such matters and I propose to put them forward.
In any event, there will be an increase in public expenditure. The White Paper on public expenditure published yesterday refers to a quite substantial increase in the amount to be spent on law and order in Scotland during the period 1969–70 to 1974–75. I want to know how much of it will be devoted to the police. If we get the necessary number of recruits for the police, it will not be necessary to transfer these jobs to the traffic wardens; we shall have enough police to do the job for which they have been trained and are qualified.
Let me return to the question of the increased burdens which will be placed on the traffic wardens. The Minister went out of his way to say that the authorities concerned had been consulted —the police, the motoring organisations and the local authorities. I wonder whether the advisory council for the police was asked for its advice and what its opinion was. I do not know to which union the traffic wardens belong—
Mr. Arthur Lewis: They belong to the National Union of Public Employees, the Municipal and General Workers' Union and the Transport and General Workers' Union. They
1818
are very well organised. If I get the chance, I shall say a few words on this
subject.
Mr. Hamilton: I would think that they were in several unions, in which case they would come within the Industrial Relations Bill, which is very sinister legislation. The more we delve into this matter, the more we find behind it. To bring the Order on for debate at this time of night makes it impossible for us to discuss it properly.
Let me deal with some of the extra duties of the traffic wardens. Paragraph 3(3) of the Order refers to what may happen if a traffic warden
"has reasonable cause to believe that there has been committed an offence

(a) in respect of a vehicle by its being left or parked on a road during the hours of darkness …without the lights or reflectors required by law;

(b) in respect of a vehicle by its obstructing a road, or waiting, or being left or parked or being loaded or unloaded, in a road;

(c) in contravention of section 14 of the Act of 1960;

(d) in contravention of a provision of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962(b)"—

all of which I have looked up. I was tempted to bring the provisions into the Chamber, but I did not do so in view of the shortage of time. Some of my hon. Friends might care to do so: the provisions are in the Lobby.
Paragraph 3(3) of the Order goes on to refer to offences
"created by section 42 of the Act of 1967".
That is the one relating to parking offences. If one of these offences has been committed, or if the warden has reason to believe that it has been committed, the warden can demand the name and address of the person concerned.
These are extremely wide powers. Traffic wardens will become law enforcement officers, and the Schedule says precisely that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the Lord Advocate?"] He should have been here. He has probably gone home to bed. We shall divide on this Order, because it is extremely important.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Hon. Members on the other side—there are only a couple here—were jeering when my hon. Friend mentioned the Lord Advocate, but there are some serious legal points which I

1819
want to raise if I can catch the eye of the Chair, and I do not think the Under-Secretary is able to answer them. Perhaps my hon. Friend can assist.
Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend understates the case: the Under-Secretary cannot answer anything, let alone on matters of law.
Paragraph 1 of the Schedule has this extremely worrying sentence:
"Traffic wardens may be employed to enforce the law".
This is the first time, in my knowledge, that somebody who is classified as a civilian warden, who is not a policeman, is given authority to enforce the law. Does that mean that wardens will have the power to arrest? Suppose an individual refuses to give his name and address. What happens then? Does the traffic warden arrest him? Suppose the traffic warden is a blonde of 18 or 19, and there is a big Glaswegian who has just come out of a pub and she tries to get his name and address. She might be misunderstood.
An Hon. Member: So might he.
Mr. Hamilton: So might he. I am just drawing the attention of the House to the implications of this Order.
Quite apart from that, the words I have quoted about having
"reasonable cause to believe that there has been committed an offence"
might lead to malicious prosecution. A traffic warden may have a grievance against his neighbour, and may say, "I will get you. I have reasonable cause to believe you have been obstructing this road" or "The reflectors on your car are not according to regulations", or he may allege one or another of a dozen other offences. The traffic warden can say, I will have your name and address. I will report you." The more I have studied this Order the more sleep I have lost.
The Schedule says:
"Traffic wardens may be employed to enforce the law".
I do not know what that means. Is it at somebody's discretion? If so, at whose discretion is it? Who will decide that traffic wardens will be used to enforce the law? Is it the chief constable?
1820
Is it the local authority? Is it the Scottish Secretary? I presume it is the chief constable, but I would like to know.
Paragraph 1 (1,a) refers to a vehicle
"being left or parked on a road during the hours of darkness"
without the necessary lights or reflectors. What is the difference between leaving a vehicle and parking it? I do not know what the legal difference is. Again, the Lord Advocate would have been the very fellow to answer this. I am not quite sure, but if a fellow leaves his car for 10 minutes it is parked, so far as I know, and if the traffic warden is maliciously minded he or she can say, "It is parked, not just left." In any event, if it is left for 10 minutes he or she can say, "Give me your name and address." These are important points which deserve an answer.
Then I come to paragraph 1(2) of the Schedule, which refers to offences under Section 80 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1967. Traffic wardens can act in that respect as if they were police constables, but it does not make clear what they can do. Section 80—I think I am right; perhaps the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am not—enables a police constable to punish without prosecution; that is, he can give one a ticket for a fine, and one pays without going to court. Traffic wardens can do that, I presume. I suppose that that is the only punishment traffic wardens can mete out under that Section.
Paragraph 2(1) of the Schedule says:
"Traffic wardens may … be employed as parking attendants at street parking places".
Earlier today we had a debate in which Scottish unemployment figured prominently. In certain parking places and official parks unemployed men hang around presuming to look after people's cars and earning a few shillings, for which they are grateful. Anyone is grateful for anything with this Government in power. These men may be done out of a job if traffic wardens take over that duty.
Mr. Norman Buchan: If the Government continue with their economic policies, there will be fewer and fewer people with cars and greater competition for fewer and fewer parking places.
Mr. Hamilton: That thought occurred to me when the hon. Gentleman was talking about the increased number of vehicles in Scotland. If the motor industry continues in the way it is going, there will be fewer vehicles in the next few years and the Order will be irrelevant.
The Schedule also provides that traffic wardens may take the place of "lollypop" men on road crossing patrol. These jobs are done by old men and women who earn a few shillings to add to the inadequate family income. The Government are saying that people shall not have wage increases, so more and more people will be looking for these jobs which are now to be done by traffic wardens.
Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: When the initial Orders were introduced a great deal of concern was expressed because the jobs mentioned by my hon. Friend had previously been done by members of the British Legion in the pay of the British Legion. We should bear this in mind.
Mr. Hamilton: Yes, this is a vicious attack on the British Legion and the ex-Servicemen who do this job. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed to bring in the Order without saying whether he has had consultations with the British Legion about the effect on the employment of ex-Servicemen.
Mr. James Lamond: I had hoped that my hon. Friend would deal more fully with the financial implications. Local authorities will have to meet a considerable part of the cost of traffic wardens. Police expenditure attracts a 50 per cent. grant from the national Exchequer, but what percentage of the cost of traffic wardens will be met by the national Exchequer?
Mr. Hamilton: I am leading up to this. The Government are on record as saying that they want a high wage economy so long as it is linked to increased productivity. Traffic wardens will be doing work they have not done before and will be entitled to a productivity bonus. The Government have got rid of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, and therefore, they themselves will sit in judgment. They might even set up a court of inquiry and appoint Jack Scamp to look into the pay of traffic wardens in Scotland.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Or even Lord Wilberforce.
Mr. Hamilton: We want to know how this will be financed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): The hon. Gentleman will see from the heading of the Order that this relates mainly to functions.
Mr. Hamilton: I understand that perfectly well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the functions imply extra work for the traffic warden. I doubt whether the Government are adopting a new doctrine that the more work one does the less pay one gets, but if they are imposing more jobs on traffic wardens those wardens have a right to claim extra pay. All I am asking is whether this exercise has been costed and who will pay what. I want to know how much will be borne by the local authority and how much by central Government.
Mr. Bob Brown: My hon. Friend has mentioned pay and conditions in relation to productivity. Is it not a frightening thought for Scottish motorists that such productivity might be on the basis that the more motorists a traffic warden can knock off the more he can justify an increase in pay?
Mr. Hamilton: That is a very good point. My hon. Friend is suggesting that productivity could be measured by the number of motorists' names and addresses wardens can take. I do not know whether that will be the case, but this is the problem the hon. Gentleman is creating for himself by this Order.
To take another example, if these wardens are to be put on to directing the pedestrians who attend football matches, taking over this function from the police, is that again not good ground for a pay claim? I hope Jack Jones and other union leaders are having a good look at such Orders as this.
Mr. Lamond: My hon. Friend may have noticed that one paragraph mentions carrying out duties in a moving vehicle. Would this not be an impediment to increased productivity, and, therefore, is it wise to have such a disabling paragraph in the Order which might inhibit traffic wardens from obtaining more wages as a result of increased productivity?
Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend has anticipated what I was about to say. Paragraph 5(2) of the schedule says:
"Nothing in this paragraph shall permit the functions described in sub-paragraph (1) to be exercised by a traffic warden who is in a moving vehicle."
Suppose he is on a bike—he is not then in a moving vehicle.
Mr. David Stoddart: My hon. Friend will no doubt realise that traffic wardens already uses mopeds. Perhaps he could ascertain whether those would be classified as "moving vehicles".
Mr. Hamilton: I do not know whether this Order is an exact copy of the English one and whether that matter has any significance. Can a traffic warden using a moped be deemed to be in a moving vehicle, and if such is used will he be precluded from carrying out these duties?
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my hon. Friend considering the fact that this is actually happening now in London where we see Panda cars with police officers——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is out of order, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, to discuss the functions in the English Order.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I have not discussed the functions of the English Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am giving an illustration of what is now happening, or what may happen, in regard to that particular paragraph of the Order we are now discussing. I am asking my hon. Friend whether he is aware that traffic wardens are to be found in Panda cars and police cars and whether—I do not know whether my hon. Friend is legally knowledgeable enough to answer this without the advice of the Lord Advocate—because the traffic warden is in a moving vehicle he could act in the way provided by the Order.
Mr. Hamilton: I do not know. I am not legally qualified to answer that question. I hope that the Lord Advocate has been sent for to answer it. If he has not, it is a gross insult to the House
If paragraph 5(2) is to be implemented, traffic wardens will be less efficient in carrying out their functions than they would be if they were allowed to travel in moving vehicles. It seems an absurdity, on the one hand to give them these additional
1824
functions but, on the other hand, to restrict them.
Mr. George Lawson: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is reading this correctly:
"Nothing in this paragraph shall permit the functions described in sub-paragraph (1) to be exercised by a traffic warden who is in a moving vehicle."
As I read that, a warden cannot exercise the function of taking anyone's name and address when he is in a moving vehicle. I am wondering whether it is not incorrectly written, and whether it means a traffic warden who is "with" a moving vehicle. I cannot understand how a warden could possibly take someone's name and address when he is in a moving vehicle. There is something very sinister in this. In a Committee upstairs we have been discussing for about 22½ hours the meaning of certain words. It would take more time than that to obtain the meaning of these words.
Mr. Hamilton: That is a case for extending the debate. A possibility which occurs to me is that a warden might be in a moving vehicle which is being driven by the owner, and then discover that the lights are inadequate or that the driver is causing an obstruction, and then he might say to the driver, "Give me your name and address". That is a possibility which would be precluded under the terms of paragraph 5(2). There is a lot more to the Order than meets the eye.
Mr. Lawson: It would be undesirable to preclude the traffic warden from exercising her powers under those circumstances, so again those words seems to defeat at least any intelligible purpose which one can read into the Order. My hon. Friend will agree that we cannot think that an Order should be so drafted as to completely defeat its purpose. There seems to be something very far wrong or sinister here.
Mr. Hamilton: Uncharacteristically, my hon. Friend has been rather tediously repetitious. That is exactly the point which I made five minutes ago. I shall be tediously repetitious——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) insists on pointing out that he is being tediously repetitious, the Chair

