Sitting of 30 March 1949

Preamble
The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NIGERIA

    Tuberculosis
    Dr. Segalasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many new cases of tuberculosis have been notified in Nigeria during the last 12 months for which figures are available.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): I have asked the Governor for this information and will communicate with my hon. Friend when I receive it.
    Dr. Segal: Would not the Minister agree that all the available information points to an increased incidence in this disease? Would not he further agree that all the existing facilities for treatment are woefully inadequate?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I would rather wait until I have the information from the Governor before making any comment.

    Groundnuts
    Sir Ralph Glynasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) what is the estimated financial loss to date of groundnuts in West Africa affected by beetle infestation; what steps are being taken to compensate African growers' agents; and what is the estimated value of West African groundnuts landed in the United Kingdom since September, 1948;
    (2) what is the present approximate quantity of groundnuts in store at Kano, including French new crop; how much of this total is so severely infested by beetle as not to be capable of transport; what tonnage the Nigerian Railway can clear during the month of March; and
    1192
    how long will it be before this and last year's crop can be shipped, excluding 6,000 tons of lightly infested nuts.
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many tons of groundnuts have been exported from Nigeria in the last six months; how many tons are in stock; how many tons have been damaged by weevils; and what are the comparable figures for 1948.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The total export of groundnuts from Nigeria during the six months up to 17th March, 1949, was approximately 180,000 tons. During the corresponding period last year it was 140,000 tons. The value of the groundnuts which have arrived in the United Kingdom from British West Africa since the 1st October, 1948, is £9,365,000. Stocks of groundnuts at present awaiting export from Nigeria amount approximately to 398,500 tons. Of this total some 365,000 tons are at Kano, made up of 48,500 tons of the 1947–48 crop and 277,000 tons British and 40,000 tons French 1948–49 crop.
    The stocks damaged by the beetle trogoderma have amounted to 13,900 tons of the 1947–48 crop and 3,500 tons of the 1948–49 crop. Five thousand five hundred tons of the stocks attacked have been railed to port and have been fumigated. Fumigation of the remainder is proceeding. In addition 75 tons, costing the West African Produce Control Board about £1,500, have so far proved to be a total loss. The loss arising from less severely infested nuts cannot at present be determined. Except in cases of negligence, these losses will not fall on the buying agents, to whom I assume the hon. Baronet, the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) refers.
    Some 14,000 tons were railed during the first two weeks of March, and it is reasonable to expect that the total railings for this month will be at least 30,000 tons. There is no necessity to exclude the quantity of lightly infested nuts to which the hon. Baronet, the Member for Abingdon, refers. The increased monthly railings to be expected as additional locomotives and rolling stock coming into use suggest that the whole of the stocks in Nigeria at present awaiting transport will have been cleared by the end of January, 1950.
    Sir R. Glyn: Might I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very full reply and ask him if he can state whether the capacity of the railway will ever be equal to the task of dealing with the stocks at Kano?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The whole of the stock will be cleared by January, 1950.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether a good, carefully chosen exhibit for the Colonial Exhibition would not be of some of these West African groundnuts produced by private enterprise which cannot be shipped here because of the diversion of transport and machinery to the Government scheme in the East?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: That is entirely erroneous. No diversion whatever has taken place.
    Sir Frank Sanderson: Is it proposed to ship the infested nuts to this country?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: They are here now.
    Sir F. Sanderson: Is the Minister satisfied that there will not be any serious deleterious effect upon the oil contained in the nuts?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: It may have a slight effect, but not one of any consequence.

    Constitution (Report)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken towards the realisation of self-government in Nigeria.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: At the suggestion of the Governor, the Legislative Council has been considering at its recent Budget Session the steps to be taken for a review of the present constitution of Nigeria. I have just received from the Governor the Report of a Select Committee of the Council on this subject which is unanimous and has been unanimously accepted by the Council. I am arranging for a copy of this Report to be placed in the Library of the House. The Governor will make a statement on the Report shortly, the text of which will be published simultaneously in this country.
    Mr. Freeman: Pending that inquiry, might I ask whether local interests will
    1194
    be considered so as not to prejudice any development in Nigeria until the Report has been received?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The Report has been received. It is the Governor's statement which is being considered.

    Imports and Exports
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether commodities originating in hard currency countries and imported into Nigeria directly from sterling or soft currency areas are set against Nigeria's hard currency allocations; and whether this method is the same as that adopted for the Gold Coast and other African colonial territories.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Goods of the kind mentioned, when imported into Nigeria, are normally treated for import-licensing purposes as if they were imported direct from hard-currency sources. The same method is adopted in other Colonial Territories.
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many controls are still in force requiring licences for the import of commodities into Nigeria.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Licences are required for the import from all sources of commodities under international allocation and for a short list of particularly scarce goods. For other commodities, licences are required only for imports from sources outside the United Kingdom Colonies group.
    Mr. Turton: Will the hon. Gentleman review this position and see whether he cannot make a bonfire of some of these controls that are now unnecessary? May I have an answer?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The answer is that some of these items are internationally allocated, and therefore must naturally be controlled. In other cases, they are scarce articles, which must also have an element of control.
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the export of adire cloth, beans, guinea fowl, eggs and groundnut oil from Nigeria to the Gold Coast and Sierra Leone is still prohibited, except under licence; and whether he will now lift these war-time controls.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I have asked the Governor for information and will communicate with the hon. Member when I receive it.
    Mr. Turton: Is the Minister aware, meanwhile, that these controls are particularly vexatious to the African trader, far more than to the European trader, and will he look at that aspect of the matter?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I should doubt it. The object of most controls is to ensure that only a proper amount of these materials leaves the Colony and that a sufficient amount is retained in the Colony for the use of the local people.
    Mr. Turton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I raised this matter two years ago, when I obtained a promise that it would be looked into, and that nothing has been done since?

  TANGANYIKA

    Agricultural Leases
    Mr. Niall Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the policy of the Government of Tanganyika in regard to the length of leases offered to would-be settlers; and whether he will give statistics indicating the amount of land leased to settlers since 1945, and the length of the leases.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The policy is that agricultural leases should be limited to 33 years and that towards the end of this period the question of renewing the leases will be examined in the light of the position then obtaining and of all relevant factors affecting the general economy and needs of the territory at the time. If the lease is not renewed compensation will be payable by the Government for unexhausted improvements. One hundred and twenty-six leases have been granted to individual applicants since 1st January, 1945.
    Mr. Macpherson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that information has appeared that some leases are being granted for as short as one year? Will he give an assurance that the principle of security of tenure is observed in the allotment of leases in Tanganyika in the same way as it is important to see that it is observed in this country?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The information I have is as I have given it, that leases are of 33 years and not of one year.

    Ex-Enemy Farms
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many ex-enemy farms in Tanganyika have been allotted for African settlement; and how many of these are run on a co-operative basis.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: It is proposed to allot 30 ex-enemy farms and part of four other ex-enemy farms, totalling in all 13,359 acres, for African occupation to afford some relief to population congestion in the foothills of Mount Kilimanjaro. These farms will all be cut up into individual peasant holdings. Certain ex-enemy farms will also be allotted for African occupation for similar reasons on the slopes of Meru Mountain, but the number has not yet been decided.
    Mr. Skinnard: Does that mean that no such allocation has yet been made?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Not so far as the Meru Mountain is concerned.

  WEST INDIES

    Trinidad and Tobago (Workmen's Compensation)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider a revision of the laws of Trinidad and Tobago concerning workmen's compensation in order to bring them into line with British law in view of the expressed wishes of the Trinidad and Tobago Trades Union Council.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The Government of Trinidad is appointing a Committee to consider and make recommendations for the revision of the existing workmen's compensation legislation in the light of present-day conditions, regard being paid to any principles and provisions laid down in current international labour conventions and recommendations dealing with workmen's compensation.
    Mr. Rankin: Will my hon. Friend keep before him the fact that at present there is no provision whatsoever in compensation for dealing with diseases that

    1197
    arise directly from the nature of the employment? Would he consider incorporating a schedule to cover that aspect of compensation? Would he also provide for the payment of children's allowances and also for accepting the principle of minimum compensation.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I take it that these matters will be considered by the Committee.
    Mr. Awbery: In view of the fact that workmen's compensation will become a great problem in our industrially developed Colonies, will the Minister lay down a minimum standard of workmen's compensation as a future guide to the Colonies so that they can incorporate it in any industrial legislation which they may introduce?
    Mr. Mathers: Before that is answered, may I ask the Minister if it is not a fact that an adequate code of workmen's compensation was laid down by the Labour Government of 1929–31?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: This is a different question altogether, and a much wider one, but my right hon. Friend is constantly in communication with the Colonial Governments on this very matter.

    Air Fares, Jamaica (Currency)
    Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Finance Control Board in Jamaica has refused to allow passengers on the British Caribbean Airways travelling from Jamaica to Miami to pay in sterling and insists on dollars.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I have no information on this subject, but am consulting the Governor. I will write to the hon. Member when I have received his reply.
    Mr. Gammans: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree in principle that a transport company like this one in Jamaica should not be compelled to demand dollars from potential passengers, and that there should be no differentiation against a company of this sort in order to bolster up B.O.A.C. and its subsidiaries?

  HONG KONG (WAR LOSSES COMPENSATION)
  Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many claims were sent in to the Government of Hong Kong for compensation for losses arising directly or indirectly out of the war; and what was the total-amount of compensation claimed.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: The total number of claims for war damage compensation received by the Government of Hong Kong was 14,723 amounting, to the nearest thousand, to £38,610,000.
  Mr. Gammans: Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that, in view of the number of claims and the amount of money involved, the Government of Hong Kong might be asked to adopt a different attitude? Surely, the same practice regarding compensation might be followed in Hong Kong as in Malaya and Borneo?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: I am afraid we could not make another approach to the Hong Kong Government on this matter. They have fully considered it, and, for reasons which have already been given to the House, they have decided not to adopt a compensation scheme of the kind existing in Malaya.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman say what proportion of these claims have been settled? Is he aware that there is considerable hardship among certain classes in Hong Kong as a result of their losses during the war?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: There is no question of settlement, because there is no scheme.
  Mr. Gammans: How can the hon. Gentleman defend the use of entirely different methods in the two Colonies? Why should a man in Malaya who has lost everything be compensated, and a man in Hong Kong who has lost everything be refused any sort of compensation? Surely, the hon. Gentleman has a responsibility in this matter?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: There are differences. First of all, there was a contributory insurance scheme in Malaya, but there was not in Hong Kong, and that has some bearing on the matter; secondly, Hong Kong became extremely wealthy

  1199
  and trade recovered very rapidly. To a large extent the same conditions have not appertained in the whole of Malaya.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In view of the fact that the people who are benefiting by the new prosperity may not necessarily be the same people who lost through bad conditions during the war, and of the widespread uncertainty about this decision of the local government, will the hon. Gentleman cause a new investigation to be made?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: I regret that I cannot promise any new investigation in this matter. The decision has been announced for a considerable period. It has been the unalterable decision of the Hong Kong Government.

  COLONIES EXHIBITION, LONDON
  Mr. David Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any further statement to make about the Colonies Exhibition to be held in London this summer.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: Arrangements for the mounting of the Exhibition by the Central Office of Information are going ahead very satisfactorily. The Exhibition will be called "Focus on Colonial Progress" and I ought, I think, to make it clear that it does not attempt to do more than give the public, by means of carefully chosen examples and striking illustrative material, a broad picture of what we and the peoples of the territories are trying to achieve together, and of the problems which have to be tackled. This will not be the kind of exhibition in which separate sections are devoted to individual territories, products or industries. Limitations of space and finance would preclude anything on these lines, but quite apart from that I think that the approach which we have chosen should be more valuable for the purpose in view. As my right hon. Friend has already announced, a "Colonial Month" is being arranged in London from 21st of June, and the Exhibition will take place against that background. I am glad to report that a very gratifying response has already been forthcoming from the many organisations who are being invited to participate in the "Colonial Month."
  Mr. W. R. Williams: Will my hon. Friend keep in touch with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education to see that children from the schools are enabled to visit this Exhibition and so create some interest in their minds in this new scheme of the Government for the development of the Colonies?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes, we are doing that.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: Even though separate territories are not to be represented, could the hon. Gentleman consider getting a few natives of different territories to be present to discuss the situation with visitors to the Exhibition?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. John Lewis: Will there be any place in the Exhibition to show the part played in sport by the Colonies?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: No, I do not think so.