1825
will perhaps bring to his notice that this is so.
Mr. Hamilton: I withdraw that remark Mr. Deputy Speaker. In one and the same Order, it seems to be absurd and a contradiction to say to traffic wardens, "You may be ordered to carry out certain functions but you are not allowed to do so in one of the most efficient ways; namely, in a moving vehicle." That is the point which my hon. Friend was making. Why is this sub-paragraph in the Schedule at all?
My remarks have been quite brief, but I hope that I have covered—
Mr. Buchan: I was hoping that my hon. Friend would examine the problem which arises from the difficulty of defining "a moving vehicle". Could a traffic warden ask for a person's name and address on an escalator, for example?
Mr. Hamilton: Well, the words are "in a moving vehicle". A person does not travel "in" an escalator. That is why I mentioned a bicycle: a person cannot be "in" a bicycle.
This problem of obtaining clear definitions is one which has occupied many hours in the Scottish Grand Committee. Hon. Members want precise definitions, and it is not good enough for the Under-Secretary to make a five-minute cursory speech and hope to wrap up the whole matter. We are deeply suspicious of this Government. The hon. Gentleman is a very charming character, but we do not trust him further than we can see him.
11.1 p.m.
Sir John Gilmour: At a time when Scottish police forces are under strength and sorely pressed, I have never heard more stupid remarks than those to which we have just listened—
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Just listen from now on!
Sir J. Gilmour: Surely we should be seeking ways of making the job of our hard-worked police forces easier, and one obvious method would seem to me to be by amending and strengthening the powers of traffic wardens.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will have no difficulty in dealing with some of the abstruse questions which hon.
1826
Gentlemen opposite have sought to raise. I cannot help thinking that hon. Members in all parts of the House want to do all that they can to help our police forces by the increased use of traffic wardens. Those who say otherwise are being obstructive citizens and should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
11.3 p.m.
Mr. David Stoddart: I hesitate to intervene in a debate on a Scottish matter, but there are some important points which require clarification, one or two of which have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).
The Police Federation is bound to view any extension of the powers of traffic wardens with grave suspicion and alarm. It is well known that our police forces are very much under strength, and that they have a substantial wage increase in the offing which is being resisted by the Government.
As a member of a police authority and having some experience of policemen—in that sense, of course—I know that they are extremely upset at the way in which their pay claim is being treated. Any proposal which appeared to undermine their powers and duties would naturally cause them dismay. When the Under-Secretary replies to the debate, he ought to deal with this point and give our police some assurance that the Government do not intend to undermine their duties or erode their position and their relationship to people in other professions.
Hon. Members should also pay some attention to the physical job which traffic wardens will be expected to perform under the terms of the Order. When this point was raised by my hon. Friend, I noticed that some hon. Members opposite tittered a little. It is no laughing matter. We have all seen policemen standing for hours in pouring rain, in snow, in hail and in vicious cold, especially in Scotland. You know that better than I——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. The Chair may or may not know. It is not for the hon. Gentleman to decide.
Mr. Stoddart: I apologise. I meant that the Minister knew better than I about the physical conditions in Scotland.

1827
I should think that before men and women were put on this kind of job they would need a rigorous medical examination. I should like to hear what the proposals—they would have to be new proposals—are for ensuring that people to be employed on this kind of work undergo a medical examination to make sure that they are really physically fit for the job and will not suffer illness because of it.
I should also like to mention the indemnification of traffic wardens. This is an important matter. The British public have accepted over a long period that policemen are there to help, that they are their friends and, therefore, happy to help. Policemen have becomes an accustomed part of the scenery. But traffic wardens have not been with us all that long——
An Hon. Member: Too long.
Mr. Stoddart: That may be. Nevertheless, that is indicative of the public attitude towards traffic wardens. They have not been accepted by the public.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I do not agree.
Mr. Stoddart: I do not expect my hon. Friend to agree with everything that I say. Nevertheless, I am sure that he will agree when I have gone on a little longer.
The fact is that, even under the present law, there have been many assaults upon traffic wardens simply and solely for issuing parking tickets. What will be the situation when the traffic warden not only issues parking tickets, but wants a person's name and address? The traffic warden will be laying himself open to even graver physical assault than has taken place on previous occasions. It is therefore very important that they should be indemnified to a great degree against assault.
It would indeed be an erosion of individual freedom if these additional powers are a step towards not fixed penalties, but on-the-spot fines. This would be inimical to British practice and would not be accepted by the public. We need to be assured that the extension of these powers to traffic wardens will not lead towards on-the-spot fines.
Article 3(3)(a) of the Order states:
"in respect of a vehicle by its being left or parked on a road during the hours of darkness".
1828
I understand that at present a traffic warden works what might be called office hours—a nine to six job. The article does not say during certain hours of darkness; but
"during the hours of darkness"
Is it proposed that traffic wardens should do a rotary shift similar to that worked by policemen? I think that the Minister should deal with this important point when he winds up the debate. As the article reads, it appears that, far from having restricted hours, traffic wardens will be able, and perhaps required, to work round the clock. I therefore hope that that point will be answered.
Under paragraph 5 of the Schedule traffic wardens will be able to direct "foot passengers". I am a great believer in individual liberty. The pedestrian, the chap who walks on his two feet instead of driving around on four wheels, has had a pretty bad deal over the past few years. He has been shunted off his usual roads; he has been hemmed in by railings; he can cross the road only in particular places; his shopping centres have become cluttered up with fuming, smoking noisy vehicles; his whole environment has been ruined; his home has become a dumping ground for vehicles, whether in good order or with the wheels removed. Here we are suggesting that even more people should order him about, as to where he should and should not walk. It is a fundamental right of an Englishman—[Interruption.] —of a Britisher, including a Scot, to walk where he will. It is odious that we should extend to other people the right to order him about.
I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to clear up these points. If he cannot, I feel that I and my hon. Friends will be unable to vote for the Order.
11.12 p.m.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), I initially thought that there was very little to this relatively short Statutory Instrument. But having heard the various points of debate I feel that it is clear that this is a matter of some import.
The first thing we should hear from the Minister is the extent to which there has been consultations with various organisations. We have heard a great deal from his hon. Friends about trade

1829
unions recently, and we should have thought that trade unions would be consulted. I think that the hon. Gentleman said that the Police Federation had been consulted, but I am not sure that he said that he had consulted anybody else. A number of trade unions that might have been consulted have been suggested. The traffic wardens are in the process of setting up their own union, and they are very concerned to have their own negotiating rights. We want to know how far they might be consulted.
New Members have to learn their trade. I am surprised to see in Article 1 that:
"This Order may be cited as the Functions of Traffic Wardens (Scotland) Order 1971 and shall come into operation on 1971."
There is no date; we have no idea when it will come into force.
The heading tells me that this is a Draft Statutory Instrument. I wonder whether, when we have decided on this Order tonight, another comes along for us to have a second look at it, or is this the only opportunity we shall have to consider the matter?
In Article 3(3) there is something that also causes me to wonder. We have an extension here of powers of traffic wardens not yet mentioned in the debate.
That provision reeds:
"For the purposes of the discharge by traffic wardens"—
in the plural—
"of the functions set out in the Schedule to this order, references in section 226 (1) of the Act of 1960 to a police constable shall, in so far as it applies to the furnishing of names and addresses, include references to a traffic warden if the traffic warden has reasonable cause to believe that there has been commited an offence …"
Wardens in Aberdeen always hunt in pairs, and ratepayers have complained about the necessity of having two to do the job of one. This is a serious matter of ecnomocis and efficiency. If one of the pair is late for work, the other cannot start. There might be some deterrent in the fact that they are, unjustly, referred to as "yellow perils"——
Mr. Lamond: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a notice of motion before Aberdeen Town Council, which is a police authority in its own right, asking it to make representations to ensure that one
1830
warden be permitted to operate in place of two?
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a member of the same local authority as I am. This Order may make the passage of that motion unnecessary—
Mr. Lamond: Or more difficult.
Mr. Hughes: If the Order makes life more difficult, I hope that the usual channels are in operation, so that I and my hon. Friend can go north to Aberdeen to pass on the knowledge which we gain tonight.
This is a very important point of law. Again, we must deprecate the fact that the Lord Advocate is not here. The reason that wardens hunt in pairs is that, for prosecution, corroboration is needed, even of a police constable's word.
Mr. William Hannan: Is my hon Friend aware that, in the Scottish Grand Committee, on the subject of salmon stealing and poaching, we fought to the death on the issue that, on the testimony of one witness, a person could be accused. This is dangerous ground.
Mr. Hughes: When I used to do a lot of fishing, I seem to remember a fish with "yellow" in its name. My hon. Friend need not worry about the salmon and the grilse.
This point about hunting in pairs and this reference in the Order to "wardens", in the plural, is important, because it refers to "the warden" having reasonable cause to believe that an offence has been committed. Does the Order mean that, if two traffic wardens, in their normal duties, are out on the beat and one has reasonable cause to believe that an offence has been committed and the other has not, they must then seek to act in unison? By the time they had argued the matter out, the smart motorist would have driven off to avoid being booked.
I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West will not take offence if I cross swords with him over paragraph 2 of Article 5, which says:
"Nothing in this paragraph shall permit the functions described in sub-paragraph (1) to be exercised by a traffic warden who is in a moving vehicle".

1831
My hon. Friend thought there was no need for that provision but, considering the eloquent plea made towards the end of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) about the liberty of the individual, I suggest that there is real point in it. In Article 5(2) one is referred back to sub-paragraph (1) and this makes it difficult for those of us who do not have legal experience to understand these matters. However, sub-paragraph (1) points out that
"Traffic wardens may be employed to enforce the law with respect to an offence—
(a) committed in respect of a vehicle by its being left or parked on a road during the hours of darkness".
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has sufficient legal experience to deal with the word "may" in that context. Does he consider that "may be employed" could mean "shall be employed", meaning that a traffic warden would have to do this work?
Mr. Hughes: I hesitate to give a legal definition of "may" as opposed to "shall". If I did, we might find ourselves discussing it all night.
Article 5(2) is extremely important because it would be intolerable if a police constable or even a chief constable, let alone a traffic warden, were given authority to decide, while travelling in a moving vehicle, whether a vehicle was improperly parked or had improper reflectors, and so on. If a traffic warden were speeding past a parked vehicle and represented that an offence under this paragraph had been committed, all sorts of difficulties, including that of identification, could arise.
I can imagine some extremely ingenious defences, and I am not a lawyer. Motorists might, for example, question whether a warden in those circumstances could adequately see the number plates of a parked vehicle. For this reason I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West that this provision is absurd.
However, I do regard Article 2(2) as absurd in that it says:
"A traffic warden may exercise functions conferred on a traffic warden by a traffic order or a street parking place order".
Why not simply refer to a traffic warden exercising "his functions"? After all,
1832
there is nobody else on whom the functions will be conferred. It is obscure language like this which makes hon. Members who are quite new to Parliament wonder what other matters require our attention, and we cannot be expected to have examined the Order minutely.
11.25 p.m.
Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: My hon. Friends are right to raise the points they have raised in the course of this short debate. At the risk of incurring the wrath of some of my hon. Friends, I warmly echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), because he stressed the need for the police to be relieved of part of their responsibilities. This need was very much in the minds of those of my colleagues who were responsible for these matters at the Scottish Office in recent years and action was taken in the form of enrolment of cadets, the mechanisation of police units, and so on.
Over the past few years the extension of the power of traffic wardens has caused an undesirable friction between wardens and members of the police force. The Scottish Police Federation made strong comments in this regard to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and I have no doubt that the federation will be making similar comments to the present Secretary of State; because, anxious though the federation is to protect the interests of its members, it is only right that it should make these points to whoever is at the Scottish Office for the time being. We do not want any friction to develop between traffic wardens and their colleagues in the police force. We want relations to be as amicable as possible. It was right for my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes), for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) to ask the questions they did, so that any difficulties which might arise between the police, traffic wardens and the general public can be straightened out.
I have read the Order carefully. I do not pretend to be an expert on Statutory Instruments. I am sure that my hon. Friends noticed with great delight that for much of the debate we have been blessed by the presence of the Minister