  SIERRA LEONE (RICE)
  Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken in Sierra Leone to establish an efficient system of collection and distribution of rice at controlled prices fair to both producer and consumer.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: The Sierra Leone Government has decided that in the present season, as in 1947–48, no price control should be imposed on rice nor should a price be guaranteed to producers. The Government is, however, taking steps to build up sufficient reserve stocks for release if the price rises unduly.
  Mr. Skinnard: Does that mean that there will be no difference made in the present system of collection and distribution in view of the general dissatisfaction expressed at the activities of the middlemen, particularly the Syrians?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: At all events, not during this season.

  NYASALAND AND NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of African opposition to recent unofficial proposals for federation in central Africa,

  1201
  he will consider convening a conference to explore the possibility of a federation of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend does not consider that it would be opportune to call such a conference.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Bledisloe Commission which reported in 1939 rather strongly advocated the unification of these two territories, and would he give weight to the considerations contained in that Report?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: Weight is always given to the consideration of all reports.

  MALAYA (FINANCIAL AID)
  Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the application by the Government of the Federation of Malaya for permission to raise a loan or by other means to obtain financial assistance to meet the abnormal circumstances in the country.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: His Majesty's Government have considered the financial difficulties confronting the Federation of Malaya, and at an early date propose to ask for Parliamentary authority to provide £5 million towards the direct expenditure incurred by the Federation Government on internal security in 1949 and an additional £1 million towards the extra expenditure likely to be incurred on the Imperial Forces in Malaya in 1948 and 1949. I should add that these arrangements have been made in full consultation with the High Commissioner, and further help may be necessary in 1950, but, in the event of a material change in the position in Malaya, which cannot be deferred, the matter will be reviewed in the light of the position as it emerges.
  As regards the matter of the loan, a Bill to authorise the raising of a loan of 100 million dollars has been introduced in the Legislative Council of the Federation and is to be considered on 31st March. With the consent of His Majesty's Government, the Bill provides for a portion of the loan to be raised in London.
  Mr. Gammans: When the hon. Gentleman is considering this or any further application, will he realise the deep feeling there is in Malaya that this country gave a free gift of £20 million to Burma, which went out of the Commonwealth, and that, therefore, it is not right that we should be cheese-paring with regard to Malaya, which provides us with more American dollars than the total exports of the United Kingdom put together?

  ROYAL NAVY

    Research Ship (Completion)
    Sir Ronald Rossasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what are the Admiralty's intentions as to the completion of H.M.S. "Research"; and what amount of 'expenditure would be required for her completion.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): On the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply made to the hon. Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden) on 23rd February. As regards the second part, the cost of completing the "Research" as a sailing ship is estimated at £200,000; if she were engined, the cost would be considerably greater.
    Sir R. Ross: Is not the Financial Secretary aware of the important functions which this ship has to perform in the scientific field, with the help of the Merchant Navy, and, having spent so much money on her, does he say that there is now no prospect of the ship being completed, because the answer to which he referred said that nothing was to be done?
    Mr. Dugdale: I have not said that there is no prospect of her being completed, and I do fully realise the importance of this ship, but we have a large number of commitments of very great importance and this must be related to the others.
    Captain Marsden: Is not the necessity for this ship as great today, if not greater than before the war, when ships were more cheaply constructed?
    Mr. Dugdale: It is, certainly, but we have a large number of commitments of great importance and we have to judge between them.

    Ex-Service Men, Northern Ireland
    Sir Ronald Rossasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many non ex-Service men are employed by the Admiralty in Northern Ireland; and whether any ex-Service men have been discharged for redundancy during the last year in Northern Ireland.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): The answer to the first part of the Question is 983 industrials and 209 non-industrials; to the second part, 54 industrials and 2 non-industrials.
    Sir R. Ross: Is the Civil Lord surprised that ex-Service men in Northern Ireland are most indignant at this state of affairs?
    Mr. Edwards: I cannot see any reason why they should be indignant. So far as ex-Service men are concerned, over 50 per cent. on the industrial side are ex-Service men, and over 65 per cent. on the non-industrial side.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that, if only ex-Service men were employed in the Admiralty yards at Belfast, the majority would be Eire citizens?

  POST OFFICE

    Remittances Abroad (Information)
    Mr. Errollasked the Postmaster-General in how many cases during the most recent statistical periods have post offices given incorrect information about sending money abroad which has led to its confiscation in whole or in part by the Exchange control authorities.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling): Since the 1st of October, 1947, when the Exchange Control Act came into force, six cases have been brought to my notice in which the poster alleged that incorrect information was given at a post office. In each of these cases the money was refunded by the Customs authorities, who have, I understand, dealt similarly with a number of applications made directly to them. The regulations in this matter are being specially brought to the notice of counter officers at all post offices.

    Sub-Postmasters (T.A. Training)
    Mr. Toucheasked the Postmaster-General what arrangements are being made to provide substitutes for sub- postmasters, who volunteer for the Territorial Army, during the period they are in camp.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: Sub-postmasters are not required to give personal service, but are required to provide satisfactory staffing for their offices at all times, whether they are present or absent. The provision of substitutes during any period of absence is accordingly the responsibility of the individual sub-postmaster, but I am considering the possibility of contributing towards the cost of substitution incurred by sub-postmasters who attend Territorial Army camps.

    Postal District, Enfield
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Postmaster-General whether he will extend the London postal district area to include the Urban District of Enfield.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: No, Sir, and I regret that under existing manpower conditions it is not practicable to provide additional postal facilities for the area named.
    Mr. Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Enfield is within 12 miles of Charing Cross and that it would be very reasonable to bring it into the London postal district and thus improve the facilities there, in view of the fact that the urban area extends from London beyond Enfield and that the manufacturers in the district are severely handicapped at the present time?
    Mr. Paling: We had those facts in mind, of course, when we came to the present conclusion.

    Public Relations Officer
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaiteasked the Postmaster-General whether the public relations officer to his Department is an established civil servant; and what age-limit attaches to the appointment.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: The present public relations officer to the Post Office is not an established civil servant. In accordance with the general practice in the Civil Service about unestablished officers, no age limit attaches to the appointment.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: But as an established civil servant, aged 62, was removed to make room for this Socialist ex-Minister, who is now nearly 68, and who has had his salary increased from £1,350 to £1,700, can the Minister say how much longer this particular example of patronage is going to continue?
    Mr. Paling: I do not think there is any question of patronage whatever This man was put in because he was able to do the job, and he is still doing the job very well indeed.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Has not the Post Office enough publicity about its poor services all over the country without having a public relations officer?
    Mr. Paling: We get a lot of publicity about the good services of the Post Office.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: In order that the House and the country may be better informed of the particulars of this appointment, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    New Building, Newport
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Postmaster-General whether the plans for a new post office in Newport have now been approved; when building operations will commence; how long it is expected to take to complete the post office; and whether the new automatic exchange will be housed in the new building.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: The local authority have approved in principle the plans for the extension of the Post Office at Newport (Mon), but final plans have not yet been approved. It is now hoped that building operations will start early in 1950 and will be completed two and a half years later. New automatic telephone equipment will be installed in a portion of the new wing.
    Mr. Freeman: In view of the fact that the new post office will be on the site of the old one, is it intended to maintain the postal services in that building during building operations or will other arrangements be made?
    Mr. Paling: I should like notice of that question.

    TELEVISION LICENCES
    Mr. John Lewisasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that television manufacturers in this country have sold altogether 135,000 sets, and since June, 1946, when the television service was restarted, 122,316 sets, and in view of the fact that the television licences issued by the Post Office up to the end of February, 1949, were only 111,850, if he will investigate this discrepancy, with a view to taking proceedings against persons owning television receivers who are operating without a licence.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: The number of television licences current at the end of February, 1949, was 120,100. When account is taken of the number of sets in transit and in shops, I do not think that the number of unlicensed viewers is large. A reasonable time is allowed for the purchaser of a set to take out a licence, but the movement of the respective figures is carefully examined, and recently some prosecutions have taken place.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that the quality of television reception is not often affected by aerials being erected in the roofs or attics of houses, and, in those circumstances, can he say if it is possible for the Post Office to detect whether a television receiver exists in those cases where the aerials are in the attic or roof?
    Mr. Paling: We have ways and means of detecting this business.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Glasgow
    Mr. J. L. Williamsasked the Postmaster-General (1) the number of telephone exchange lines operating in Glasgow on the latest available date, and ten years before, respectively;
    (2) the number of telephone calls made in Glasgow in the latest available month, and in the corresponding month ten years before, respectively;
    (3) the number of telephone installations in Glasgow in 1938 and 1948, respectively.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: The number of telephone exchange lines operating in the Glasgow telephone area was 90,111 at the end of 1948, compared with 62,795 at the end of 1938. Thirteen million, eight hundred thousand telephone calls were originated in the area in January, 1949, as against 8,600,000 in January, 1939. Seven thousand six hundred and twelve exchange lines and 11,585 telephones were installed in the area in 1948, compared with 4,500 exchange lines and 6,500 telephones in 1938.
    Mr. J. L. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, notwithstanding the impressive figures which he has given, a large number of applicants have been on the waiting list for the last 18 months or two years, and are getting rather discontented?
    Mr. Paling: I am aware that there is a large number of people waiting for telephones.
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Would the Minister indicate, in regard to the census given by him of the number of instruments, how many of them are working properly?
    Mr. Paling: I have no complaints to the contrary.

    Eccles
    Mr. Hardyasked the Postmaster-General why he cannot provide an automatic exchange in Eccles, Lancashire, before 1954; and if he is aware of the many delays there owing to the subscriber not being able to obtain his own number, and often being given wrong numbers instead.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: Conversion of exchanges to automatic working is dependent on the availability of labour and materials for new exchange buildings; it is also conditioned by the restriction of equipment manufactured for home use in order to meet the heavy demands for export. Provision of an automatic exchange at Eccles involves the erection of a new building and the installation of new equipment, and this extensive work cannot be completed before 1954. The quality of service at the existing exchange compares favourably with that at similar exchanges throughout the country.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister appreciate that this automatic system was
    1208
    promised before the war and that all the adjacent exchanges, with the exception of the Eccles Exchange, are automatic; and that, although subscribers do not complain if they get wrong numbers when they dial them themselves, it causes a great amount of dissatisfaction when they have to rely on other people getting the numbers for them?
    Mr. Paling: I appreciate the fact that an automatic exchange was promised and expected before the war, but I have given some reasons in my answer why it cannot be put in just yet.

    Application, Bridlington
    Mr. Wadsworthasked the Postmaster-General if he will reconsider his adverse decision and now give priority for the installation of a telephone at the office of the secretary of the Bridlington Hotel and Boarding House Association, so that a telephone may be available before the Birdlington season commences.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: As explained in my letter of 21st March to the hon. Member I regret that I would not be justified in giving this case priority over other waiting applications with greater claims to telephone service.
    Mr. Wadsworth: Is the Postmaster-General aware that in refusing a telephone to the Secretary of the Bridlington Hotel and Boarding House Association he is likely to cause a great deal of dislocation during this season? After all, this is the only special request I have made in this matter, and would it not help in the co-operation between Ministers and Members if, on certain occasions, such a request were granted?
    Mr. Paling: There are other people waiting for telephones in this neighbourhood with higher priorities than this case.