1833
for Local Government and Development —the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page)—who when in opposition was the doyen of Statutory Instruments. I tremble when I think what would have happened to the Under-Secretary had the hon. Member for Crosby been performing the function that he used to perform in opposition, because the hon. Member for Crosby would have been very displeased with the Under-Secretary's performance in attempting to explain the Order to us.
The Order uses the words
"without the lights or reflectors required by law".
Not long ago the hon. Member for Crosby brought this matter to the attention of the House when he asked an Under-Secretary to specify much more clearly what he meant by reflectors as defined by law; the hon. Member quite properly wanted to know the diameter of the reflector involved, and so on. It may well be that tonight the hon. Member for Crosby came to the Chamber to counsel the Under-Secretary on matters of this kind, in the unavoidable absence of the Lord Advocate. Far be it from me to interfere in the domestic arrangements made by the Government Chief Whip.
Mr. Robert Hughes: I am delighted to hear that the Lord Advocate is unavoidably absent, but what evidence does my hon. Friend have for that statement?
Mr. Mackenzie: Being normally a courteous man, I was assuming that there was some explanation and that in the course of his comments later the Under-Secretary would be making an apology for the Lord Advocate's absence. Far be it from me to interfere in the domestic arrangements of the Government and their supporters. It is a matter between the Lord Advocate and the Patronage Secretary and we would not want to make an issue of that kind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon raised the whole question of the definition of "hours of darkness" from the point of view of whether or not traffic wardens are to be employed on such a basis that they would have to work overtime, round the clock and so on. I am concerned about it from a narrower, perhaps personal, point of view. Most of the traffic wardens in
1834
Scotland have to concern themselves with the operation of the meters. The meters operate from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. Monday to Friday and from 8 a.m. until 1 p.m. on Saturday and not at all on Sunday. At certain times of the year. we have darkness between 4.30 p.m. and 6 p.m. But there are times when we do not. Perhaps we have misread the Order but we should like an assurance that the hon. Gentleman intends to advise local authorities to keep to the times of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. for meters because it appears to innocents like myself that the term "hours of darkness" means that we could have meters operating all the time, day and night, as they do at some of our airports. I know that meters are essential but to some of us they are rather awkward. My constituents and I would not like to think that the meters were going to operate any longer in the day than they do at present.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Has my hon. Friend considered the inequity which arises, if his line of reasoning is correct, from the different hours of darkness in different parts of Scotland and how undesirable it would he in the Western Isles that there should be meter parking hours much longer than in Galloway, for instance?
Mr. Mackenzie: My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) represents a part of the country I know very well. My people come from Stoer, where it would be a great hardship if meters were operating throughout the hours of darkness. The same goes for Lochinvar. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will deal with this important question.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: By leave of the House, I will reply to some of the points raised in the debate. I am sorry that so many hon. Members who were anxious to take part have not been able to have the opportunity. What has been so encouraging is that in the closing stages, in the hours of darkness, of a uniquely Scottish day in the House, there has been such tremendous interest by hon. Members from South of the Border. My only real disappointment is that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) was unable to get in. He

1835
has supported certain additional powers given to traffic wardens in England.
Mr. Arthur Lewis Mr. Arthur Lewis indicated assent.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would be able to give us the support of at least one hon. Member opposite, for giving traffic wardens certain powers in respect of vehicle excise duties. It is a cause he has pursued over the years.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like myself, is rather disappointed that I did not catch Mr. Speaker's eye, because I was indeed going to support the Government on this, which would have been a unique occasion. I was going to disagree with my hon. Friends. However, I did not catch Mr. Speaker's eye. Perhaps I can explain it all later to the Lord Advocate, who was not here.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Lord Advocate would particularly enjoy a discussion with the hon. Member. That is why I mentioned this subject at the beginning of my reply. I knew that I would get the support of the hon. Member and that it would give him great pleasure to support me this evening. I am glad that he has now had that opportunity.
Hon. Members complain about the Order being taken late at night, but in doing so they show great ignorance of the procedures of the House, for when they were in power, there were many nights when I stayed up to debate Orders which they introduced, and I see among my hon. Friends who are present tonight many who supported me on those occasions in that job.
I assure hon. Members that I can deal adequately with the many legal questions which have been asked. By calling for the presence of the Lord Advocate, Opposition Members were merely demonstrating their jealousy of the fact that we have the services of the Lord Advocate available to us, while for six years they were unable to have a Lord Advocate sitting in the House. There is no need for them to show such petty jealousy on happy occasions such as this.
I was surprised that the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie), who is usually so level headed on these
1836
occasions, should have shown his jealousy at our having the services of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). If hon. Members opposite had shown the sort of skills which my hon. Friend showed so frequently from the Opposition Box, I would have approached the debate with far more trepidation.
It has been interesting to note that the Chair has several times had to call the attention of Labour Members to the narrow confines of the debate. Opposition Members have discussed the general principles of the use of traffic wardens in helping the police. Those are principles which we have often debated in the House, and there is no change of principle in this Order. There is an extension of the functions of traffic wardens, but not of principle. I was distressed to see that, with the exceptions of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael), my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) and the hon. Member for Rutherglen, hon. Members have given little credit to the police for their job of traffic control and the job which traffic wardens themselves do.
Mr. Peter Doig: Traffic wardens have no discretion, but the police have. The Order will give traffic wardens additional powers which the police could exercise with discretion. Will not the hon. Gentleman now take steps to give discretion to traffic wardens?
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Member has exposed the shallowness of so many of the arguments of Labour Members and the low standard of their speeches. The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), for instance, and I always enjoy the usual courtesy which he shows towards me and the kind remarks he makes, made a speech not worthy of his usual standard. He was toiling to find arguments.
That demonstrated the purpose of the debate and the schizophrenia of hon. Members opposite—they say that we must not give traffic wardens any more powers, and so reduce the importance of the police, and, on the other hand, they want traffic wardens to have an extension of powers and more to do.
I except the hon. Member for Woodside, but if hon. Members opposite want

1837
to criticise these Orders, they must at least make up their minds about what they want and not advance several conflicting arguments at the same time.
The other strange thing is the extraordinary interest taken by hon. Members in the Order. This is an important Order and I welcome their interest. I do not object to English Members coming in and I will be pleased to answer the points raised, but the interesting thing is that there is a parallel English Order, which came before the House on 10th December and which occupied precisely four lines in the OFFICIAL REPORT:

TRAFFIC WARDENS (FUNCTIONS)
Resolved,
That the functions of Traffic Wardens Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th November, be approved.—[Mr. Sharpies.]"
People like the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) who have been greatly interested in these things did not adduce arguments on that occasion.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker ruled earlier, when I made a passing reference to what was happening in England, that I was out of order. The Minister has been talking about the English Order for some time now and I suggest that he should stick to the Scottish Order.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I will return to the Scottish Order because I know that I will have the support of the hon. Gentleman. Dealing with the matter of consultation, I said that we had had consultations with interested bodies. There was opposition to this from the Scottish Police Federation. It was particularly opposed—and the hon. Member for West Ham, North will gain no pleasure from this—to giving wardens power to enforce the vehicle excise law and to obtain information as to identity and address. We took the views of the federation seriously. I have close contact with it and respect its views. The Secretary of State and I took the view that the extension of these powers would have no adverse effect on the police—on the contrary they would emphasise the importance of police duties, which only the police are able to carry out. We believe that the extension of these functions gives the police more time for their own duties, for the prevention and detection of crime. We believe that this Order helps them——
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion, Mr. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 2 (Exempted business):—
The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 30.

Division No. 123.]

AYES

[11.44 p.m.

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Curran, Charles

Havers, Michael

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hawkins, Paul

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

Heseltine, Michael

Atkins, Humphrey

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack

Hicks, Robert

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Dean, Paul

Holt, Miss Mary

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

Hornby, Richard

Benyon, W.

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

Blaker, Peter

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Eden, Sir John

Hunt, John

Boscawen, Robert

Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Bowden, Andrew

Eyre, Reginald

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Bray, Ronald

Farr, John

James, David

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Fookes, Miss Janet

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Fortescue, Tim

Jessel, Toby

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Fowler, Norman

Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

Bryan, Paul

Fox, Marcus

Kershaw, Anthony

Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M)

Gibson-Watt, David

Kilfedder, James

Burden, F. A.

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Goodhart, Philip

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&Nairn)

Goodhew, Victor

Kinsey, J. R.

Chapman, Sydney

Gorst, John

Kitson, Timothy

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Gower, Raymond

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Churchill, W. S.

Gray, Hamish

Knox, David

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Green, Alan

Lane, David

Clegg, Walter

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Cockeram, Eric

Grylls, Michael

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Cooke, Robert

Gummer, Selwyn

Le Marchant, Spencer

Coombs, Derek

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Cooper, A. E.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

Cordle, John

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

MacArthur, Ian

Cormack, Patrick

Hannam, John (Exeter)

McCrindle, R. A.

Costain, A. P.

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

McLaren, Martin

Crouch, David

Haselhurst, Alan

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Raison, Timothy

Stokes, John

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

Redmond, Robert

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Mather, Carol

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Sutcliffe, John

Mawby, Ray

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Tebbit, Norman

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberd'nshire,W.)

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Moate, Roger

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Tilney, John

Molyneaux, James

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Tugendhat, Christopher

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Montgomery, Fergus

Rost, Peter

Waddington, David

More, Jasper

Russell, Sir Ronald

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Weatherill, Bernard

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Sharples, Richard

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Mudd, David

Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Murton, Oscar

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Heave, Airey

Smith, Dudley (W 'wick & L'mington)

Worsley, Marcus

Normanton, Tom

Soref, Harold

Younger, Hn. George

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Spence, John

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Sproat, Iain

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Paisley, Mr. Ian

Stanbrook, Ivor

Mr. Hector Monro and

Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

Steel, David

Mr. Keith Speed.

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

NOES

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

Pentland, Norman

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Hardy, Peter

Price, William (Rugby)

Cohen, Stanley

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Sillars, James

Dalyell, Tam

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Doig, Peter

Lambie, David

Swain, Thomas

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Lamond, James

Torney, Tom

Eadie, Alex

Latham, Arthur

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

English, Michael

Lawson, George

Evans, Fred

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Fernyhough, E.

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Mr. James Wellbeloved and

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Palmer, Arthur

Mr. William Hamilton.

Ford, Ben

Resolved,
That the Functions of Traffic Wardens (Scotland) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 14th January, be approved.

HOSPITAL SERVICES, RUGBY
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]
11.53 p.m.
Mr. William Price (Rugby): I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter of vital importance to my constituents. I represent a politically militant area, but if there is one issue which certainly arouses emotions on a non-party basis it is the future of our hospital. There has been a long, involved argument, extending over more than 10 years. It has not been without its share of bitterness, and I am quite happy to admit my part in it. I have kept up a continual flow of Questions, and a long series of letters to various Ministers, and I have attracted my share of abuse from Birmingham Regional Hospital Board and Coventry Hospital Management Committee.
1840
I certainly make no apology for that.
I should like to ask the Under-Secretary some fairly detailed questions. I do not really expect too detailed an answer tonight, and I shall be quite happy if he in due course will let me know the answers to what I ask this evening.
The one question which I want to ask above all others, and on which I hope he can give me information is this. What is happening to the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board's £3·8 million proposed development at the hospital of St. Cross? This proposal followed recommendations of the working party established by the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) when he was Secretary of State to consider the future needs of Rugby and Nuneaton.
A decision was promised in June, and some of my constituents feel that we have waited far too long. I do not criticise the Department on that score. With new Ministers and a change of Government the Secretary of State is entitled to take a long look at major capital spending programmes, and I do not think that this decision has been delayed unduly. We

1841
are in Rugby reasonable people, and the Under-Secretary of State will be relieved to know that I am not expecting him tonight to give me £3·8 million. We appreciate that there are many demands on his limited resources and many other priorities. We know that our scheme is a major one which we could not expect to be implemented for perhaps five to seven years. We understand all that and accept it. What we want and what we are entitled to is a statement of intent from the new Government about the future of St. Cross and its ancillary hospitals, St. Mary's Harborough Magna and St. Luke's.
We are getting the worst of both worlds. The uncertainty of recent years is having a sad effect upon the morale of the staff. We have lost certain specialist facilities. There has been talk of taking accident cases to Coventry and maternity cases to Nuneaton. In addition, in recent weeks three other matters have arisen which cause us concern.
First, on one recent week-end, as a result of staff shortages, the accident and casualty department was closed. People coming to the hospital late at night for treatment—and I spent two hours there in the middle of the night—were told to go to Coventry, 11 miles away. This decision was taken at the last moment and no publicity was given to it. When that happens to a major hospital we are entitled to know what is going on.
Secondly, I discovered last week that a newly-adapted ward produced out of an old operating theatre which would have provided desperately needed beds has failed to open because Coventry and Birmingham between them have refused to supply the two nurses which are needed to staff it. That ward, with six beds, has been ready for six months, the operating theatre is available, the surgeon is available, the capacity is there, but it remains closed because we cannot have two nurses.
Thirdly, the General Nursing Council proposes to take away State Registered Nurse training because the number of beds has fallen below the 300 minimum. At the moment when the Secretary of State is considering a major development for this hospital the General Nursing Council proposes to take away the most important part of nurse training. We will
1842
not accept that decision. We shall fight it every inch of the way. I have never been clear what authority the Secretary of State has over the General Nursing Council, but I suggest that that decision should be postponed at least until we what the long-term future of St. Cross is likely to be.
Among the Questions currently down for Answer was one asking for comparable State Registered Nurse examination results for Rugby, Coventry and Nuneaton over the past 10 years. I now have the Answer and I hope the hon. Gentleman will look at it closely. He will see that the hospital with by far the best record of the three is the one which is likely to be run down.
Behind this decision and many more decisions involving Rugby hospital looms the £9 million hospital at Walgrave, some 11 miles away. I believed from the beginning that Rugby would have to make a significant contribution to the cost of that hospital and, knowing all that has happened in the past three or four years, I have no cause to change my mind. I understand there are severe staff difficulties at Walgrave and it is bound to look for staff from Rugby.
I am convinced that there are people on the Coventry Hospital Management Committee who are determined to run Rugby down, if it can possibly be done. I personally do not get on very well with the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board. I do not find many people who do. It is a strange masonic-type organisation. Getting information out of it is a work of art. With one or two exceptions, the board is made up of amiable people who cause the least trouble, plus officials who stand no nonsense. It is not a happy set-up.
Occasionally a Minister makes a mistake and appoints to the board a member who tries to lift the veils of secrecy. There has been one famous case involving a Mrs. Theresa Stewart of Birmingham. Her period of service has just been ended by the Minister. That is what she got for her trouble. I know where the recommendation came from, and I know Members in the West Midlands, including myself, will seek to ensure that the Minister and his right hon. Friends hear a great deal more about Mrs. Stewart. Her sacking was, in my view,

1843
a piece of political malice and vindictiveness. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to comment on this, but if he is looking for a replacement for Mrs. Stewart, I am delighted to offer my services. I hope the hon. Gentleman will pass on that information to whom it may concern. We already have my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) on the regional board and I dearly should like to follow him.
I do not believe the board has been open and honest with Rugby, even allowing for its difficulties—and I know it has many. I am prepared to admit that some of the criticism levelled against it from Rugby has been severe. In the past some of us have tried to argue that, if we were not careful, Rugby would slowly be reduced to cottage hospital status. The board denies it and in one respect it is correct; there will never be any announcement of that nature.
What worries us, however, is that there is more than one way of taking a pig to market. We say that anybody setting out to run down St. Cross, to amalgamate, call it what one will, could hardly go about it in a more effective way. The pattern has been predictable and inevitable. We lose our specialist services, nurse training, possibly our matron, possibly also our accident services. Our staff drift away and others cannot be recruited. Where do we go from there?
The Under-Secretary of State said in the House yesterday:
"At a meeting with representatives of the Birmingham Regional Board on 28th January it was agreed that further consideration should be given by the Board to the provision of acute beds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1971; Vol. 810, c. 1452.]
I was interested in the Answer and grateful for it. It indicated, perhaps for the first time, that something was beginning to happen.
Several question arise. First—and this is the crux of the matter—when are we likely to see some development and what is it likely to be? Secondly, what has happened to the proposed 112 geriatric and 40 maternity beds, all part of the £3·8 million proposal? Thirdly, is the promise by Mr. Julian Snow, as he then was, in a similar debate to this one in 1968, that work would start as soon as possible after 1969–70, to be fulfilled?
1844
The Rugby Advertiser, which has a long and honourable record on hospital matters, recently described the hospital issue as "an incredible saga", and it added:
"The bewilderment must not be allowed to continue. The Minister for Health must himself sort out just what is going on in Birmingham, and he must be prepared to tell the people of Rugby the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
The Chairman of the Rugby Social Services Hospital Committee, Mr. Norman Edyuean Walker, is a man with many years of service to hospitals. He was recently quoted as saying:
"Some patients requiring cold surgery are waiting up to two years and yet St. Cross has modern theatres which are not worked to capacity simply because there are not enough beds. It is quite scandalous."
Parliamentary answers have indicated that our waiting list for surgery is about 50 per cent. above the national average. I ask that the Ministry should take the view that the time has come to put the matter right.
Finally, I understand that the Under-Secretary will be accepting an invitation to visit our hospitals. Perhaps I could thank him in advance and assure him of a most cordial and possibly warm welcome.
12.6 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) for providing an opportunity for us to discuss the future of the hospital services at Rugby, and for making his speech commendably brief.
As he mentioned, I intend to visit the hospital of St. Cross at Rugby later this year, so I have naturally been interested to hear his views and comments in advance. Over the years, the hon. Gentleman has taken a great interest in not only that hospital but all the hospital services in his constituency. He has frequently drawn the attention of the House to the existing provision. I know that he has the hospitals' interest very much at heart and I will try to give him at least some of the assurances which he has sought.
Perhaps I can place the debate in its proper local context. There are at present three hospitals at Rugby: St. Cross, St.

1845
Luke's and St. Mary's, Harborough Magna. The hospital of St. Cross is a former voluntary hosiptal standing in about 16 acres of land. The original hospital was built in 1882 but there have been a number of additions since then, the most recent being the provision of a twin theatre suite in 1966. St. Cross has 154 acute beds and provides most of the general hospital services for the town. I understand that the buildings are quite substantial and in reasonable condition. I shall have a chance to assess them when I visit Rugby.
There are several capital schemes proposed for the hospital to provide day and out-patient facilities for mental illness patients and to upgrade the existing X-ray facilities and engineering services. The southern portion of the hospital site, about seven or eight acres, is vacant and available for building purposes. It is on this site, as I shall explain later, that the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board proposes to redevelop the existing hospital services, and I stress that.
St. Luke's Hospital is a former poor law institution and occupies a four-acre site which is built up on all sides. It currently consists of 30 acute and 96 geriatric hospital beds and is, I am told, far from adequate.
The other hospital in the area is St. Mary's Harborough Magna, about five miles from Rugby. This is a former isolation hospital standing in nine acres of land. The present buildings date from the mid-1930s and it provides some 47 maternity beds.
The board intends to concentrate the hospital services at Rugby on the Hospital of St. Cross site. As I told the hon. Gentleman on 11th November, the board proposes to redevelop this hospital to provide 376 beds, made up of 224 acute, 112 geriatric, and 40 maternity beds, together with supporting services at an estimated cost of £3,800,000. The first stage of the main development is planned to provide 40 maternity beds and 128 acute beds, with other services including new boilers, ante-natal clinic and pharmacy. That is the first stage development which the hon. Gentleman asked about. When this stage is completed, it is envisaged by the board that St. Luke's and St. Mary's will no longer be required for their present use.
1846
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept this as a firm and categorical declaration of intent, to use his words. He is aware of all this, I think. At least he will be more confidently aware of it now.
As the hon. Gentleman said, his main concern is not only if, but when. I hope that I have settled "if" to his satisfaction. He is also concerned as to when the new provision will take place. My Department, together with the Board, is at present examining the functional content of the proposals, as I told him in answer to his Question yesterday, and we are especially concerned about the acute bed ratio for the size of the population and the revenue consequences of this capital development. All these are under consideration, and they are typical of the sort of detailed scrutiny which only serves to underline the reality of what is in prospect.
I should perhaps explain now that part of our planning requirement is not only to cater for current need but to attempt to assess demand in a decade's time taking account of such factors as population estimates, local authority social services and possible changes in medical techniques. Regional hospital boards and my Department have acquired a certain amount of expertise in this field. The hospital building programme is based on a high degree of co-operation between the boards and the Department. But it is the regional hospital boards which are primarily responsible under the National Health Service Act for their own building programmes giving priority to the areas of greatest need.
The estimates for the Birmingham Region show that it has to plan for a population which is expected to increase by at least 10 per cent. to some 5½ million by as early as 1981, largely by a high rate of natural increase and also by movement into the region from outside. The major problems are to provide for this increase, including the new towns developing at Telford and Redditch, to provide better accommodation where there are large populations and to improve the hospital services elsewhere. Inevitably, the board is faced with tremendous problems in assessing priorities where the backlog of old and inadequate buildings is very considerable.
It is against this background that the hon. Member's demand for replacement

1847
of the present hospital services in Rugby has to be slotted in and examined. The original Hospital Plan published in 1962 envisaged a start on the construction of a district general hospital within the decade. Since 1962, as circumstances have changed, various alternative dates have been adopted for planning purposes. As I have already mentioned and I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate, there are numerous difficulties confronting regional hospital boards in formulating and keeping up to date their capital building programmes where these are projected several years ahead. Needs and priorities within the region must be assessed, costs must be estimated and a programme of building drawn up which is realistically matched to the resources which are likely to be available in future years.
These and other factors such as the rate of capital expenditure on building works in progress are by no means constant. In fact it is inevitable that over the necessarily long period involved these capital programmes are often highly variable. Such programmes must therefore be capable of adjustment, and starting dates other than within the current financial year provisionally adopted for planning purposes must necessarily be tentative. It is unrealistic at any stage of planning to attach too much weight to a starting date several years ahead which is arrived at solely for planning purposes. The hon. Gentleman might be better served if we did not attempt to give him more than this firm assurance that we are committed to what I have already said, without giving a factual and firm date at this stage.
However, I must point out to the hon. Member that this Government, as one of their early actions, have taken steps to ease these difficulties faced by hospital boards. In our public expenditure review we have been able to more than maintain an expanding hospital building programme. Solid additional funds will be provided over and above those planned by the previous Administration for the National Health Service over the next four years, and some of these will undoubtedly be available to the building programme. As my hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House on 11th November, this will enable the normal
1848
development of the service, including building programmes, to continue and progress to be speeded in vulnerable sectors, such as the care of the mentally ill, mentally handicapped, and the elderly.
In addition to the general problems inherent in a capital programme, the board has to grapple with the particular problems related to a large catchment area—in this case the provision of hospital services for the Coventry, Nuneaton and Rugby area. The board's first priority for the area was to provide a new district general hospital at Walsgrave, Coventry, to replace the totally inadequate hospital services resulting from the severe bombing of Coventry during the Second World War. The Walsgrave Hospital is now open and provides a hospital service not only for the people of Coventry but various specialist facilities for the Rugby area, such as neurology, cardio-thoracic and E.N.T. surgery. The board's plan in fact for the whole area is based on the district general hospitals at Coventry with supporting hospitals being provided at Rugby and Nuneaton.
It is, of course, the prospects for this subsequent provision that has led the hon. Member to raising the matter this evening. As I have explained, the board is at present examining in depth the scope of the hospital provision, particularly acute beds, to be provided in future for Rugby. The current plan is to provide a medium-size hospital concentrated on the St. Cross Hospital site within the town. I hope, at the invitation of the Hospital Management Committee, to be able to visit the existing hospital and new site later this year and to examine for myself the extent of the existing provision and the need for its replacement.
I suspect, without prejudicing my visit at all, that I will find a standard of hospital provision at St. Cross and at Rugby generally not dissimilar to that which exists at present in many other towns in England. Certainly not the ideal medical provision for the 1970s, but of a standard that we all too frequently have to accept as adequate. There still exist too many "black spots" outside Rugby in our hospital service and it is the replacement of these, as I am sure everyone will agree, that must take first priority.
It is very much to the credit of the hon. Member that he has pressed his

1849
claim for new hospital provision in his constituency with such diligence. I note that he seeks to pursue it even more actively by proposing himself as a member for the board. We shall have to look at that separately.
The board will, I am sure, meet the hon. Member's claims as resources and priorities permit. Of course, similar claims could be pressed on the board by all the hon. Members representing constituencies in that region. All in all, I think the board is sensibly following a carefully prepared programme with reasonable provision being made for the most urgently needed areas.
Perhaps I might touch briefly on three points made by the hon. Gentleman. I would rather not comment on the first matter about accident and emergency services without looking at the facts, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman about it.
The approval of nurse training schools is conducted by the General Nursing Council, the statutory body responsible for nurse training. The Council has no responsibility for staffing the hospitals, except to ensure that there is adequate supervision for student and pupil nurses; but it is very much concerned to ensure that nurses in training receive the best education and experience available
1850
It is both the Council's and my Department's policy to introduce group training schools based on the hospital group area when a group, such as the Coventry Group, adopts the Salmon structure of nurse administration. This ensures that the experience available in the group is used to the benefit of all students. As the existing school at Rugby barely meets the Council's minimum requirements the introduction of a group training school will clearly be to the benefit of students there. Previously, because of the necessary secondments to complete their experience students at St. Cross spent only about 18 months of their three-year training on the wards of St. Cross. In the group school students recruited at St. Cross will spend 12 months on the wards, there but the decrease in service provided should be offset by increased recruitment and retention of nurses as a result of the better training facilities available.
Therefore, I do not think that there is much fear for the St. Cross nursing prospects, with the group school that we hope to develop which will possibly raise the standard both of the nursing profession and the recruitment possibilities in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