    Kiosks, Rural Areas
    Mr. Watkinsasked the Postmaster-General whether he is yet able to announce when a new scheme for the provision of telephone kiosks in rural areas will become operative.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: I am glad to say that a quota system, the details of which are being developed in collaboration with the representatives of rural local authorities, will commence on 1st April. The

    1209
    new arrangements will supersede the present arrangements, both in regard to existing and new rural kiosks, as from that date.
    Mr. Watkins: I am sure the House will welcome the statement by the Postmaster-General, but will he say what will happen to the guarantees and commitments already entered into by parish councils, and what method will be used in the future for dealing with priority applications?
    Mr. Paling: We intend to make use of the rural councils for determining priority as to where the kiosks shall be put.
    Mr. Turton: Will the Minister publish through the parish and district councils full details of the scheme? Many people have been disappointed for more than three years now.
    Mr. Paling: We will do so at the earliest possible moment.
    Captain Crookshank: When the right hon. Gentleman said that the new plan would supersede the existing kiosks, did he mean that he intended to close some of them?
    Mr. Paling: No, Sir. There was an arrangement in the past that so much money should be guaranteed for kiosks. That arrangement will be superseded.
    Mr. Watkins: Will the Minister say what will happen to the present commitments of parish councils with regard to those guarantees?
    Mr. Paling: We shall not expect them to pay after 1st April.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Postmaster-General whether he will provide a telephone kiosk at Kinsham near Bredon, as this rural area has no public telephone, so that residents can summon a doctor in case of emergency, and also communicate with the resident midwife.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: The provision of a telephone kiosk at Kinsham will be considered under the quota scheme to which I referred in my reply this afternoon to my hon. Friend, the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins).
    Mr. De la Bère: Is the Postmaster-General aware that this is a No. 1
    1210
    priority and that there are no means of communicating with doctors and district nurses? It is a matter in which, in view of the difficulties, I should be glad if we could have priority.
    Mr. Paling: If it has such a high priority, I have no doubt that the rural council responsible will see to it.

    Enfield Exchange
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Postmaster-General when it is proposed to proceed with the conversion of the Enfield telephone exchange from manual to automatic operation.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: Extension of the existing exchange building and of the switching equipment will be completed in late 1950. This extension should meet development for some years, and it is too early to say when the exchange is likely to be converted to automatic working.
    Mr. Davies: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that this work is being proceeded with as expeditiously as possible, in view of the fact that it was promised to be commenced last year and has not yet got under way?
    Mr. Paling: Yes, Sir.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE (KEROSENE)
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Air what steps he is taking to ensure a sufficient supply of kerosene for jet propelled aircraft of the Royal Air Force.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): Supplies of kerosene are obtained by the Air Ministry under contractual arrangements with the oil industry, and there has been no difficulty in obtaining the requirements of the R.A.F. The technical and supply questions arising from the increased consumption which is to be expected in the future are under active consideration.
    Colonel Hutchison: Can the Minister say whether, in view of the expansion contemplated in jet propelled aircraft, the plans of the oil refining companies are going to keep pace with the demands for kerosene in the future?
    Mr. Henderson: That question had better be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power.
    Mr. Erroll: Is the Minister aware that agricultural tractors consume a great deal of paraffin when they could burn petrol, and so ease the load on the refineries?
    Mr. Henderson: That is another question.

    U.S.A. BOMBER GROUP (VISIT)
    Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for Air why permission has been given for the United States 509th Long-range Bomber Group to be stationed in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. A. Henderson: The 509th Bomber Group is visiting this country under the arrangements referred to in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) and the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills) on 28th July, 1948.
    Mr. Piratin: As that was some time ago, perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to repeat the reason he gave on that occasion, particularly in view of the fact that No. 509 Long-Range Bomber Group of the United States Air Force is a bomber group specially trained in atomic bomb technique?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I trust that the House and the country will note that "hear, hear."—And will the Minister also explain why this bomber group trained in that technique, is to remain in this country?
    Mr. Henderson: With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary, the reason I gave on 28th July for the visit of these various squadrons to this country was for training and good-will purposes. As regards the second part of the question, it may well he that the operational function of this particular group during the war was the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan, but there is no difference in essence between this particular group and any ether B29 group of the United States Air Force, and in those circumstances, I can see no reason why we should not welcome this group to this country.
    Mr. Piratin: In view of the nature of the reply given by the Minister, and of the fact that the country will be very concerned about this matter, irrespective of what the Opposition say, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

  ARMED FORCES

    Foreign Nationals
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Defence how many foreign nationals are at present serving with His Majesty's Forces, with separate figures for each Service.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): According to the latest information in my possession, the numbers are as follow: Royal Navy. 5; Army, 615; Royal Air Force, 630.
    Mr. Austin: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the term "foreign nationals" includes Southern Irishmen?
    Mr. Alexander: No, Sir.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement as to the conditions applicable to enlistment by foreign nationals in His Majesty's Forces; and what limitations are placed upon the rank which may be held by such nationals.
    Mr. Alexander: As the reply is long I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    Regulations provide that aliens are not eligible for recruitment except with the authority of the Board of Admiralty or of a Secretary of State. Under the Act of Settlement 1701, no alien may hold a commission in the Armed Forces. Under Section 95 (1) of the Army and Air Force Acts, aliens may not be recruited to the extent of more than 2 per cent. of any corps in the Army, or any corps or unit in the Royal Air Force, and the Royal consent is necessary for the entry of any at all. There is no statutory bar to the recruitment of aliens in the Royal Navy.
    The above statutory restrictions were suspended by No. 2 of the Defence (Armed Forces) Regulations, 1939, which is due to expire on 10th December, 1950. Until that date there is no statutory limit

    1213
    to the entry or commissioning of aliens in the Armed Forces. In addition, the Polish Resettlement Act, 1947, suspends these restrictions for five years on behalf of all ex-members of the Polish Resettlement Corps and of the Polish Resettlement Corps (R.A.F.). There is at present no statutory limitation on the rank which may be held by an alien serving with His Majesty's Forces.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Defence what steps are being taken to invite the attention of foreign nationals, at present in this country, to the opportunities offered to them for enlistment in His Majesty's Forces.
    Mr. Alexander: Members of the Polish Resettlement Corps, in whose favour certain legal restrictions upon recruitment and commissioning of aliens in His Majesty's Forces were waived by the Polish Resettlement Act, 1947, have been made fully aware of the opportunities open to them. Facilities have also been offered to certain other categories of foreign nationals who served in the Royal Air Force during the war.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the presence in this country of a substantial number of Allied persons with great military experience, and particularly in view of the figure which the right hon. Gentleman gave in reply to Question No. 45, is he satisfied that a real effort is being made to point out to these people the opportunities for service in His Majesty's Forces?
    Mr. Alexander: Yes, Sir. In regard to the actual numbers, I am satisfied that the Service authorities are doing their duty in the matter, especially having regard to the various questions of security, language and other matters which the Service authorities have to take into account when considering the suitability of such men for appointments in the Services.
    Earl Winterton: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered reverting to the system which persisted all through the eighteenth century and part of the nineteenth century, of a foreign legion consisting of people who could be relied upon and who were prepared patriotically to support this country?
    Mr. Alexander: Perhaps the noble Lord will study my answer to the original
    1214
    Question. I know that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) who put the Question is very much interested in the idea. We have carefully examined it at considerable length, and we came to the conclusion which I have announced.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the former members of the Polish Resettlement Corps to whom some hon. Members wish to give opportunities to enlist in our Forces, include those members of the Corps who served in Hitler's Army during the war?
    Mr. Alexander: I have already referred to considerations of security.
    General Sir George Jeffreys: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the remaining members of the Polish Resettlement Corps and other available foreigners are young enough and fit enough to serve in the Forces?
    Mr. Alexander: Obviously, I could not answer a question like that without notice.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), may I ask whether he will consider also including in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of his reasons for deciding against the formation of a foreign legion which, as he knows, has been pressed upon him by a number of hon. Members in this House?
    Mr. Alexander: I will consider the matter, but I can make no promise about it.

    Demobilisation (Civilian Clothing)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Defence if he has given further consideration to the question of granting a clothing allowance to personnel on demobilisation; and if he is now able to agree to do this.
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister of Defence whether he has now reviewed the question of a clothing allowance for demobilised persons and if he has any statement to make.
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Defence if he has any further statement to make on the possibility of issuing outfits of clothing to National Service men on demobilisation.
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Defence if he will now make a statement with regard to the issue of clothing to National Service men on demobilisation.
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Defence whether he will now issue civilian suits of clothing to demobilised National Service men.
    Mr. Mathersasked the Minister of Defence whether he is now in a position to announce better cash clothing allowances for men on demobilisation after serving their period of compulsory military service, in view of the fact that these men develop during service so that the clothing they had prior to their call-up is too small for them to wear, and the present cash allowance given is inadequate to cover the cost of replacement.
    Lady Tweedsmuirasked the Minister of Defence if he will make a further statement on the provision of civilian clothing for National Service men on release from the Services.
    Mr. Edward Evansasked the Minister of Defence if he will now make a further statement on the issue of civilian clothing to men demobilised from National Service.
    Mrs. Jean Mannasked the Minister of Defence if he will now make a statement on what he proposes to substitute for the 60 coupons concession on demobilisation for National Service men.
    Mrs. Florence Patonasked the Minister of Defence what decision has been taken with regard to the provision of clothing to National Service men on the completion of their service.
    Mr. Alexander: His Majesty's Government have given careful consideration to the proposal that a clothing allowance should be granted on release to National Service men called up since January, 1947. As hon. Members are aware, the issue of a civilian outfit was one of the main features of the benefits for men released under the "age and service" scheme, the main body of whom had served their country for long periods. The Service Ministers and I have considered carefully and sympathetically the representations which have been made by hon. Members on this question. But we have to bear in mind that the supply and issue
    1216
    of such clothing imposes a heavy burden of administration on the Services which, in view of the need for economy of manpower, they cannot agree to continue, and that a cash equivalent of the previous scheme would probably cost in the next financial year between £3 million or £4 million.
    We have, therefore, reluctantly concluded that it would not be possible to modify the decision taken by the Government over two years ago and announced in this House by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service in January, 1947, that this benefit should be discontinued for men called up for the much shorter periods and under the quite different conditions which obtain today.
    Mr. Lipson: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that it is the view of His Majesty's Government that the National Service men should not have their share of such clothing as is available to the country at large, and before coming to that lamentable decision did he take into account the widespread feeling both in this House and in the country on this matter? Is it of no concern to him that these men will leave the Services with a sense of grievance at having to wear ill-fitting and shabby clothing?
    Mr. Alexander: In reply to the first part of the Question, certainly there is no restriction on National Service men having their share of the available clothing in the same way as any other citizens. I may say that many National Service men already purchase civilian clothing while they are still in the Forces, and actually wear their civilian clothing when they are on leave. As to the last part of the hon. Member's Question, it is always a matter of concern to His Majesty's Ministers to do the very best they can for every section of the population. Having regard to the resources available and to the heavy defence expenditure which this country still has to bear, we were bound to come to the conclusion which I have already announced.
    Mr. Mathers: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about the heavy public burden which would be involved in meeting the expense of providing proper clothing for these men, does he not recognise the individual burden which is laid upon the homes of these men who are taken at an age when they are developing

    1217
    and who, because of the time which they spend in the Services, grow out of their clothes? This heavy individual burden should be borne collectively.
    Mr. Alexander: One would imagine from my hon. Friend's Question that the country does not pay anything at all to the National Service man while he is in the Services. I do not agree with that. The whole of his emoluments amount to considerably more than what many hon. Members have previously advocated. There has been a great deal of pressure in the House for paying a lower rate than is actually paid today. Taking into account what they receive, I suggest that it is possible for these men to make some little saving towards their civilian outfits.
    Mrs. Cullen: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the hardship caused to widowed mothers when boys, who are their only means of support, are taken away and on their return, have no clothing and no money with which to buy it?
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In order to obviate these administrative difficulties, will the right hon. Gentleman consider making a cash grant? It would simplify matters considerably. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that even if the expenditure involved is in the neighbourhood of £3 million or £4 million a year, it is a small price to pay to ensure that men leave the Services in a satisfied frame of mind.
    Mr. Alexander: The cumulative demands that we get constantly from different parts of the House and the additional sum of £3 million or £4 million which this allowance would cost, do not make it possible to contemplate such an expenditure, particularly in view of the fact that the Treasury have approved our submission to the House and the House have approved a budget of £760 million.
    Mrs. Mann: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the tremendous amount of money spent on recruiting and enticing men into the Services? Is he aware that we might as well throw it all down the drain if he is going to treat the men in this manner when they return from the Services?
    Mr. Alexander: The subject of recruitment does not apply to National Service men at all. There are, of course, reasons
    1218
    for endeavouring to expand recruitment of Regulars to Services and for making their conditions as attractive as possible and keeping such men in the Services.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: In regard to the cost of £3 to £4 million which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, would he say what is the actual cost of providing these men with clothes at the moment; and, from the point of view of Service commitments in administering such an arrangement, is there no possibility of it being done by civilians?
    Mr. Alexander: That would not make any difference to the ultimate cost in (a) the finance of the Service Department and (b) the manpower pool in the country's need for economic recovery. For both reasons, we wish to reject that suggestion. With regard to the present cost of clothing, I should require notice before I could give the exact amount, but I am quite certain that we should not wish to set up again the system of which we have now got rid. We could not provide a cash equivalent for less than the sum I have stated.
    Mr. Driberg: If it was not officially realised that a man going out of the Service would have to buy a lot of clothes, why was an allowance of 60 clothing coupons given? Will not my right hon. Friend reconsider this? Would he also tell the House how much money he estimates the average National Service man can save out of his Army pay?
    Mr. Alexander: It would depend a great deal upon his individual habits as to how much he saves out of his pay and emoluments. So far as clothing coupons are concerned, of course there would be a wide range, according to the man's ideas and those of his family as to what he required in clothing and, therefore, with clothing rationed, we gave him what we considered to be an adequate number.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Pigs
    Mr. Hollisasked the Minister of Food by what authority the instruction that a person wishing to fatten a pig must register it at the Post Office is described in leaflet L.L.P. of his Department as a regulation.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): Under article 2 of the Livestock (Restriction on Slaughtering) Order, 1947, no pig may be killed for human consumption except under a licence. It is our practice only to grant a slaughtering licence to a person who has registered his pig at a Food Office. The leaflet L.L.P. is issued for the information of domestic pig keepers and sets out the procedure subject to which a licence is granted.
    Mr. Hollisasked the Minister of Food by what authority it is stated in form D.L.P. (A) of his Department that a person making a false statement when registering a pig is liable to three months' imprisonment, a fine of £100, or both.
    Dr. Summerskill: The authority is paragraph (2) of Regulation 82 and paragraph (1) of Regulation 92 of the Defence Regulations.

    Potatoes (Consumption)
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Food whether, in order to make the best use of available stocks, he will re-establish on a suitable scale, the "Eat-MorePotato" campaign.
    Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. Consumption has already returned to about the level it reached as a result of the strong publicity campaign of the war years.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Will there be an "Eat-more-meat" campaign in the immediate future?

    Bananas
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Food when he expects the supply of bananas to be increased so that they may be purchased by all who want them.
    Dr. Summerskill: Our imports of bananas are increasing and by longterm contracts and in other ways we are doing what we can to increase them still further. At present, however, the supplies we can get amount to little more than half the pre-war quantity and I am afraid that it may be some time before we have a full supply.
    Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Would the right hon. Lady make a special effort to get more fruit into this country between now and our own fruit growing season in view of the general scarcity of fruit?
    Dr. Summerskill: This Question is about bananas, Sir.
    Mr. Austin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in accordance with evidence which I have submitted to her Department, children in the St. John's Wood area, as one example, are not getting the bananas intended for them, and.will she do something about it?
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir.
    Dr. Segal: Is my right hon. Friend aware that ample quantities of bananas are obtainable in France at quite reasonable prices for anyone who wants them? Surely we are much more a banana producing Empire at the present time than the French?
    Sir H. Morris-Jones: May I take it from the right hon. Lady's answer that she regards the banana as a vegetable and not a fruit?

    Castor Beans and Oil
    Sir John Barlowasked the Minister of Food what stock of castor beans and castor oil he has in this country; what was the average price of purchase; at what price he expects to realise them; and for what period he expects them to last.
    Dr. Summerskill: It is not in the public interest to disclose information about our purchase prices or stocks. Our present selling prices are £142 and £135 per ton according to quality.
    Sir J. Barlow: Would the Minister say whether these stocks have deteriorated and whether they have been stored in well-constructed warehouses?
    Dr. Summerskill: As far as I know they have been properly stored. If the hon. Gentleman has any information I shall be only too pleased to look at it.

    Sugar Ration (Babies)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Food whether he will consider increasing the sugar ration for bottle fed babies since many mothers find it impossible to make the present ration sufficient for the four week period.
    Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir; experts on infant feeding were agreed when the sugar ration stood at eight ounces a week that this provided sufficient sugar for the normal baby. It is now 10 ounces.
    Mr. Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some mothers are complaining that the children do not get sufficient sugar and that they have to use the rations of the family for the purpose of supplementing the allowance for the children?
    Dr. Summerskill: If my hon. Friend will work this out I think he will find that a baby feed needs one-and-a-half tea-spoonsful of sugar. There are eight tea-spoonsful to an ounce, and if you have five feeds a day that is sufficient.

    Milk (Price)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Food whether he will reduce the price of milk during the period when any quantity is available so that those people who can only afford to spend a certain weekly amount on this most useful food can reap the benefit of the extra quantities obtainable.
    Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. Milk is heavily subsidised and I should not be justified in adding to the subsidy by reducing the retail price. Expectant mothers and children under five already receive a pint a day at reduced prices.
    Mr. Butcher: Will the right hon. Lady explain why she subsidises any such commodity as meat, which is in inadequate supply, yet refuses to subsidise milk, which is freely available at the present time?
    Dr. Summerskill: I have already said that we are subsidising milk at the rate of £62 million this year.

    Meat (Imports from France)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Minister of Food what is the size of the meat surplus which France has offered to him as available for export during the next six months; and how much of it he hopes to buy for this country.
    Dr. Summerskill: The French Authorities have informed us that a few thousand tons of frozen pork are likely to be available for export to this country during the next few months. We will buy all this pork if price and quality are satisfactory and provided that arrangements for safeguarding animal health can be made effective.
    Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that certain newspapers are giving the impression that France has a considerable surplus of meat available for immediate sale to this country and that her Department is wantonly refusing to take it? For the sake of the people of this country, will she please make it quite clear that that is not the situation?
    Dr. Summerskill: I am only too pleased to make it quite clear that we are co-operating with the French authorities in this matter.
    Mr. Logan: Can the Minister say why we are not getting meat from Ireland instead of horseflesh from the Continent?

    West Indies Sugar (Price)
    Mr. Thomas Reidasked the Minister of Food if he will make a statement with regard to Jamaica's request for an increase of £3 a ton for sugar purchased from the island by Britain.
    Dr. Summerskill: His Majesty's Government announced in December last that the price of £27 5s. per ton paid in 1948 to Colonial producers of raw sugar would be maintained for the 1949 crops. Careful consideration was given to the British West Indian request for an increase of £3 per ton, but it was decided that no increase over the 1948 price could be justified.
    Mr. Reid: May I ask my right hon. Friend to see that, in these negotiations, the price of cane sugar will not be based at all on the price of sugar from beet?
    Dr. Summerskill: We take into account the price of both when we are considering the price to be paid.
    Mr. De la Bère: Why not de-ration sugar altogether and let the babies have it?

    TRANSJORDAN (BRITISHTROOPS)
    Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has given to the request of the Transjordan Government that British troops should patrol the frontier of Transjordan from Aqaba to the Dead Sea; and what action he proposes to take.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) on 28th March.
    Mr. Piratin: Can the Minister say whether there is any truth in the statement that the Transjordan Government did not request our Government to send troops there? Can he make a statement on that matter?
    Mr. Mayhew: They made a request to us in the terms which I described in the answer to which I have referred.

    BUILDING WORKERS (SERVICE DEPARTMENTS)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Works how many building workers were employed on 1st March on building work for the Army, Navy and Air Forces.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): It is estimated that at the end of January, 1949, approximately 27,500 building and civil engineering workers were employed on work for the Service Departments.
    Mr. Hughes: Will not the Minister consider releasing some of these 27,000 men to build houses needed for workers in the
    1224
    slums and for people in overcrowded conditions?
    Mr. Key: A number of these men were employed in building houses needed for members of the Services.

    EAST AFRICAN GROUNDNUT SCHEME (FERTILISERS)
    Sir R. Glynasked the President of the Board of Trade what quantities of nitrogenous fertilisers have been exported from the United Kingdom to assist the East African groundnut scheme in the new system of crop rotation.
    Mr. Bottomley (Secretary for Overseas Trade): About 1,350 tons of sulphate of ammonia from the United Kingdom have been sent to East Africa for use in the groundnut scheme.
    Sir R. Glyn: Does the Minister realise that there is a very great shortage of this product for fertilisers for use in this country and that it is essential for British agriculture?
    Mr. Bottomley: There is a general shortage of which we are well aware, but we do our best to apportion it in the required quantities where it will most help our economy.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY CONVENTION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.30 p.m.
  The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The object of this Bill is to enable the Minister of Transport to implement the 1948 International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea. This convention was signed by His Majesty's Government's representatives and 27 other nations on 10th June, 1948. We have taken the lead in such matters during the last 100 years. In fact, it was just 99 years ago that the Marine Department of the Board of Trade was established. I am glad to say that since then, Parliament itself has always taken a very keen and lively interest in the problem of safety regulations as applied to our Merchant Navy. However, it was not until 1894 that Parliament itself engaged upon a quite monumental piece of legislation that eventually contained 748 Sections and 22 Schedules. That Act is still today the principal Act which governs the affairs of our Merchant Navy.
  In 1906 the standards that were applied to our own British shipping were applied to foreign flags entering United Kingdom ports, but it was the disaster to the "Titanic" in 1912 that first influenced the British Government to commence the policy of convening international conferences to consider this problem. One was held just before the first World War, but the decisions of that conference did not become operative because of the war that followed. After that conflict the British Government again took the initiative, and convened an international conference in 1929, when 18 nations then signed the convention. In 1932 the House passed the Merchant Shipping (Safety and Load Line Conventions) Act, which enabled the first convention to become operative in international safety matters.
  The Bill before the House is to enable the Government to ratify the 1948 Convention, which will take the place of the 1929 Convention. In view of our past history, I recall that when I became Minister of Transport it appeared to me that while the deathless heroism of the
  1226
  Services and of our Merchant Navy was fresh in our minds, we could not too soon organise, or take the initiative in calling together, another international conference for the purpose of bringing these safety regulations up to date with regard to our modern practice and experience. In a matter of this kind, however, before a Minister seeks to convene an international conference, it is quite clear that it is desirable to get agreement and understanding between the various sections of our own shipping industry. I am very gratified to be able to inform the House that, from the commencement of this initiative, all sides of the shipping industry of this country have co-operated in the very fullest sense, so that I was able to be represented at the international conference by a very powerful and experienced British team.
  I must call to the notice of hon. Members that probably the most important position that had to be filled was that of the individual who had to preside over such a conference and lead the United Kingdom delegation. I desire to take this opportunity of thanking the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) for accepting my invitation to be the leader of the United Kingdom delegation and to preside over this important conference. It would have been impossible to find a more qualified or respected chairman for an international conference than my right hon. Friend. His early experience in the higher ranks of the Civil Service, which included, I would remind hon. Members, a period at the head of the Ministry of Shipping in the First World War, was followed by a varied succession of high offices at home and overseas and in the Cabinet during the war. When I say that this was no ordinary conference lasting for a few days, but that its proceedings extended over a period of something like seven weeks, and that there was quite a number of important committees, the House will appreciate that while I am moving the Second Reading of the Bill from this Box, possibly there is no Member in this House who is more knowledgeable on the subject than my right hon. Friend who is sitting opposite to me today.
  I propose, in dealing with the Convention, to refer only to those parts of the