Second Reading Committee
Wednesday, 3rd February, 1971
[MRS. LENA JEGER in the Chair]

Second Reading Committee

  The Committee consisted of the following Members:
  Mrs. Lena Jeger (in the Chair)

  Cockeram, Mr. Eric (Bebington)

  Osborn, Mr. John H. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Cronin, Mr. John (Loughborough)

  Pentland, Mr. Norman (Chester-le-Street)

  Crouch, Mr. David (Canterbury)

  Pounder, Mr. Rafton (Belfast, South)

  Drayson, Mr. G. B. (Skipton)

  Redmond, Mr. Robert (Bolton, West)

  Ellis, Mr. Tom (Wrexham)

  Ridley, Mr. Nicholas (Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, East)

  Gower, Mr. Raymond (Barry)

  Harper, Mr. Joseph (Pontefract)

  Rost, Mr. Peter (Derbyshire, South-East)

  Huckfield, Mr. Leslie (Nuneaton)

  Skinner, Mr. Dennis (Bolsover)

  McGuire, Mr. Michael (Ince)

  Stewart-Smith, Mr. D. G. (Belper)

  Ogden, Mr. Eric (Liverpool, West Derby)

  Wilson, Mr. Alexander (Hamilton)

  Miss Beston, Committee Clerk.

  MINES MANAGEMENT BILL [Lords]
  10.30 a.m.
  Resolved,
  That if the proceedings on the Mines Management Bill [Lords] are not completed at this day's Sitting, the Committee do meet on Wednesdays at half-past Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Ridley.]
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move,
  That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Mines Management Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
  The Bill is a small and not, I hope, a very complicated one. It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to introduce it briefly and describe what it does, then listen to questions and points raised by hon. Gentlemen and, with the leave of the Committee, reply at the end of the debate. I will try to introduce the Bill in the shortest terms
  to allow the maximum opportunity to hon. Gentlemen to debate this Bill.
  Basically, the Bill brings up to date the important and generally acceptable family of legislation dealing with safety in mines. The first Bill in this family was the Coal Mines Act, 1911, followed by the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954. This placed the sole responsibility for safety in mines on the manager and under-managers of a pit, and gave specific responsibilities to deputies and to mechanical and electrical staff. Secondly, it placed specific statutory duties and responsibilities upon those individuals, and it prescribed further that the manager of a mine, and his under-managers, were deemed to be guilty of an offence if the regulations were breached.
  This Bill is necessary because of the change which has taken place in mining practice since 1954. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis),

  1853
  fresh from direct experience as a manager of a colliery, will agree that there have been major changes in the ways that coal mines are managed, which stem from the heavy mechanisation of the pits, together with the change in structure of the Coal Board. Now we have much bigger outputs. Often the output from a face can be bigger than the output used to be from a whole colliery. The Coal Board has changed its structure to having only three tiers—the board, the area and the colliery level— and collieries have become much bigger because several faces can be working.
  These changes in mining practice have led to a need to amend the mines safety legislation in order to bring it up to date. Basically, there are two changes in the Bill, embodied in Clauses 1 and 2. Clause I recognises the fact that a manager of a modern large colliery often will need assistance. He cannot attend to all the duties at the same time. For instance, he might have a qualified mining engineer as his underground manager; he might appoint a chief engineer to deal with electrical and mechanical problems; he might wish to appoint a surface superintendent to co-ordinate all the activities above ground. At the present time, none of these individuals can be made responsible for safety because they are not mentioned in previous legislation. Therefore, the Bill gives power to the manager to give written authority to any such person to take responsibility for the matters specified in a written notice. This will not absolve the colliery manager from carrying the full share of the responsibility himself, hut it enables the person to whom responsibility for safety is delegated to accept his share.
  As hon. Gentlemen who have experience of coal mining will agree, statutory responsibility is coincidental with authority in the coal mines. Therefore, it is necessary to regularise the position of assistants who may be appointed——
  The Chairman: Order. It is disorderly to smoke in Committee.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: And dangerous, too!
  Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) must also have regard to safety in these proceedings!
  1854
  The power is contained in the Clause for the manager to give written authority to share his responsibility, and there are further provisions relating to this.
  Clause 2 makes a minor change in relation to the rôle of under-managers. This is the second change which the Bill seeks to bring about. At the moment, the law requires them to accept responsibility in limited circumstances. If there is a contravention of safety regulations in the area for which an under-manager is responsible, he is deemed to be guilty of an offence. The responsibility is limited under the present law in terms of the area of the pit, either the level or the face being worked, and that limitation can be applied at the present time to an under-manager's responsibility.
  However, in modern mining there is much more shift work, and it is not possible under the present law to excuse an under-manager from responsibility where a contravention takes place when he was not on duty and he was not at that time in the pit controlling the operations in the area of his responsibility. So Clause 2 gives the power to excuse under-managers when they are off duty and another under-manager is in charge of the area concerned.
  Of course, it may be possible that some act of his, before leaving work, contributed to or caused a later contravention of the regulations. This is taken into account in the way that the Clause is drawn, but it does not deem him automatically to be guilty if the regulations are breached in an area of the pit for which he is responsible when, in terms of time, he was in no sense present or responsible.
  It is intended to apply these new regulations in the first instance to the large mines where the problems have arisen already. My right hon. Friend has power under the Bill to prescribe by order those mines or those areas of mining activity to which the Bill shall apply. We would certainly extend the provisions of the Bill to all mines or to whatsoever mines appear to need it, if future experience makes it seem right to extend the provisions of the Bill to smaller mines where the problems I have described have not yet arisen.
  The responsibility cannot be transferred to other persons except if a written notice is sent to the local inspector of mines

  1855
  and quarries, or a written notice is preserved at the mine indicating precisely those parts of the manager's responsibility which he has imposed upon his juniors. So the position is known to all and is regularised.
  Further, there are in the Bill certain basic and fundamental responsibilities of which the manager is not empowered to divest himself, and these cannot be passed on to his juniors.
  Fourthly, there are provisions in the Bill to make sure that everyone who receives authority under the Bill to be responsible for safety matters has the necessary qualifications.
  I believe this Measure has been agreed by all those concerned—the professional institutions as well as the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers—and I believe it has the general support of the entire mining industry. I even dare to go so far as to say that I hope it has the support of the Opposition, because I believe they drafted the Bill before the election and would have brought it forward in other circumstances. So I commend the Bill to the House.
  I would not wish to end this brief statement about the Bill without making a few remarks about the safety record of the mining industry in the last year. I am very pleased to say that the numbers killed and seriously injured in 1970 were the lowest ever recorded in the history of the industry; 90 men were killed and 641 were seriously injured. Those figures are still provisional, of course, and compare with 100 killed and 712 seriously injured in 1969. The reduction in the numbers more or less accurately reflects the contraction in manpower in the mining industry, so that one cannot say that the safety per thousand employed is very much better. Nevertheless, I am sure that it gives us all great pleasure and satisfaction that the total number is falling and we hope that that progress will continue year by year. If the Bill makes a small contribution to that improvement in the safety record, I feel sure that it will be welcomed by the Committee.
  10.40 a.m.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: May I first declare my interest as a sponsored member of the National Union of Mineworkers, as indeed are the majority of my hon.
  1856
  Friends in the Committee. Those who are not actually sponsored by that union are very closely connected with the mining industry. Some of us have been declaring that interest for a good number of years, but since there may be new Members on the other side of the Committee who may not be directly aware of that, it is perhaps appropriate that we declare that interest again today.
  This is a particularly important occasion for Labour Members in Committees of this kind because, as the Under-Secretary indicated, we have on this side, I think for the first time in many years, an actual mine manager. I refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis).
  The Under-Secretary was right to describe this as an enabling Bill. It makes arrangements possible, but it does not impose them on any one manager. The purpose, as he has described it, is to provide for an improved system of management of large and complex collieries, to remove many anomalies which face colliery managers and under-managers under existing legislation, and to recognise in law the needs of those who have the very heavy responsibilities and duties for the safety and livelihood of many thousands of coalminers.
  We are very grateful to the Under-Secretary for the safety record figures in recent months. There is always a conflict between safety considerations and production considerations. Safety must always come before production, even though production is greatly needed.
  On many occasions we talk of those in other industries who have tremendous responsibilities for capital investment. We hear of jumbo jets and so forth. Yet too often we forget the actual capital investment involved in a coalmine and the amount of capital investment for which the manager of a coalmine and his under-managers are directly responsible. They have the duty and responsibility of leading in an industry which is vital to the power needs of our country. They therefore have three rôles: the direct responsibility for the colliery; the needs of their own safety and production; and responsibility for the capital, as well as the wider rôle of providing energy needs. When we read in the newspapers of the difficulties in the Near East and other

  1857
  parts of the world with regard to oil supplies, we see that some of the things which we have been saying from the Labour benches over many years have been proved even more true in recent weeks than they were before.
  The Under-Secretary was right to claim that this is a good Bill. Let us put this clearly on the record. It was inspired by a Labour Government. It was drafted under the terms of a Labour Government. It was introduced by a Labour Government some 12 months ago, so it could hardly be anything but a good Bill. It had made some progress through the other House but it was one of the casualties of the General Election, one of the many tragic casualties of that "black Friday". Fortunately, somewhere in the new Administration some honest soul recognises true worth when he sees it, and the Bill has been rescued and reintroduced. Indeed, I think that my hon. Friends at least will agree that the only good Bills to be introduced this Session by the new Conservative Administration have been Bills which fortunately were introduced by the Labour Government, which unfortunately fell at the last General Election, and then because they had no other legislation to bring through, some of the honest souls in the party opposite at least reintroduced good Labour Measures. But that store of good legislation must be coming to an end with this Bill. This must be the last of the good vintage before the vinegar which we are likely to have in the years ahead.
  The hon. Gentleman, therefore, has the assurance that, although there will, no doubt, be critical comments upon parts of the Bill and its practical applications from those of my colleagues with direct knowledge, he has our support. He will have no need of a guillotine in this Committee. The lesson might be learned by his ministerial colleagues that if they could introduce good legislation they would never need a guillotine.
  Perhaps I may reinforce his comments on what the Bill does or does not do if I read some brief extracts from the Report of the National Executive Committee of the National Union of Mineworkers to the annual conference in 1970, just to check that their interpretation of the intentions of the Bill 12 months ago is precisely the same as what
  1858
  the Minister thinks that it will do now. There is no reason why this should not be double-checked. We do not want any legal difficulties to arise, as has happened on other occasions.
  In that Annual Report, the National Executive Committee of the National Union of Mineworkers said that the Bill had two main purposes:
  "The first is to confer statutory recognition and responsibilities on the persons, including specialists, required at a large mine to enable the manager efficiently to discharge the statutory responsibilities imposed upon him in the interests of safety and health. Such persons. by the nature of their work, may be required to give instructions to under-managers who, of course, carry statutory responsibilities. That under-managers should be criminally liable whilst acting under instructions from persons who have no such liability is seen to be anomalous, and the Bill seeks to remove this anomaly."
  That is the first purpose. The second
  "is to enable under-managers to be employed more effectively. Such an official under existing law is legally responsible 24 hours a day, with his jurisdiction extending to the whole or a particular part of the mine. The Bill proposes that he may be on duty for a particular shift and, when responsibility for a particular part of the mine is shared with other under-managers over 24 hours, that an under-manager should be absolved from liability for a contravention of the Mines and Quarries Act. 1954, which occurs when he is not on duty and for which he is in no way responsible."
  Then
  "the Bill recognises that the owner may appoint persons to whom the manager may assign the aforementioned duties. It will also empower the manager to give written instructions to these persons …"—
  That they are written instructions is an important point, because we know the difficulties which may arise with verbal instructions—
  "who will then, in relation to the matters specified in the instructions, bear the same statutory responsibility and be subject to the same penalties as the manager; equally they will have the same defences as the manager.
  The Bill will, however, provide that certain matters, such as the making of appointments already required or authorised by statute and the making of transport, support and tipping rules, will remain the manager's sole responsibility. His responsibility for the overall management and control of the mine will remain as before."
  There are other provisions about the powers of the Minister, who may change by regulation and consultation the collieries to which it will or will not apply, and there are also certain responsibilities