  1227
  regulations annexed to the Convention, which introduce major advances on the standards set up by the 1929 Convention. In chapter 2 of the regulations, which deals with the construction of ships, important provisions in regard to structural fire protection in passenger ships have been written in. Hon. Members will find the powers necessary to enable me to give effect to those provisions in Clause 1 of the Bill. The provisions of this chapter of the regulations dealing with construction, and of chapter 3 dealing with life-saving appliances, apply to new ships, the keels of which are laid on or after the date on which the Convention comes into operation, namely, 1st January, 1951, subject to certain other conditions. Each administration, however, is required to consider the arrangements on existing ships which do not already comply with the provisions of the new Convention. This follows the precedent of the 1929 Convention.
  In the 1929 Convention, cargo ships only came into the picture in respect of the carriage of radiotelegraph apparatus. The 1948 Convention, however, goes much further and, for the first time, includes regulations which require the carriage of life-saving and fire appliances on cargo ships of 500 tons and upwards, and the issue to cargo ships of safety equipment certificates covering the survey of these appliances. Clauses 2 and 8 of the Bill will give the Minister the necessary powers.
  Chapter 3 of the regulations will, perhaps, be of special interest to the House, as it deals with life-saving appliances. In future lifeboats for all new ships must be not less than 24 feet in length and must have rigid sides and internal buoyancy. If they are to carry more than 60 persons, they must be either motor lifeboats or capable of propulsion by some form of hand mechanical gear. Every passenger ship and every cargo ship of over 1,600 tons gross must have at least one motor lifeboat or mechanically hand-propelled lifeboat, and in large passenger ships lifeboats fitted with permanent wireless will be carried. On the smaller passenger ships and on all cargo ships as well there must be portable radio sets for use in the lifeboats.
  1228
  Perhaps the most important single provision which has been introduced is that in future all new ships of over 150 feet in length must be fitted with mechanical davits of either a gravity or lulling type. These davits must be sufficiently strong to enable the lifeboats to be launched with their full complement of persons and equipment even should the ship be listing as much as 15 degrees. Powers to implement these provisions of the Convention are in Clauses 1, 2, and 3 of the Bill.
  Radiotelegraphy and radiotelephony are dealt with in chapter 4 of the regulations, and here the major change that will be introduced is that when the Convention comes into force all passenger ships and all cargo ships of 1,600 tons gross and upwards will have to keep continuous watch on the distress frequency, either by means of qualified radio officers or, if no officer is listening, by means of the auto-alarm, an instrument which on receiving a distress signal will operate a system of alarm bells. The Convention extends the compulsory carriage of wireless so as to cover the large class of cargo ships between 500 and 1,600 tons gross, which can meet the requirements by fitting a radiotelephone or radio telegraph installation. Clause 3 of the Bill gives me power to make the necessary rules.
  Among the general requirements covered by chapter 5 of the Convention, the most important single change made was to extend very considerably the compulsory carriage of direction-finding apparatus. Under the 1929 Convention, only passenger ships of 5,000 tons and upwards had to carry these direction-finders, but under the 1948 Convention the requirement will again be extended to all ships of 1,600 tons and upwards, passenger and cargo, when engaged on international voyages. This is a major advance because a direction-finder is not only a valuable aid in fixing a ship's position but can be used to guide a ship to a vessel, or even a lifeboat, sending out a distress message. Provisions in the Bill about direction-finders will be found in Clause 5.
  The Convention also deals, in chapter 6, with the carriage of dangerous goods and grain. This is the first time that provisions governing the carriage of grain have been inserted in international conventions of this character, although I

  1229
  should like to inform the House that it has been the practice in our own Merchant Navy for the past 50 years. In this case it is a matter of bringing international standards up to what has been practically the prevailing standard in the British Merchant Navy.
  With regard to the provisions that deal with the carriage of dangerous goods and explosives, the Conference was not able to come to detailed decisions on this very complex and difficult matter. Therefore, the Convention contents itself with classifying and prescribing requirements and precautions in the packing and marking and the stowage of dangerous goods. It has at least taken the problem one step further, in so far as it is recommended that a further study of this difficult traffic should be conducted by the Safety Committee of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation. That is a body, again, which was established on the initiative of the British Government after the war for the purpose of relating and co-ordinating experienced maritime opinion on such subjects and to establish a liaison with the United Nations Organisation.
  Clause 6 of the Bill deals with radio navigational aids other than direction-finders. The 1948 Conference fully recognised, of course, as we all do, the increasing importance of these radio aids to shipping, but decided that the time was not yet ripe to make any of them compulsory. I think the House will agree—and I trust that I shall have full support—that it is of the utmost importance that where radar or any other navigational aid is carried on board ship, it shall be efficient, and this Clause will give the Minister the necessary powers to ensure that that is the case. It will also enable the Minister to secure a proper standard of performance of apparatus, such as radio beacons, which transmit signals to ships from the land, or from a station such as a light vessel.
  It may be appropriate if at this point I draw attention to an important feature of the Bill: namely, that the powers sought in the Bill—and I want hon. Members to note this—go beyond those strictly required to implement the 1948 Convention. For example, the rule-making powers sought in Clauses 2 and 3 in relation to life-saving appliances and radio would enable the Minister to apply
  1230
  certain provisions of the Convention to ships not covered by the Convention. An instance of this would be cargo ships of less than 500 tons gross.
  I therefore wish to make it clear that, before making any rules which go beyond the Convention requirements, either because they set up a higher standard than the Convention requires or because they apply Convention requirements to ships outside the scope of the Convention, there will be the fullest consultation with all sections of the shipping industry. Clause 34 provides that all rules and regulations to be made under the provisions of the Bill, and the rules for lifesaving appliances, shall be statutory instruments, and shall be subject to annulment by negative Resolution of either House of Parliament. This, in my view, provides a useful safeguard to all who may be affected by any action taken under the powers sought in this Bill.
  Clauses 7 to 17 relate to surveys and certificates, and are, I am afraid, inevitably very complicated, so perhaps the House will allow me to explain in very general terms what they mean and involve. The Convention applies to ships belonging to Convention countries when engaged on international voyages, and the rules to be made under the Bill are intended generally to apply to United Kingdom ships on international voyages, and also, in certain circumstances, to coasting and other classes of ships. Ships not registered in the United Kingdom will have to produce certificates issued by the Governments of the countries in which they are registered.
  Whilst from a perusal of this group of Clauses it may appear that there are a great many different forms of certificates, there are really only four basic types; the safety certificate for passenger ships; the safety equipment certificate for cargo ships; the radio certificate for cargo ships; and the exemption certificate to be used as circumstances may demand. This group of Clauses covers the issue of all the necessary certificates, and ensures acceptance of the appropriate foreign certificates.
  Clause 22 replaces a similar provision of the 1932 Act, but in two important respects amends the existing obligation on masters to go to the assistance of persons in distress. In the first place, it extends this obligation to cover aircraft

  1231
  in distress on the water; and secondly, the obligation arises on receipt of distress information from any source, from wherever it may come. Clause 27 gives effect to the provisions in the Convention authorising administrations to permit the carriage on board their ships of more persons than would otherwise be allowed where this is necessary because of a threat to their lives.
  Clause 33 is an important Clause about which the House will expect me to say something. It provides for the charging of fees under the Merchant Shipping Acts and for the disposal of fines. The Convention provides for the issue of two entirely new certificates—the safety equipment certificate and the safety radio telephony certificate—and the Minister must have power to levy fees for the issue of these certificates. In almost all cases the fees now charged for various services under the Merchant Shipping Acts are at, or very nearly at, the maximum under the various Statutes authorising them. With the increase in costs in recent years the level of these fees is now no longer such as recovers to the Exchequer a reasonable proportion of the costs of the services rendered. The opportunity is therefore sought under this Clause to give the Minister, with the approval of the Treasury, powers to revise the maximum amounts of these fees. The regulations which would be made would be statutory instruments subject, under Clause 34, to annulment; and it is my intention that before any fees are fixed the shipping industry shall be consulted.
  In taking the Convention and the chapters and regulations together with the Bill, it is possible for me to give only a general review of their scope and contents. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, with his own seagoing experience, will be able to answer any queries which may arise in the Debate. I trust that the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities will also give the House the benefit of his exceptional knowledge on this subject. I am confident, however, that I can count on the support of all sides of the House in enabling His Majesty's Government to ratify this Convention.
  I see in his place the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) who, with his experience in the Royal Navy,
  1232
  is likely to speak for the Opposition. Let me say just this: whilst the Royal Navy protects this country, I think that the Merchant Navy is essentially the lifeline of the country. In neither peace nor war would it be possible to maintain the supplies to this country on which our economic, financial and military strength depend unless we could depend upon the courage, devotion and efficiency of the officers and men of the Merchant Navy.
  I also remind the House, although I am sure it is not necessary to do so, that the Merchant Navy was in action on the first day of the war, right through the war to the very last day. I wonder how far it is generally known in this country that the Merchant Navy suffered a higher casualty rate in the war than any other branch of our national Services? Out of a total strength of 180,000 officers and men of the Merchant Navy, 32,000 lost their lives. That represents a terrific toll; and yet immediately after the war, despite the process of demobilisation that took place, it was remarkable, stimulating and thrilling to see how rapidly the strength of the Merchant Navy was once more restored. In our fight for economic recovery, the British merchant shipping industry is making as good and as rapid a contribution as any other branch of our national life.
  I know, therefore, that a Measure of this description, which goes a small way towards repaying the debt of gratitude of the nation to this service, will be wholeheartedly welcomed. I ask the House to set its seal to this Bill, which has been initiated by the Government in cooperation with the shipping industry, although, of course, they did not see the Bill until it was presented. I trust that it will go through with the unanimous support of the House, and that we shall have co-operation in remedying any weaknesses during the Committee stage.
  4.2 p.m.
  Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman referred to my past connections with the Admiralty. I can assure him that all those connected with the Royal Navy give 100 per cent. support to the admirable and moving tribute he has paid to the Royal Merchant Navy. I rejoice in the fact that I am a good deal more fortunate than some of my colleagues on this bench in regard to the Bills which the Government present to the

  1233
  House. Last year I was able to support wholeheartedly the Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping Bill which resulted from an international convention, when there was a large measure of agreement between the countries with maritime interests. That Bill, like this, was also the result of very close co-operation between the Minister, the shipping industry and the seamen's unions. Therefore, for the second time that I have had to deal with Bills from the right hon. Gentleman's Department, I can congratulate the Minister on bringing to the House a Measure which will be welcomed in all quarters.
  We are very glad to give our unqualified support to this Bill, which will eventually give effect to the recommendations of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. It is true that this convention represents some 20 years of progress in the constant battle against the elements to improve the safety of transport by sea. The fact that this convention represents agreement with as many as 31 different countries is itself a tribute to the singleness of purpose with which these problems have been approached. It is remarkable, when we are concerned with maritime affairs, how much good will there is on all sides.
  I am quite sure that this agreement is in a very large measure due to the leading part that was played in these discussions by the British delegation. In merchant shipping, from time immemorial, this country has led the world, and in welcoming this Bill I join with the Minister in his tribute to those representatives of the great shipping industry, the Chamber of Shipping, the Shipping Federation and the seamen's unions, for the work they did at the conference. I also add our congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), for the admirable work he did in presiding over these deliberations.
  The Minister took us very rightly through past history and the main provisions of the Bill. I do not propose, therefore, to go into any details this afternoon; but there are several implications which are of vital importance to British shipping. As the Minister said, this Bill in many respects goes considerably beyond the regulations of the International Convention. This means, as the Minister told us, he is seeking power to impose
  1234
  upon our shipping industry conditions which may be much more onerous than those imposed upon the shipping industries of other countries. We do not complain of that. I think it is true to say that British shipping legislation has always been ahead of international agreement, and the safety precautions taken by the industry have been generally in advance of legislation. Yet the Minister is taking upon himself a heavy responsibility, as he admitted. It depends on how he uses this responsibility that the future prosperity of the industry will largely rely, and upon the prosperity of the industry depends the earnings of our ships of foreign exchange—a very vital and important source of invisible export. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be cautious in exercising these very wide powers.
  I welcome the strong assurance that when the right hon. Gentleman comes to exercise these powers, he will take into full consideration the views of those who have to carry out the regulations. We have noticed that there is no provision in the Bill that consultations shall take place in this regard, although provision for consultation is made in Acts dealing with other industries. I think I am right in saying that provision was specifically made in the 1914 Merchant Shipping Act. That Act was never brought into operation, and it was superseded by the 1932 Act. I admit that although that Measure was introduced by a predominantly Conservative Government there was no provision made in regard to consultation. It may be that that Act is a precedent for excluding consultation from this Bill, but at a later stage we may wish to seek to amend the Bill in this respect. I do not want to close the door on that possibility. On the other hand, it has invariably been the practice of the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministry to take the industry into consultation. This has become almost automatic, and the relations between the industry and the interests affected and the Departments concerned have been so happy that it may well be that statutory provision will not be found necessary.
  The Minister referred to the setting up of an Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, which I suppose will shortly degenerate to "Imco" and will be set up under the aegis of the United Nations.
  Mr. Barnes: It has already become "Imco."
  Mr. Thomas: I thought so. I understand that this organisation is a kind of international forum on merchant shipping problems, and will be more or less in permanent session. No doubt from time to time they will be making recommendations, but the House must consider very carefully the effect on the shipping industry of constantly changing regulations as a result of the deliberations of this organisation. As the Minister said, it is 20 years since the last international maritime convention was held. I do not see that it is necessary to have so long an interval as that in future, but at the same time it will make matters very difficult for the shipping companies of the world if changes in regulations come at too frequent intervals. I hope the Government will look carefully into this matter, because it may be found advisable in deciding the terms of reference of this new organisation not to put forward proposals for changing substantially the safety provisions at more frequent intervals than, say, five years. I hope the Minister may find that point worthy of consideration.
  In conclusion, we do not know when the Bill is to be brought into operation. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it depends on the Convention being ratified by at least 15 countries, of which no fewer than seven should have a minimum of 1 million tons gross of shipping. The Convention, however, has done extremely well to reach agreement on so many valuable recommendations for furthering the safety of life at sea, and we hope that by January of next year the necessary number of qualifying countries will have accepted its provisions, so that both the Bill and the Convention can become operative in the next two years. We are very pleased to support the Bill.
  4.11 p.m.
  Mr. Blyton: As a miner and one who has also been to sea, I welcome the Bill. I believe that we are doing a wise thing in ratifying the 1948 Convention, and that the fact that we, as one of the great maritime nations of the world, are doing so will encourage other countries to follow our example. Some of the trade unions which have taken part in the Convention
  1236
  have authorised me to say that they appreciate the work of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), who was chairman of the Convention, and also the sympathetic way in which the Government have accepted the Convention. On behalf of the National Union of Seamen, radio officers, navigating officers and engineering officers, and the Amalgamated Engineering Union, I tender thanks to the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities for his work and the Government for taking this step.
  I have lived for many years among the seafaring people; my wife's people were seafarers and she herself lost two brothers at sea in the last war. As a miner I can appreciate that sailors live a hazardous life, just as mine was in the mines. Indeed, in some respects theirs is worse because the miner has some home life every day of the week whereas the sailor is at home only intermittently, when he goes ashore. In South Shields especially, my home town, which suffered the greatest casualties among seamen during the war, the Bill will be recognised as a great step forward in furtherance of an international standard of safety for those who are employed at sea.
  There are hundreds of detailed regulations in the Convention, and I cannot, of course, deal with them all today. But the trade unions are pleased that direction finders are to be put on all ships over 1,600 tons, that for the first time an international standard is laid down for the safety of cargo ships, and that distress signals are to be carried. This life-saving apparatus is to be carried by ships of over 500 tons gross, also wireless, but I suggest that the Minister should keep an eye on ships under that tonnage with a view to supplying them, too, with suitable life-saving apparatus. There is to be an international code for lifeboat men, who must have a certificate of competency. There must be sufficient illumination of the launching gear and also of the lifeboat during the launching.
  Arrangements must be made for warning passengers and crew of a ship that it has to be abandoned, and to prevent water from being discharged from the engine room into the lifeboat. There must he a muster of persons before embarkation. Lifeboats themselves are

  1237
  to be subject to a standard. Each must carry a portable radio. Distress rockets, capable of reaching a high altitude and being visible for a 50-mile radius, and life lines which can be thrown with reasonable accuracy for 250 yards must be carried. There must be three pints of water per person, instead of one pint as heretofore. The trade unions are also pleased about the fire fighting and fire drill regulations.
  I do not wish to strike a discordant note, but in the mines it is laid down that there must be one first-aid man to every 25 men employed. The Factory Acts also stipulate that so many men trained in first aid must be present, according to the number of workers employed. But I cannot find anything in the 1929 Convention or in the 1948 Convention which says that there must be trained first-aid men in sea-going ships. A certificated master of a deep sea-going vessel has to have his first-aid certificate, but where there are coasters with uncertificated masters it will be found that most probably they have not got a first-aid certificate. Even in a deep sea-going vessel, where the captain must have his first-aid certificate, that one is not sufficient for such a ship. The position is even worse in coasters where there is probably none. I suggest to the Minister that he should consider taking up this question with the shipowners and the unions, and that through them he should induce more crews to get their first-aid certificate. The shipowners could be asked to give some inducement to their men to take these certificates, so that if a seaman is injured at sea there will always be someone with some knowledge of first-aid to give elementary medical treatment until such time as he can be properly attended to when the ship reaches port. I hope my right hon. Friend will look into this question.
  In conclusion, I again say "Good luck" to the Minister for bringing this Bill forward. I hope we shall get the requisite number of countries to accept ratification, so that there shall be an international standard for the whole of the mercantile marine all over the world, and that the utmost safety will thereby be provided for the seamen who go down to the sea in ships.
  4.22 p.m.
  Sir Ian Fraser: The mercantile shipping industry, with which is closely associated the shipbuilding industry, and which during the war we were so proud to call the Merchant Navy, is I suppose, along with agriculture, amongst our most important industries. That is not only because of the numbers engaged in it, but because of the extraordinary contribution which it makes to our economy. There is also the fact that it is our lifeline in both peace and in war, and that must commend to all sides of the House any Measure so important as this which concerns itself with that branch of our industrial strength.
  Our country has traditionally been the leading maritime Power, and that must also make this Measure a very important one. It gives power to the Government to approve of the Convention which in itself represents the accumulated wisdom of many nations in regulating safety at sea. Safety at sea may be said to be based upon the state of the vessel itself and the way in which it is handled and laden. Devices are provided such as radio and life-saving apparatus which can be used in the event of accidents occurring. Naturally this Convention covers all the various ships, and the problem with which we are faced is that our ships have always been ahead of legislation and of the average international practice. We are very proud that that is so. I am quite sure that the shipowners, those who represent the seamen and all concerned would wish our standards of safety to be the finest in the world. The industry and this House will always be found ready to try to maintain that extremely high standard.
  Speakers from both sides of the House have paid tribute to the men who man these ships, and for all these reasons there can hardly be an hon. Member here who would doubt the propriety of taking this important step forward, which insists upon proper standards in our ships and in tying up with other nations in insisting upon proper international standards. While that must be in our minds, let us not forget some of the difficulties through which our shipping and shipbuilding industries have passed in times gone by. Let us take care that in providing for the safety of our men at sea we do not go too far in advance of the average practice of the leading mercantile nations, because

  1239
  we do not want to run any risk of putting our ships off the sea.
  I can remember the time when a tanker from Abadan to Swansea or Grange mouth had to be sent round the Cape of Good Hope in order to keep it from being tied up and the crew rendered unemployed. Such was the situation only 15 or 20 years ago, and many fine ships were tied up in all our ports with skilled officers and men, whose life career was the sea, left to take any job they could find. It may be possible to plan—I do not know that it is—within a group of countries, whose economies are associated, so that we can avoid unemployment. It has not been proved yet. But whatever may be possible within a country or group of countries is not necessarily possible in an international competitive industry such as that of shipping. There is the possibility that with the enormous amount of shipbuilding now going on all over the country—I believe we are building in our yards more than half the ships of the world—we may reach saturation point, and may bring ourselves to the situation in which there is the severest competition in shipping.
  We must temper our desires to secure the best possible comfort for ships, passengers and crews with the knowledge that any steps we take are simultaneously taken elsewhere. A leading shipowner said to me the other day, "We do not mind being the leaders, but we cannot afford to lead by five or ten years." Let us bear that in mind and let us be sure that the appointed day under the Bill will not be in advance of the signing of the Convention. I am not quite sure whether the Bill does not give the Minister power to make the appointed day when he likes, but it should not be ahead of what is done by other nations.
  We want a high state of comfort not only for our passengers and crews, but to attract people to travel by sea and thus prevent too many of them going by air. I myself have travelled long distances by air and I have frequently gone to the ends of the earth by sea. Infinitely I prefer the sea. Why does one prefer the sea? Because it is leisurely and agreeable and it is a great change not always to be in a hurry, but also because it is comfortable, and, I confess, because it is safe. I am not so young and so
  1240
  air-minded as to ignore the question of safety. Therefore, for passengers we must continue to give the very highest standard of comfort and an absolute assurance of safety. Safety depends as much, perhaps more, on the skill, diligence and care of masters, officers and men as upon the regulations themselves, and it is by no means certain that we shall contribute as much to safety by new devices as we shall by having a really high standard of care of the devices we have got.
  I do not, therefore, say that we must not go forward; I say, on the contrary, that all sides of the House should, and no doubt will, welcome the Measure and that it is right that we should make this progress, but that we must be just a little careful to remember the bad times from which our shipping industry suffered in the past and not try to attain too high a standard without consultation all round and full thought of the consequences. It has been a practice in the Board of Trade and, more lately, in the Ministry of Transport to consult the shipowners and the seamen's unions, and I have no doubt that the tradition of full discussion will continue whatever party is in power. It is supremely important that that should be so, and that in itself will be some safeguard against our penalising our shipping in its world competition.
  I welcome the provision for giving the master some information about the stability of his vessel. This is the first time such a provision has been made. The loading and ballasting of a ship is a very highly skilled job, as anyone will know who has travelled on cargo vessels and seen the master, or, more usually, the mate at work. The complex variety of goods which have to be stowed in a ship is beyond belief and any aid which can be given to a master in dealing with a new vessel whose behaviour he cannot know in advance is welcome. I give a blessing to the Bill. I hope that it will contribute not only to safety at sea but also to the maintenance of the magnificent tradition of the British Merchant Navy.
  4.34 p.m.
  Mr. Kinley: I want on behalf of the seafaring population of Bootle and also their relatives who never go to sea but who wait for the others to come back,