  1859
  and duties for the under-manager which, at least in this Bill, are set out in four reasonably clear and precise parts for a better arrangement of colliery management and a more equitable sharing of statutory responsibilities. It does not, of course, change the structure of management, but it recognises the changes which have taken place and their practical implications, bringing the law into line with practice rather than forcing change through the law. It is an enabling Bill.
  We should get it on record that there has, indeed, been consultation with all the interested parties—the National Union of Mineworkers, N.A.C.O.D.S., management organisations and the Coal Board who are in effect the major owners, although there may be one or two outside. We ask for the assurance that when the hon. Gentleman is drafting his regulations or beginning to implement them or change them, the same consultation which has taken place in the past will continue to take place in the future.
  I ask him again, because the point was raised in the other place, when questions were asked about the effects of the Bill and whether it would apply to opencast mining. The interpretation given some time ago was that the Bill does not apply to opencast mining, because under the law opencast mines are quarries and the Bill applies only to underground workings. I would ask for an assurance on that point.
  There is much debate nowadays on the relationship between the law and industry. If I may stray temporarily from the Bill and its Clauses, the Committee might think it appropriate to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the mine managers. Often they are unsung heroes. I hope that I shall not embarrass my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis). I am as guilty of this as anyone. We talk of those who work at the coalface, those who have to consume the product and the administration staff, but we rarely talk about those who hold responsibility for the running of a mine.
  I have known, and worked under, five colliery managers. They are a complex breed of people with all the technical qualifications of any technocrat. Added to that, they must be surveyors, electricians, accountants, lawyers, public relations people for their own Coal Board, welfare officers and politicians. It is
  1860
  not strange that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham came to the House by that route.
  On Fridays, when the morning shift comes up and one begins to sort out wage packets, although the mine manager's job may have finished underneath, and the under-manager's job may have finished below, there are consultations, discussion, arguments and rows about wage packets, conditions, and everything else. Friday afternoons must be marked out in red for every colliery manager, and anyone who has ever worked in a coal mine knows that the manager has a tremendous job to do.
  Whilst the manager may be a relative stranger to any part of the enterprise, as compared with the under-manager who is there all the time, sharing the physical work, the physical responsibilities and the dangers, when there is danger, something which happens too often, even in these days, the manager is there. Those who work in the coalmines know that the manager, the under-manager, the overmen and the deputies have the same practical knowledge as they themselves, and this is a very important factor in industrial relations and security, although it is not always appreciated.
  I remember one occasion when we had a fall on the top level of a very steep-rising face. After two days, the blocking was still on at the top of the level and a great deal of gas was known to be, or was thought to be, at the higher parts of the face. The manager, the under-manager and one canary went up the face, and we were gathered at the bottom. One of my colleagues, who expressed himself more bluntly than some, said: "There's one of those three that I feel sorry for, and that's the bird." But that same man, when the manager and the under-manager did not come down in what we thought was a reasonable time, was the first to lead us up the face to get the manager and the under-manager out. That is one way of expressing appreciation. I have given one example of partnership in an industry which is thought to belong to those who work in it. There are lessons to be learned from that relationship.
  The Bill recognises some past and present legal anomalies. It removes some of those anomalies and places some of the

  1861
  responsibility where it should be placed. Those who have the responsibility for making decisions and issuing instructions should accept the same legal responsibilities that face the managers and under-managers.
  The Bill has had a speedy passage on a number of occasions, but has fallen a victim of the Parliamentary system. It has now been rescued and introduced. We on this side want to see it passed through to the Statute Book as speedily as possible.
  10.56 a.m.
  Mr. Tom Ellis: After all the sweet things that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) has said about colliery managers, which I am not sure that we deserve, I am pleased to have the opportunity of saying a word or two about the Bill.
  As the Under-Secretary has said, it is a short Bill, and it has been welcomed by everybody who has had anything to do with it—the unions, the Coal Board and Her Majesty's Inspectorate. I, too, welcome it, although not unreservedly. It might have gone further. What it does is on the right lines, but more should be done in the whole section of mining legislation.
  One of the difficulties of legislation, particularly in rapidly changing situations, is that one is always behind. One has no sooner prepared legislation than a situation has changed and the legislation is outmoded. This would seem inevitable by the very nature of the law and the legislative process. The law is at a disadvantage in this respect.
  In the last decade or so, that has been one of the great drawbacks of the British legislative tradition in the mining industry, an industry with a great deal of legislation around and about it. The British approach to mining legislation has been to codify the best practice current at the time when the legislation is introduced, which in slow-moving times is a sensible thing to do; a pragmatic, practical, typically British approach, ideal in slowly-changing conditions but not quite so good in conditions of rapid change. Undoubtedly, there has been much rapid change in the mining industry during the past 10 years.
  1862
  Not so long ago, about 80 per cent. of our coal was won under roof support systems which were outside the law. Every manager had to have an authorisation from Her Majesty's Inspectorate to enable him to work the faces outside the law, thus reflecting the slow-moving process of the law.
  The Bill deals with management structure—a phrase which I am always hesitant to use. Management is not structured; it is a personal thing. The more the law is applied to management, the more it is formalised. In modern conditions this is a bad approach, although it might be inevitable at the moment.
  The application of law to management may be more amenable to a theoretical approach than straightforward technology. One could use the law for a more creative purpose: to try to steer the ship, rather than merely to chart where the ship has been. This is the situation in which the law has found itself more often than not in the coal-mining industry since the enactment of legislation in the middle of the last century and with the 1911 Act and the 1954 Act.
  In mining, more than in most industry, the essential requirement is the commitment to the enterprise of everybody concerned with it and not merely, as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said recently in the debate on the Industrial Relations Bill, the winning of consent, grudging or otherwise, of the worker by management. This is not good enough in mining. The very nature of the work, the lack of supervision and the difficulties of providing supervision, for example, all require the securing of full-blooded commitment.
  Inevitably, the winning of commitment implies a diffusion of responsibility. It cannot do otherwise. Such an approach is not acceptable to the traditionalists, and there are many traditionalists. If there must be a statutory framework for management, the Bill will help a little in diffusing the responsibility. I accept that the manager will still hold ultimate responsibility, as the Under-Secretary has said. There is, however, a sharing, and to that extent the Bill is a good thing. I wish that it could have gone further.
  Since the 1911 Act, management of a colliery has always been very much a one-man band. The legal framework

  1863
  might have corresponded with reality in 1911, with the triumvirate of the manager, the under-manager and the deputy. The three components of that trinity—an unholy trinity, I suppose, some might have called them—were the kingpins around which the whole mine revolved. That situation certainly does not correspond with reality today, when, as the Under-Secretary has said, there are large electrical departments, electronics departments, a considerable amount of mechanical engineering with thousands of horse-power installed underground and hundreds of prime movers, complicated ventilation departments, not merely concerned with measuring the cross-sectional areas of roads and the velocity of air, but dealing with complicated mathematical techniques, the use of analogue computers, and complicated safety departments. All this means that no manager can be in any real sense directly responsible for all that goes on in a mine. Today, no deputy in his district, any more than a manager in his mine, can be immediately in charge in any real sense. Long since have we had to delegate and depute, and I suppose that the Bill is a step towards recognising this.
  We went astray a little while ago in trying to specify statutorily in the most minute detail the jobs of various types of people in the mine, such as the electricians of the mine, the mechanics, and so on. It is a mistake in legislation to try to pinpoint too much of a specific nature in minute detail. The Bill does not fall into that trap; it leaves it to the manager to depute or to delegate. There is the safeguard of Her Majesty's inspectorial oversight; that is a very wise precaution. It does, however, leave it to the judgment of a manager to delegate as and when he thinks fit. This is a sounder approach than trying to tie up the whole thing with a kind of job description of what "assistant manager" ought to be, which would be outmoded, I like to think, in less time than it would take to say "0.P.E.C., the miner's friend".
  That, in the first two subsections, is the burden and purport of the Bill: that a qualified man can carry statutory responsibilities and other duties in a flexible way at the discretion of the manager. It is the flexibility that is important in the Bill. It is a step towards providing the
  1864
  opportunity for a less pragmatic ex post facto framework of mine management. A manager can now safely make one kind of statutory appointment which tries to anticipate events rather than belatedly follow along behind, as has occurred only too often in the past.
  Subsection (5) of Clause 1 deals with the situation when a contractor or his staff are proscribed from having these statutory qualities or responsibilities. I do not think that anybody who has had anything to do with the mines would disagree; this is a very wise precaution. Contractors provide a useful service in the mining industry. They follow in the itinerant tradition of the navvy and the ganger and, at one time or another, we have all appreciated their services. However, they are not appropriate for any kind of statutory authority or responsibility, if only for the reason of divided loyalties. In this context, I am a little anxious that nobody in the National Coal Board should make any part-time appointments under the Bill when it becomes law. I hope that no area ventilation officer, for example, would carry part-time statutory authority in a coalmine. That would be a big mistake. For my money, I should have liked to see written into the Bill some kind of provision specifically excluding that possibility. I hope that the Coal Board will be wise enough not to make that mistake. We shall have to wait and see.
  I welcome Clause 2. It will be interesting to see its effect. Here again, I hope that, at least at first, the limitation of times of responsibility for under-managers will be judiciously applied. The under-manager has played an important rôle in the history of the mining industry, and to some extent he has gone down in the world a little. Unfortunately, in my view, this might push him down a little further. I know it is said that
  "…a rose
  By any other name would smell as sweet",
  but I am rather worried that there is a danger that the under-manager will spend his fragrance on the desert air of the back shift.
  The back shift of the modern mine suffers from being a misnomer. There is really no back shift in the mine of today. Nevertheless, I think that we shall now

  1865
  have under-managers and under-managers, some being a little more equal than others. I trust that the Board will, in the first instance, make only a very judicious use of this provision.
  It is important that, in a particular part of the mine, at whatever time of day it might be, there shall be a continuous, unified under-managerial policy. This is where I am a little worried about some under-managers being a little more equal than others. We shall have to await developments and, presumably, we shall respond accordingly when the time comes.
  I should like to end with a brief tribute to my erstwhile managerial colleagues in the mining industry. I understand that I have recently acquired a certain notoriety in those circles as a result of a speech I made in the House of Commons not long ago. I should like to tell my colleagues that I think that the notoriety was undeserved; I am very much a lamb in wolf's clothing, and they have got it quite wrong when they think that I am trying to knock them. I am not. I want to pay them a very well-deserved tribute, and I was very glad to hear my hon. Friend pay his tribute. They perform a very heavy duty. It is only somebody who has himself shared some of that duty who can appreciate quite how heavy it is. If we, in Parliament, pass this piece of legislation, we can at least be pleased that we have done a good turn for colliery managers.
  11.10 a.m.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: It seems rather ironical that we are debating the Mines Management Bill, which is closely concerned with the question of responsibility in mines, at a time when we are without a man at the top. Perhaps the Government are having more than a little difficulty in finding a man who is prepared to hive off and, at the same time, to be amenable to the National Union of Mineworkers and the other unions in the industry.
  Having said that, I do not wish to detain the Comittee too long on this matter. Whilst agreeing with a good many of the things that have been said by my hon. Friends, I think it is important to appreciate why it is necessary to have a Bill of this kind. It is necessary,
  1866
  as the Minister has remarked, because of the rundown of the industry and mechanisation has taken place during the past 15 years at a fairly rapid pace. What has not been mentioned yet is that during that period of time, there has been a massive run-down in the number of manual workers both underground and on the surface. During those 15 years, whereas there used to be one administrator at the pit to every 17 workers, there is now one to every seven. The very fact that that has happened, that we have had this run-down of manual workers, and at the same time no general run-down of the administrative staff, has meant that while there are as many managers and under-managers as there were previously, substantial numbers of different grades have appeared—such as the assistant manager-personnel and the surface superintendent, to whom a reference was made previously. Because of all this, we now have to produce a Bill in order to combat that situation.
  We do not want to be faced with a situation in a few years' time when, as a result of some further managerial appointments, we have to introduce another Bill in order to take account of the many and varied jobs that have been introduced within the Coal Board and the pithead structure. It needs to be placed on record that there are many people, certainly in my party, who have been very concerned about the number of appointments that have been made during the past 10 or 12 years. I voice the opinion of thousands of people within the mining industry who have been shouting from the rooftops that they feel there has been an overburdening of the managerial structure at the pithead and at area level.
  It is true that the structure has been changed from one of five-tier to three-tier, and many of us supposed that that would result in some massive changes taking place for the better. Whilst some of these changes have been for the better, we also recognise that it has been almost too difficult to get across to the membership of the National Union of Mineworkers that this is for the betterment of the industry as a whole. Therefore, whilst it may be necessary to pass this Bill as it is, in order to take account of the changes that have taken place and the new appointments that exist, we must