  1241
  to thank my right hon. Friend for the Measure which he has introduced and the Opposition for the assistance they are giving the Government in its passage. I cannot speak from any seagoing experience—what little I have is secondhand—but I can tell a story. Stories of different kinds may be told in this House. This one is true, although I know there are many kinds of true stories. Once upon a time three jolly sailormen met at a caravanserai on the dock road in Liverpool and celebrated their going away. They still had some money left. When they were eventually emptied out of the dive clinging to each other, they made their way to the dock to join the ship, but discovered that the ship had not waited for them and had gone. So they shook hands like real comrades and decided to find jobs ashore and wait for the ship to come back, when they would all go back as messmates on that ship. I tell that story because one of the three jolly sailormen was my father. The ship never came back and so he swallowed the anchor and went to sea no more.
  Such an occurrence naturally inspires anyone associated with a port with a desire to see as much safety provided in our ships as is humanly possible. Therefore, while I welcome the Bill and hope that it will become law—indeed, its passage is now guaranteed, thanks to the Opposition—I also hope that we shall not be content with the level of the provisions laid down in the Bill but that, in so far as we can co-operate with the best of the shipping firms, we shall be able to secure even better conditions for those who go to sea.
  We have a right to congratulate ourselves upon the fact that so many of the maritime nations of the world have been prepared to sit round a table and establish a common standard of safety measures at sea. That in itself is worth noting and remembering, and I hope that in the near future the same nations will come together again not so much for another safety convention but for the kind of convention which should follow logically. Once the ship has been made safe, as the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) said, it should be made comfortable too; the men who sail the ship have a right to be safe and comfortable during their work. As we are securing a measure of safety for the larger
  1242
  vessels, is there not some means of getting the goodwill of the best shipping firms so that we can obtain similar advantages for the men who do not have the benefit of going to sea in the big ships but man the little ones? If we can secure that, in addition to this Bill, then every maritime port in the country will again give thanks to my right hon. Friend the Minister and also to the Opposition.
  4.40 p.m.
  Sir John Anderson: I have a strong feeling that there is no real necessity for me to intervene in this Debate in view of the clear note attached to the Bill and the lucid speeches delivered by the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Debate, by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas), and by other speakers, but it would perhaps be churlish if I did not respond to the courteous invitation extended to me by the right hon. Gentleman, and that must be my excuse for taking up the time of the House for a few moments.
  This country has been privileged from early days to take the lead in international maritime affairs. Our great Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 has provided a model for the legislation of many other countries on merchant shipping. The two previous International Conferences on Safety of Life at Sea, the first following on the "Titanic" disaster, which some of us must remember clearly, and the next in 1929, were initiated by the Government of this country; and it is pleasing to find at a moment when the prestige of our country is somewhat dimmed—one must hope only temporarily—to find that we are again in a position to take the lead.
  Mr. Kinley: It was never higher at sea.
  Sir J. Anderson: Well, I hope that may be true—
  Mr. Kirkwood: Cheer up!
  Sir J. Anderson: I say it is pleasing to find that we have the opportunity of again taking the lead.
  The Convention with which the Bill is concerned covered a wide and varied field. There were many aspects which were given to committees to discuss and elucidate, and the sittings of the Con-

  1243
  ference extended over a period of seven weeks of most strenuous work, as the Minister has reminded the House. The Minister has been good enough to make some kind references to the part I have been privileged to play in this matter, but I should like to say to the House what I have said already to the Minister privately, that in my view there are two main factors which contributed to the undoubted success of the International Conference.
  The first was the quite remarkable spirit of co-operation with which the delegates of the 33 countries that took part in the Conference came together. I say that is true of every delegation which took part in our discussions, and in that connection one must remember that the delegates were not only the representatives of governments, but they represented shipowners and seafaring communities in all the various countries concerned. That was the first factor which in my view contributed to the success of the Conference, and it should be kept in view that many of the delegates came with wide experience, with strong views of their own, and that when differences of opinion arose they showed a most commendable and remarkable spirit of accommodation. For that we must be grateful to them.
  The other factor—and I am glad to have an opportunity of saying this publicly—was the quite remarkable service rendered throughout the sessions of the Conference by the departmental representatives attached to it; representatives of the Ministry of Transport, the Board of Trade, the Admiralty, the Foreign Office and others. Those people contributed greatly by their devoted labours to the success of the work, and it is fitting that a tribute should be paid to them.
  There is no need for me to go into detail in a matter so complicated as this, when it is perfectly clear that there is no inclination on the part of anyone in any corner of the House to raise matters of controversy. The point put by an hon. Gentleman opposite about the provision for medical services on board ship is a matter to which the Minister may desire to give attention, but I believe it is true to say that there has not, as far as this country is concerned at any rate, ever been any ground of complaint on the
  1244
  score of the inadequacy of medical service on board our ships. It is an obligation on shipowners to make adequate provision for the medical care of seamen. All navigating officers are required, I believe, to have experience in first aid, and it may well be that more specific provision is not necessary having regard to the different conditions under which men live on board ship from those which obtain in factories and in mines.
  However that may be, a matter of that kind can be explored in Committee. I merely wish to say at this stage that I am pleased and proud to have had an opportunity of making some contribution to this, I think, quite notable advance in the conceptions which are accepted by the maritime countries of the world as to the standards that should be applied; a notable advance also in bringing all the important developments of science which are relevant to the subject matter of the Convention to bear on the problem of safety of life at sea. I conclude by congratulating the Minister and the Government sincerely on having so expeditiously initiated the legislation which is necessary to enable this country to adopt the recommendations of the Conference.
  4.49 p.m.
  Commander Pursey: I join in welcoming this Bill and, as a representative of the Senior Service, in paying a tribute to the Mercantile Marine. I should also like to pay a tribute to the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) and to congratulate him on the brief speech and the survey which he has made. However, I must take up two points to which he referred. The right hon. Gentleman is the first to strike a discordant note and to introduce a matter entirely outside the scope of this Bill, that is, the prestige of this country. I want to say quite categorically that the prestige of this country as far as the Mercantile Marine is concerned, as far as the Navy is concerned, as far as the economic position is concerned, and as far as a number of other matters outside the scope of this discussion are concerned, never stood higher than it is today.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
  Commander Pursey: The second point I can deal with with less emphasis. It is the point about first-aid. Honestly, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and everybody else concerned not to underrate the importance of first-aid at sea where one is confined to the resources of the ship. Moreover, there are accidents at sea seldom met with in other walks of life—boiler explosions, the results of collisions, structural failures, and many others. It is quite true that on the larger ships the masters have certificates and are qualified in first-aid. There is also the medicine chest in the ship with the requirements for first-aid that can be given. But in the smaller ships men undergo the greatest suffering and the greatest hardship before—after a number of hours in many cases—they are able to get any attention except the rough rule of thumb treatment that any one gets if there is no experienced man available. I would therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman never again to make a speech like that, under-rating first-aid measures at sea, particularly in the smaller classes of ship where few of the necessary requirements are available.
  With regard to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) whom I am pleased to see in his place, as I sometimes follow him on other occasions, I should like to congratulate him on his speech this afternoon. There are however one or two points in his speech with regard to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Bill which should be taken up. The hon. Member referred to parts of the Bill which go further than the Convention, and he said that they would impose much more onerous conditions on our shipowners. Do not let us exaggerate small matters and try to make mountains out of molehills. The total amount of expense that will arise as a result of any of these additional requirements, applied to the income of the shipping lines for a year, will be like a pinch of salt in the ocean, so that there is no reason at all to quibble about that.
  The hon. Member expressed the hope that the Minister would use his powers with care. The Minister himself has said that he would consult all sides concerned so that there should have been no qualms or fears on the part of the hon. Gentleman. I personally would suggest, and I hope that I shall get the
  1246
  support of Members on this side of the House—certainly I shall get support of officers and crews of the ships—that the Minister should go as far ahead, particularly with safety measures, as he gets the power to go. There should be no such thing as hesitation or consideration of second thoughts, but use should be made of the maximum amount of power for the safety of the men who "go down to the sea in ships."
  The second point referred to by the hon. Member for Hereford was the question of cost, competition in the foreign trade, exchange and so on—again a financial feature. Are we to measure the safety of the men who serve at sea in one scale and finance in the other? That was the point which the hon. Member was making. His point was that if we went further ahead than other maritime nations it would impose additional costs, and in consequence would handicap our shipping industry. That is purely a financial argument and I say that safety at sea must come before financial considerations.
  Mr. Kirkwood: They all die millionaires.
  Commander Pursey: Of course they all die millionaires.
  Another question I wish to refer to is that of not making changes too frequently, and in particular of not making major changes under five years. I am not attempting to quote the hon. Gentleman and I do not wish to put the bias against him, but I think that puts the matter in a nutshell. I would say to him that with the rapid march of science, particularly as a result of the developments since the war, no improvements in aids to navigation ashore or afloat should be restricted by any time period. If tomorrow an invention is produced which would cost money, but would be an advantage to ships and those who sail in them, there should be no question of delay because of any time factor. The answer is to go ahead. There will not be any question of making large alterations to structures because of the difficulty of such alterations. Let us have at sea every possible aid which science can provide to prevent the loss of ships and their crews.
  A point was made by the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) to which I would refer, although I am speaking in his absence. He spoke of the difficulties

  1247
  caused in times gone by, by ships being tied up and the crews being unemployed, and he wondered whether planning could solve this problem. He said it should be possible to plan so in national affairs, but not in international affairs. Why not? The Merchant Service today is reaping the advantage of full employment in this country which we have never had before. So long as we can go on planning and maintaining full employment, so long will the shipping industry share those advantages. The hon. Member mentioned the question of reaching saturation point. Of course shipping companies and shipbuilders will have to decide how far they are going with new construction. Obviously if they go on at the war rate and the post-war rate, they will over-reach saturation point. The answer is to scrap the old ships as they get the new ones. The hon. Member referred to some anxiety particularly mentioned by a captain friend of his, that they did not want to be five or 10 years ahead again, because of the handicap—only a financial one—that would result by their being further ahead in shipping safety measures. That argument has had its day so far as this side of the House is concerned. Safety measures have to come first.
  What does this Bill deal with? It deals with seven main problems relating to the safety of ships at sea and their crews. It is the crews about which we need to be concerned, as well as the money invested in the ships. These problems are to be dealt with by rules to be made by the Minister. These include the construction of ships—an all-important matter, particularly to smaller ships—life-saving appliances, radio direction finders, openings in passenger steamers' hulls, watertight bulkheads and the carriage of dangerous goods and grain. These safety measures, as the Minister has said, have been accepted by both sides. The right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities paid a tribute to the representatives. I wish to register a point here. In the near future the position of these delegates will have to be considered by the Ministry so that a larger proportion of them represent the officers and the men in the industry. The bias today is too much in favour of the owners, and it is only with great difficulty that the representatives of the crew are able to put forward the reforms which are long overdue.
  1248
  These safety measures will be welcomed by the industry. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Kinley) said they will be welcomed by the wives. Speaking as a representative of one of the four constituencies of Hull, the third port in the country, I can say that the wives welcome the Bill wholeheartedly. My only criticism is that the Bill does not go far enough and that a lot of the reforms should have been introduced long before. I am prepared to admit that there have been six years of war and four years of the aftermath of war, but a number of these reforms, marching in line with the development of scientific advance, should have been introduced before the war. Life at sea, despite the advance of science, is a hazardous business, and consequently it behoves the Government and shipowners to do everything to reduce the risks to which the ships and the men are exposed.
  I have no wish this afternoon to make any charge against any shipowners and I am always glad to know that we have shipowners represented on the other side of the House, so that we have one side represented there and one represented here. I should be glad to hear if any hon. Member opposite could say that a certain line had never lost a ship and never lost a man. If anything of that nature could be said, I should be prepared to pay my tribute. No reputable owner wants to lose a ship, but there are still disreputable owners, particularly those who take advantage of registering British ships under a foreign flag, especially under the Panama flag, in order to avoid conditions laid down in this country for the running of merchant ships. This problem of British ships registered under foreign flags and carrying British crews will have to be tackled by the Minister. It is no good having these Conventions, Bills and Merchant Shipping Acts if these "spivs" in the industry can dodge the issue by registering their ships under a foreign flag.
  There are still too many "coffin ships," ships which sail and are never heard of again. Too many are lost after accidents which could have been avoided or which they should have survived. There are still too many lives lost at sea which ought to be saved in peace time, even after an accident or collision. This not only applies to larger ships, but in particular to the coastwise ships, the smaller of which are not covered by this Bill.