  1867
  warn everyone concerned, including the absent landlord, that we have seen enough of the new appointments and that we hope we shall not have any more. If there are, the kind of outburst that has occurred in the mining industry during the past two years will increase in intensity.
  I think it is important to place on record the fact that there are thousands of miners throughout the country who have been upset about the new changes and the new appointments, and we want to ensure that there is no increase in the number within the next few years, which would result in the necessity to introduce another Bill to take account of those changes.
  11.15 a.m.
  Mr. D. G. Stewart-Smith: I wonder if I might give two points of view from people engaged in the industry. I have a letter here dated 25th January, 1971, from the Secretary of the Institution of Mining Engineers, and he says very simply:
  "… my Institution gave an official opinion on the above legislation to the Ministry in March, 1970. Briefly, we supported the move to bring about the changes in management responsibilities. These were anticipated and should result in a much needed sharing of the responsibilities in the running of the larger units."
  I think those words reflect the view of the mining engineers.
  Another view of those engaged in the industry appeared in an editorial in the Colliery Guardian of May, 1970, which made some quite good points. It consists of just a few paragraphs, but it is worth reading out in toto:
  "A recently introduced Bill, the Mines Management Bill, amends the law on the management of mines first by giving legal responsibility to senior staff appointed to assist mine managers, and second by making provisions about under-managers to facilitate working on a shift basis. Each new provision is only to apply to mines prescribed by Ministerial regulation.
  "This change in the law should be welcomed by mine management, since with the increasing size and complexity of collieries it becomes progressively more difficult and almost a physical impossibility for the manager to carry out in person all the duties placed on him.
  "Clause 1 of the Bill enables a mine manager to give written instructions to managerial staff appointed to the mine by the owner by virtue of which the staff will have legal responsibility
  1868
  and authority in relation to the matters specified in the instructions to the same extent as the manager. These instructions will confer on the officials the statutory responsibility and authority appropriate to their duties.
  "The Bill will also enable the degree and quality of supervision to be improved by facilitating shift working by under-managers. In fact in Clause 2 where under-managers have written instructions fixing their hours of duty (on shift basis) their responsibilities are limited to the periods when they are required to be or are in fact on duty."
  Then it gives this opinion:
  "Such steps as are being taken can only assist the mine manager in the day-to-day running of his colliery and should go some way to sharing what has, in the past, been a very unequal load of legislative responsibility. Now without prejudicing the running of his colliery under the Mines and Quarries Act he can concentrate on 'managing' and this he can do with a much easier conscience. This is an exercise he must carry out to the best of his ability if the industry is to remain viable."
  I think these are quite useful points of view.
  Mr. Ridley: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to reply to the points which have been raised by hon. Gentlemen and to thank them for their contributions. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden)—
  Mr. Ogden: On a point of order, Mrs. Jeger. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am almost certain that there will be some more contributions to the debate. This is not a criticism of any kind, but certainly from our side of the Committee there will be some more contributions, and it might be convenient to the hon. Gentleman to wait until he has heard them all. We are quite prepared to let him speak on any number of occasions that he wishes in this Committee.
  The Chairman: I called the hon. Gentleman because there seemed to be no one else who wished to speak.
  11.20 a.m.
  Mr. Joseph Harper: I should like to intervene for a few minutes. I was waiting for my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Alexander Wilson) to rise, but my hon. Friend is not quite used to Committee work and was a little slow in getting to his feet. The Minister wants to have his Bill passed, and passed pretty quickly, and he rose first. You were quite right, Mrs. Jeger, to call him.

  1869
  Nobody is delaying this Bill, because we want it just as much as the Government want it. It is really our Bill, apart from a sensible Amendment introduced in another place by their Lordships, who altered the words from "not capable of having any responsibility", to the words which now appear in this Bill—
  "not capable of having a statutory responsibility of the manager".
  In the very few minutes that I need for my contribution, I want to seek a clarification, and I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) because he has given me the proper nomenclature. I too, like him, am a little bewildered by all the different types of jobs that seem to spring up within the industry, and I have only been out of the industry for 8¾ years. I feel that I have become a stranger to some of the practices that have sprung up during that period. The clarification I want is in relation to the assistant manager-personnel. This is an innovation of only a few years ago, by which the mines manager no longer has any responsibility for engaging people to work in the industry, or even sacking them. It is left to the assistant manager—personnel.
  I remember—I will not say how many years ago it was—when one used to toddle along to the pithead on leaving school to see the manager and say, "I want to come and work in the mine". One signed on the dotted line and started work, and that was it. Things went on fairly amicably, apart from little periods in between, until one retired. Now, however, that is no longer the case. The manager no longer has the responsibility, and, no doubt, he is pleased, because he can devote his time and attention, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) has pointed out, to more important work, especially in relation to safety. I wonder, therefore, how personnel managers' assistants are placed under the Bill and whether they will have statutory responsibilities, because they, too, in addition to the duties of seeing to the rundown of the colliery and the engaging of personnel to run the mine, spend periods down the pit.
  I am also pleased to see in the Bill that under-managers are not to be held
  1870
  responsible for 24 hours a day each and every day. They are to be excused when they are not on duty. At the same time, it is pleasing to see, in Clause 2(b)(ii), that if something occurs as a result of any act of theirs before going off their shift, they can be held responsible. The Minister will well know, because he has a long connection with the mining industry, that quite a number of cases have been successful at common law as a result of something that the men on the preceding shift have failed to do. Quite a number of these cases have been successful pursued in the courts.
  I would correct the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. Stewart-Smith) in what he said about the hours of work of an under-manager. I do not think that things have changed too much in the mining industry, notwithstanding what I have already said, because the under-manager is, in my opinion, the hardest-worked man in the mining industry, with all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham. He does not have any hours of work. If he is on the day shift, he starts at about 5 o'clock in the morning and, like a Member of Parliament, he does not know at what time he will finish. That is my experience. I am not trying to be too kind over this, but that is the situation with regard to under-managers.
  I am pleased that the Minister has made the point that the safety record last year was the best ever. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has spoken about the reason for this and the Minister, to be fair to him, made the same point, but he qualified his remarks by saying that safety per thousand employees is possibly not much better than it was before contraction took place in the industry. The safety achievements are due to the efforts of the National Coal Board and the N.U.M. Her Majesty's inspectors do a marvellous job of work. In particular, I want to praise my own union, because it spends a lot of time and effort, and also a lot of money, in pursuing safety. Safety is the keynote. We have local inspectors in the pits who are paid for by the N.U.M. and N.C.B. jointly. Safety classes are also held. A safety board operates within the N.U.M., even at pit level, and safety matters are discussed. They are the first thing that is discussed at any meeting,

  1871
  even before the discussions on wages, conditions and the like.
  The Bill is short, and it is much better for that. Long Bills are sometimes ghastly. It is a very important Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) said, it does not need the guillotine. We want to complete it this morning. Under the provisions of the Bill, the coal mining industry will be able to adapt its management structure to modern conditions. This is highly necessary because of the revolution in mining methods. As I have already said, one does not need to be long out of the industry to realise what one does not know about it. When we go back on occasion to see how things are progressing, we are amazed at the differences we find.
  I support the Bill, and we certainly do not oppose its Second Reading.
  11.25 a.m.
  Mr. Alexander Wilson: I have probably been nearer to the coalface than any other Member of Parliament. I worked my last shift at the coalface in May last year.
  Mr. Skinner: I did mine in June.
  Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says that he did his in June. I accept that stricture and I am glad that I finished a month before him.
  It is true that management and practice in the coal industry have changed considerably since 1954. While I incline to accept the content and purpose of the Bill, I nevertheless have some reservations even about the need for it. Since 1954, I have seen thousands upon thousands of mineworkers displaced from employment. At the same time, I have seen colliery management staff, colliery office staff and area level staff, not decreasing, but increasing. Nobody was more concerned with safety in the coalmines than I was. For over 15 years I have been concerned mainly with the dependants of the victims of the coal industry. I therefore welcome anything that will help safety, not only in the coal-mining industry, but in any other industry as well.
  I wish to make a comment on one part of the Bill and I should like the Government to take note of it. My hon. Friend
  1872
  the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) mentioned that there is not enough flexibility in management. I believe that the Bill tightens up the existing strictures on some managements. In saying that, I refer to Clause 1(1) regarding the appointment of
  "one or more persons to assist the manager"
  Those persons have to be given statutory duties. A note of those duties must be clearly given in writing to a person who is appointed, and the written instructions must be applied strictly to the letter. If that person goes into a district or an area in a coalmine and he oversteps his duties by so much as moving into another area, he will be in trouble, according to the Bill, unless there is an easy explanation. I do not like a person who has the necessary qualifications and who can carry out the necessary statutory duties being confined in any way by written instructions.
  I said at the outset that I had worked recently in the coalmines, and I have with me, not something taken from a book, but an illustration of my experience over the last two or three years. Hence my slight criticism of even the need for the Bill. With all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), an ex-manager, I do not accept that managements, and managers in particular, are constricted in any way in their duties. Rather the reverse. It is true that managers nowadays do not have anything to do with the planning of districts or planning the winning of the coal. Generally speaking, that is done by a planning department at area level, I have with me details of the personnel structure of management in one colliery, with a personnel overall of 1,400. We start with an area manager, and there are three under-managers on each shift. There are two extra, ready to step in at a minute's notice, should they be needed. There are area foremen, with very small areas indeed for which they are responsible. There are face foremen, who are completely in charge. These foremen are the only persons in charge of that particular mechanised face. Then there are face deputies, who are in charge of the face, given statutory duties as deputies by the manager. There are stall deputies at the end of each face length, generally about 600 yards. So there are three deputies in the space of 600 yards.

  1873
  a face foreman, an area foreman and an under-manager in the full area. There is an outbye deputy from the face. There are pump deputies. These are all in the same areas.
  Then there is the staff of the training officer—the man truly in charge of safety in every colliery. They have under them to some extent an under-management. There are shotfirers. I do not know the statutory duties of a shotfirer at the moment, but I know that he is allowed to fire considerably fewer shots than he did in the past, in the interests of safety, and we welcome that.
  Therefore while we welcome this Bill to place legal and statutory responsibilities on a section of management which did not have them before—something that is badly needed—nevertheless I warn the Government that if there is to be more contraction in the number of people I represent in this industry, I, as a member of my union, and as a sponsored Member of Parliament from my union, will be asking for a pro-rata reduction in management.
  So I welcome the Bill with the reservation that the Government should consider the industry from a humanitarian point of view. It is right that I should refer at the end of my speech to the campaign and the fighting that we did as miners to reduce the top-heavy management in the National Coal Board from 1958 on. I do not believe that that was ever looked into. However, should there be more contractions in the future, we should look very closely indeed at a pro-rata reduction in the men who work below the management level.
  11.34 a.m.
  Mr. Norman Pentland: I will take only a few minutes of the Committee's time to add my voice to that of my hon. Friends who have welcomed this Bill this morning. I think the Committee is fortunate in the sense that while we support the Bill, at the same time we have had the true voice of experience from the pits, both from the coal face and from management level, from my hon. Friends this morning. They know what they are talking about. They have spoken with sincerity, and have expressed certain doubts which I hope the Under-Secretary will take back to the Minister.
  1874
  In my last years at the pit, prior to 1956, my time was spent, day after day, week after week, fighting with colliery managers in order to get the best deal possible from the management for the members of my union which sent me to the colliery office regularly. Having said that, I endorse what has been said, that the responsibility of the colliery manager is very heavy and onerous, and we pay tribute to the work that he has done.
  Probably I welcome this Bill more than anyone because it tightens up an aspect of safety in our mines. It makes a contribution to safety. I was interested to hear the Under-Secretary's reference to the number of people killed last year in the pits. I remember attending a National Union of Mineworkers' conference shortly after the end of the last war, when the compensation secretary of our union had the sad duty to inform the conference that, taking average figures of men killed and injured—both serious and minor injuries—in the pit, every three minutes, night and day, someone was being killed or injured in our pits. Happily, we have now moved away from that terrible situation.
  I want to ask the Under-Secretary one question, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper), about Her Majesty's inspectors. I understand that the Under-Secretary is to contact them—am I right?——
  Mr. Ridley Mr. Ridley indicated assent.
  Mr. Pentland: —about the working of this Bill. I should like to know how the hon. Gentleman will deal with the men's inspectors, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, who are engaged by a number of pits in an area—what is known as a federation of mines—to carry out certain duties along with Her Majesty's inspector in the pits. I should like to see that they are also kept fully up to date on these issues.
  I want to reinforce what my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Hamilton (Mr. Alexander Wilson) have said. It is quite true that in the past the miners were very concerned about the excessive preponderance of people employed on the administration side. I do not think we can put the purpose and intentions of this Bill

  1875
  directly into that category. Here we are seeking assistance for the colliery manager to enable him to carry out the heavy duties imposed upon him. However, the Under-Secretary should take the point that there has always been concern about the preponderance of people engaged on the administrative side.
  My other point—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover referred briefly—is that there is a cloud of concern over the coal industry at the present time. The men are concerned about the policy that the Government intend to pursue. Here this Bill is relevant, in a way, to recruitment. There is a manpower problem in the pits. Here we are hoping to engage people who have to take statutory responsibility and obligations upon themselves. Therefore, we need the right type of man to take on this work. Thousands of men are needed in the coal industry, but there is this concern and doubt about the Government's policy in regard to selling off parts of the industry. I know this has been discussed in another Committee and on the Floor of the House, but it is only right that we here also should express our concern about the Government's intention.
  What my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said is quite true. The coal industry has lost the head of the Coal Board. Lord Robens has now left. Perhaps if Lord Robens had stated openly and publicly his reasons for disagreeing with the Government, and had carried on his duties for another five years. that would have cleared the air. Mrs. Jeger, I do not wish to impose too much upon your generosity this morning in dealing with this matter. All I wish to impress upon the Under-Secretary is that we hope he will convey to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister responsible for the power industries the fears which have been expressed in this Committee about the Government's intentions in this very dangerous field. I repeat that if one is to encourage recruitment and to obtain the necessary manpower in the industry, the Government, whether from a review or anything else, must make their intentions clear as quickly as possible.
  I wish to mention another point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) in his very helpful speech. He expressed the hope
  1876
  that a person appointed under the terms of the Bill would not have a series of responsibilities placed upon him in addition to the intentions of the Bill. I believe that my hon. Friend meant that such a man must have full responsibility and that if he is to have statutory responsibility within the meaning of the Bill, that must be his job and his job alone. I think that that was the point which my hon. Friend was making.
  All of us on this side of the Committee welcome the Bill, quite apart from the minor doubts which have been expressed this morning. I welcome it very much indeed.
  11.43 a.m.
  Mr. Ridley: I think that I have got it right this time. I apologise to hon. Gentlemen, because on the last occasion when I rose to reply it appeared that no one else wished to catch your eye, Mrs. Jeger. I should also like to thank all hon. Members who have participated in the debate for the very wise and helpful things they have said, as well as for their general assurance of support for the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) said that the Bill was one of good value and that if only the Government brought forward similar Bills dealing with other matters, they would be given the easy passage which has been promised for this one. I should like to conjure the hon. Member in the opposite sense, that the Government always bring forward good Bills and if only the Opposition behaved with the same sense of sweet reason and understanding that they have shown on this Bill, they would make their lives considerably easier. Let us, however, rejoice in the fact that there is no need for a guillotine or for disagreement on this occasion, even though we may not always be able to do so on other measures.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me whether the interpretation which he read out from the National Union of Mineworkers' journal was accurate. I can confirm that it is completely accurate in all respects and adds up to a very useful summary of what the Bill does. We shall, of course, consult all parties concerned in the actual writing of the regulations. Indeed, there is a statutory duty in the

  1877
  1954 Act for such consultations to take place. I give the hon. Member the assurance which he sought on that score. Lastly, he asked whether the Bill applied to opencast mining. I confirm what he said. It does not, because opencast workings are intended to be treated as quarries.
  I should like to associate myself with the tribute which the hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members paid to the managers of collieries. I was most impressed by the list of duties and the list of responsibilities which he read out. His story about the canary reminded me of a similar story. A friend of mine who is a pit manager once saw a couple of men working at a drift way out on the edge of a coalfield. He saw that the canary was in its cage on the surface and had not been taken down into the drift, although there was a considerable likelihood of gas being present. He shouted down the drift," Why haven't you got the canary with you?" The answer came back, "What? Take that bird down there with us? That bird's worth 30s." That shows the great sense of economy which miners can have.
  The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), in a most attractive speech, discussed the very difficult question of how to apply the law to safety and managerial operations. I think that it is common ground in the Committee that the law should always be used to insist upon proper safety standards in industrial enterprises. One must, however, take the point made by the hon. Member that even safety standards and considerations quickly become out of date, especially in a fast-changing age such as the present one. If I may digress for a moment, I think that that might often be even more true in management considerations than in safety considerations, because what is impossible to foresee at the present time may well come to be without the law if one tries to legislate too much on the structure of management in any industry. That is a difficulty which arises in nationalised industries where the structure is enshrined in statute and one must frequently bring Bills before Parliament when the structure needs to be altered for reasons of technological change.
  I entirely agree with the hon. Member that with regard to safety it is very important
  1878
  to keep the law up to date. That is why we are keen to have the Bill on the Statute Book. However, there is a slight difference between this Bill and many other safety measures in that it is more a question of placing responsibility. It is a good tradition, and one which one would perhaps like to see more widely applied in our safety legislation, that certain people are identified as bearing responsibility for safety. We tend so often to make regulations about what shall or shall not be done in factories or on building sites that one would, perhaps, like to get back more to the idea of giving people the responsibility for safety. In any case, I am sure that that is the only proper way to proceed with regard to the pits.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me in particular whether the part-time ventilating engineer might become a responsible person under the Bill. I assure him that the answer is "No". The only people who can have part-time responsibility are under-managers in the sense that at a given time they are not on the shift. Nobody else could receive delegated responsibility from the manager unless he were full-time and carried that responsibility full-time, because in all other aspects the manager's responsibility is full-time and, therefore, can be delegated only in a full-time context. It would be impossible to delegate part-time responsibility.
  The hon. Gentleman was almost a little too humble. He described himself as a sheep in wolf's clothing. Apart from the fact that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland) said that he spent most of his time fighting colliery managers, I hope that this bodes well for the relationship between the two hon. Members in their later incarnation. I am not sure that either a sheep or a wolf is the right way to describe the hon. Gentleman. I thought that the simile between managers and hon. Members which the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) produced was more appropriate. To say that the hon. Member for Wrexham had, perhaps, become a politician in manager's clothing would be a more appropriate simile. In any event, I think that the whole Committee would like to welcome him as one who has had his experience and to say that we recognise the very great responsibilities, difficulties and burdens which fall upon the managers

  1879
  of collieries and we greatly admire what they do.
  I must deal with the suggestion of the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and Hamilton (Mr. Alexander Wilson), and to some extent of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, about the number of staff in relation to the number of pitmen in the collieries. I do not know whether it is correct that the figure has grown from one in 17 to one in seven, but I would remind hon. Members that quite recently the National Coal Board cut out two tiers of its administration, reducing it from a five-tier to a three-tier organisation, an obvious and welcome streamlining operation. It would also be right to point out that as mining becomes more mechanised and technological, there are bound to be more specialists and white-collar miners—if there are such men—and more people will be required to look after the financial, legal and commercial dealings at the pit.
  My other point is on extending safety precautions and safety regulations as the hon. Member for Hamilton described. The number of people on a face, or near a face, with responsibility for the various mechanical, ventilating and electrical processes, and all the other aspects of modern mining, is of itself bound to result in a higher proportion of administrators than in the past.
  The same tendency is discernible in many industries. The actual function of manufacture or production becomes less and less demanding on labour, but the functions of supervising, making and maintaining machinery, and the services which have to attend to that, take an ever greater proportion of people. Projecting a thousand years into the future, there will be no one left in production or mining, only machines with people making them, controlling them and tending them. We are a long way from that at the moment.
  The hon. Member for Pontefract asked about the position of personnel managers under the Bill. The manager of a mine could, quite properly, delegate some of his responsibility to a personnel manager, if that personnel manager had the necessary mining qualifications, and if he so wished. That one of his functions might be dealing with personnel would not prevent this, although often the personnel
  1880
  manager may not be a qualified mining engineer, and may not wish to be given those responsibilities. This is not likely to occur, except in conditions in which everybody would agree that it should occur.
  The hon. Member for Pontefract and his hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street asked about the men's inspectors. I can give them two reassurances. The men's inspectors will have a statutory right to see the documents appointing assistant managers to positions of responsibility. These documents detailing appointments and responsibilities will be kept at the colliery offices, or they can be seen at the offices of Her Majesty's inspectors, and they will be available on public display. In addition, the manager of a mine would always wish to inform the men's inspectors of any delegation of responsibility which he has made. The hon. Member for Wrexham would confirm that it would be a rash manager indeed who delegated some of his responsibility without bothering to tell the men's inspectors what had been done.
  If there is any anxiety on this score, I assure hon. Members that we will be pleased to see how best to meet it, although, so far as I know, no representations have been made that arrangements are not as they should be.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. Stewart-Smith) emphasised the extent to which the Bill has been agreed by the relevant professional organisations, the National Union of Mineworkers and the Coal Board. I would like to join in the tribute to Her Majesty's inspectors and to say how much we owe to all concerned. Safety in mines is becoming less of a problem, and the figures are not as bad as they have been in the past. Mining is now a much safer job than it used to be.
  There are anxieties about the future of the industry, and what will happen to it, but this is not the place to discuss such matters. To have two parallel discussions on these matters would be superfluous, as well as out of order.
  I assure hon. Gentlemen that we are entirely at one with them in our desire to make the mines as safe and as proper a place to work as any other employment. The Bill will be a small contribution to that end. I thank the Committee for its

  1881
  support, and I hope that the Bill may have a speedy passage to the Statute Book.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Mines Management Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
  Mr. Ridley: It is customary, Mrs. Jeger, to thank you for taking the Chair so excellently and presiding over our proceedings. I hope that we have not detained you too long. It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I hope that you have found the subject as interesting and enjoyable as I have
  Mr. Ogden: It is not only customary, Mrs. Jeger, but it is very right and proper that we should all support the words of the Under-Secretary. One of the first things I look for on a Committee list is the name against the word "Chairman". When the name is your own, it is accepted and recognised that we will be allowed a

  THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Chairman)

  Pentland, Mr.

  Cockeram, Mr.

  Pounder, Mr.

  Ellis, Mr.

  Redmond, Mr.

  Gilmour, Sir J.

  Ridley, Mr.

  Gower, Mr.

  Rost, Mr.

  Harper, Mr.

  Skinner, Mr.

  Huckfield, Mr. Leslie

  Stewart-Smith, Mr.

  Ogden, Mr.

  Wilson, Mr. Alexander

  Osborn, Mr. J. H.

  little lattitude, but that you will bring us back to the proper course, when you have to do so, with fairness and good humour.
  This has been a good Committee. The Bill has had expert consideration from my hon. Friends and the proper silence and attention which it merits from hon. Gentlemen opposite, with the exception—which is forgivable—of the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. Stewart-Smith), who seems to be continuing the interventionist traditions of his predecessor.
  It is a good Bill, and I believe, Mrs. Jeger, that it is not the first Bill dealing with the coal industry over the proceedings of which you have presided. In those days, as you will remember, we talked of a contracting industry. Today, we have talked of an expanding industry, and we hope that the Government will do nothing to harm that. Thank you again for your chairmanship.
  Mrs. Jeger: Thank you very much.
  Committee rose at Twelve noon.