  1249
  As long as even one ship is lost under conditions which can be considered attributable to man as distinct from being attributable to God, it is a blot on the escutcheon of British shipowners and British shipping as a whole. I can remember the time when the Navy produced a White Paper every year on ships lost and damaged at sea. The number was diminished, and, with the modern aids of science, information of weather and so on, it ought to be possible still further to reduce the number of accidents at sea and consequently to reduce the loss of life.
  The problem of construction has received much consideration, but in the event of collision it is essential that the openings in the hull and the bulkheads referred to in this Bill, should have been closed before and those left open should be in an efficient condition so that they could be closed immediately to maintain the watertight compartments of the ship. It is most important that constant attention should be paid to that factor. The development of wireless and allied scientific apparatus, radio-telephony, radar and the like, and the broadcasting of weather information, have introduced several important aids to the navigation of ships at sea. These aids also enable a ship in trouble to be found, whereas without them she could not have been found.
  Twenty years ago, I had what was probably a unique experience in a search at sea. I was in the aircraft carrier "Eagle." We were on our way from England to Gibraltar and received a wireless message that a Spanish aircraft had left Spain for America with the intention of landing at the Azores and had not been heard of since. We altered course west and started to search. We searched for a week and then found the aircraft. It was a bigger problem than finding a needle in a haystack. The main reason why we found the aircraft was because a merchant ship, on the night of the flight, had heard an aircraft and reported her position. As a result we went to the other side of the Azores, where we would not have gone otherwise. There was an unfortunate sequel in that the pilot of the aircraft was Major Ramon Franco, the brother of General Franco, arid when I was in Spain during the Civil War I found that he was head of the Spanish Air Force. He owed his life to a British
  1250
  merchant ship, but was responsible for bombing British ships taking refugees from Spain and taking in food. The point of the story is that if it is possible to find an aircraft at sea—she was found at night by means of a light—it is also possible to find ships under such conditions. With the aids to navigation the number of casualties at sea and the loss of life should be considerably reduced.
  We welcome the powers given the Minister by the Bill, particularly those dealing with ships of between 500 and 1,600 tons which have had little attention given them before, but on which the life is hardest and conditions worst. Hon. Members on this side of the House, with the officers and men and their organisations, hope that now that the Government have carried through their legislative programme outlined in "Let us Face the Future," they and the Minister will give consideration to introducing a completely new merchant shipping Measure. The existing Merchant Shipping Act has been amended considerably and a new Act is long overdue. The organisations will not rest contented until we have a new Merchant Shipping Act. This Bill is a step in the right direction. It deals only with a part of the problem, but it is a particularly important part, as it is mainly concerned with personnel, including passengers, especially crews. I welcome the Bill and hope it will have a speedy passage because this country should lead the maritime nations. What is said during the passage of this Bill and what is done in this country will have an important effect on the smaller Powers and encourage them to pass necessary legislation, so that the Measure can be brought into operation on the appointed day. I support the Bill and give it every welcome and hope that that day will be fulfilled.
  5.8 p.m.
  Commander Maitland: I do not propose to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey) in his arguments because I wish to be very brief. Like everyone in the House, I welcome the Bill. It is an admirable and proper thing that this country should lead the way in the safety of men first and ships second. I am very pleased that this Bill is before us. We must remember that it is a

  1251
  British Bill and it is our own affair. The fact that it covers a Convention is by the way. It is our Bill and concerns what is to happen to our men and our ships.
  There is a great deal in the Bill about safety precautions to be taken when an accident happens. That is a very good thing, but it is far better not to have an accident. The greatest of all navigational aids which have come to light in the last 10 years is radar. I am a little sorry that there is not a more positive mention of radar in this Bill. When the Parliamentary Secretary replies to the Debate I should like him, if he can, to give us some indication of the measures which under this Bill he is entitled to take—what orders he is to make—in order to try to bring into use this very necessary and most important new scientific aid to navigation. When he does take such measures I hope that he will have the power of inspecting the sort of radar that is installed. I do not wish to strike a discordant note but radar can protect and can indicate things other than rocks and coasts and the like it has another use, and it is the duty of any Government to see that when radar is installed in a ship, it can be used for as many eventualities and emergencies as may arise.
  I am sure that there is a ready answer to the only other point which I wish to make. I cannot understand why, in Clause 29, troopships are exempted from the provisions of this Bill. When I was a small boy I remember being very sad when I had recited to me a poem beginning, "Toll for the brave," which was about the loss of the "Royal George." I do not want to have any more tolling for the brave. I do not agree with any idea that because soldiers are serving their country in one of the Fighting Services they should be exposed in peace-time to any more risk than anybody else when they go abroad. I hope that the soldiers in the House will not mind my saying that they need a lot of looking after in ships. I would very much like answers to those questions. Like everyone else I wish the Bill every success and the men who are to work under the provisions of this Bill the best of luck.
  5.12 p.m.
  Mr. Solley: The merchant shipping industry plays an important part
  1252
  in the life and economy of my constituency. Nowhere in the country will this Bill be more welcomed than in Thurrock. Indeed, the people of Tilbury, which is an important part of Thurrock, will say that this Bill is another milestone along the road towards maximum safety for crews and passengers in our merchant vessels. I should like to congratulate the Government not only on taking steps through the medium of this Bill to implement the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, which was signed on 10th June, 1948, but on going beyond the agreement reached in that Convention, and enabling the Minister, by regulations, to make provisions for the safety of crews and passengers far beyond that which was envisaged in the Convention.
  I notice, for example, that under Clause 1 of the Bill, the Minister can make rules prescribing the requirements with which the hull, equipments and machinery on all British passenger steamers shall comply. I would ask the Minister not to be guided in this matter by the minimum requirements of the Convention but to use to the fullest possible extent the powers which are to be conferred on him by this Clause, in reaching a higher degree of safety than has ever been reached before, and in leading the world in the technicalities of the hulls, equipments and machinery of steamers.
  The Minister has said that he will consult fully with the shipping industry. We on this side of the House are fully aware that the shipowning section of the shipping industry unfortunately has a preponderant voice in the representations made to the Minister.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan): Oh, no.
  Mr. Solley: I am glad to hear that my conception of the position is not correct. I was guided in what I was saying by the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey).
  Commander Maitland: Do not follow his lead.
  Mr. Solley: Without claiming to be an expert on naval matters—
  Mr. Maclay: It is necessary to make clear that a number

  1253
  of the arguments used by the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) will be dealt with during this Debate, but we were anxious not to stop the flow of his eloquence by intervening on each point.
  Mr. Solley: In a number of minutiae my hon. and gallant Friend may perhaps have tended to overstate his case but my hon. Friends on this side of the House will agree in substance with his contentions. Even if it be the case, as I concede it to be for the purpose of my argument, that the representatives of the seamen have an equal voice with the representatives of the shipowners in the making of representations, I would like the Government to pay heed to the necessity of putting safety first rather than the profits and capital investments of the shipowners. I know that this plea will not fall upon deaf ears. The very contents of this Bill are evidence of the Government's desire to do their very best for the safety of crews in our merchant vessels.
  I am sorry that the conference which drew up the Convention was unable to agree substantially on the question of the carriage of dangerous goods in ships. That is a matter of considerable importance, and I hope that when the Minister makes his rules he will do so on the basis of what he considers to be desirable in the interests of making ships safe when they carry dangerous goods. I hope that when he comes to make these rules he will not be limited by the difficulties which the representative of His Majesty's Government may have met in the negotiations for this International Convention when the question of dangerous goods in ships was being discussed.
  necessity of putting safety first, rather than
  I hope also that the Government can give an assurance that they will at some stage—if not on the Committe stage of this Bill perhaps on some subsequent occasion, through the medium of another Bill—deal with the undoubted danger of British ships, registered under a foreign flag and employing British crews, engaging in merchant shipping to the danger of the crews and of passengers and to the detriment of the good name of British shipping. I do not wish to enlarge upon this point; its importance is manifest. I hope that the Government can give us an assurance today that they are fully alive to this problem, and that they will
  1254
  take all reasonable steps to deal with it as expeditiously as possible. I conclude by heartily congratulating the Government upon introducing the Bill. I wish it a speedy journey through its different stages of Parliamentary procedure.
  5.21 p.m.
  Captain Marsden: I am sure that the House will support this Bill, as it has always supported any Bill for the safety—it might be more accurate to say the greater safety—of ships and of those who "go down to the sea in ships." The Minister touched upon certain Clauses. He was wise in not going into great detail because the greater part of the Bill is highly technical. I do not suppose that anybody in this House is qualified to comment upon most of the Clauses.
  The Minister said that British standdards were frequently higher than the standards of other countries. He might have added that the standards of the majority of private owners are considerably higher than the standards required by the Ministry. All the suggestions made upon the opposite side of the House that shipowners put money before safety were without any foundation whatever. They were the sort of political speech that we hear at street corners in places like Hull and Southwark. The knowledge contained in practically every Measure for greater safety at sea for British shipping, has been arrived at by trial and error by private owners in ships that were privately owned and administered. That is how the Ministry has got its knowledge that these things are possible.
  In the course of Debate, upon these matters the Minister said frankly—as long as he continues on this line no one will quarrel with him—that advice had been taken from experienced men of all sorts of different types and also, I am glad to say, from the National Union themselves. The Bill is the result of advice given to the Minister by everybody connected with the industry. As long as he takes that sort of advice I shall be quite satisfied to see him in his present position. At Blackpool, shortly, there will be other ideas put forward. If the Minister falls for any of those suggestions, God help the shipping industry. Let us hope that he will be able to withstand them all.

  1255
  In the Convention, which is rather technical and difficult, the point which stands out is that it is the result of knowledge that has accumulated for 21 years and which is now brought forward in a separate Bill. It will be the standard for international safety from the time that the Convention is signed by the appropriate number of countries. Some of the debates were described by one who was there, a very knowledgeable man, as being interminable and incomprehensible. That would be an apt description of many speeches to which we have to listen in this House, and so we can quite understand the feelings of many people who were present. In particular, I would draw attention to a couple of matters which are not so highly technical. Perhaps hon. Members who have had something to do with ships will appreciate them.
  I am all in favour of radar. Anyone who is not in favour of it would be very silly, especially if he had no knowledge or experience of the matter. It is laid down that a ship is not in sight of another ship if it is seen only through radar. This is most important. I have held that every scientific instrument made for the safety of ships at sea is not equal to one captain who is a properly skilled navigator and seaman. He is the best safety precaution. Radar may be absolutely faultless and perfect, but the man watching it is only human. He may go to sleep. If the man is aloft, or is stuck up on the edge of the bridge, it is very difficult for him to go to sleep, but if he is in a confined space looking at the radar instrument, it may be very difficult for him to keep awake. Radar has gone a long way, but I am glad that it is laid down that a ship is not in sight of another, in the ordinary parlance of maritime law, if it is only visible through radar.
  The only other thing, and a good and sensible thing it is, which I want to mention is that when rockets are fired to show that a ship is in distress and to make it possible to locate her, they can be fired with a parachute attachment so that the red flare from the rocket, instead of going up and coming straight down, can hang in the sky for some considerable time. These are small things, but they have all been arrived at by trial and error, by experiment at the hands of skilled men.
  1256
  Generous owners have sent out these things to be tested and have incorporated them, when fully tested, in some of the ship designs.
  I think the international arrangement is a good one. If a ship has a certificate of safety the certificate is current in any country and in any port. For instance, a British ship may get one of the certificates in a foreign port. It would still be valid anywhere she went. There is just a wise little safeguard. If the authorities of the port think that the ship is not safe up to the conditions of her certificate, she may be inspected by a port officer, and whatever fault is found has to be put right. I think that is wise.
  Other people have given reminiscences; I shall give one. I was on a most important troopship which was about to sail. The ship was surveyed the day before sailing. There were the customary tests of the lifebelts which all looked very nice, clean and new. The difference between buoyancy and non-buoyancy for a human body in a lifebelt is small, a matter of about 20 lb. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will know just what it is. The inspectors hung a 20 lb. weight on one of the lifebelts and threw it overboard. It went down like a stone. These were kapok lifebelts which had been taken ashore and dry cleaned. The dry-cleaning process had taken all the buoyancy out of them. Instead of those lifebelts we had 10,000 very greasy, dirty-looking life-belts full of buoyancy, one for every man in the crew. When a certificate is given for safety to the ship's lifebelts and equipment, it is good only for the day on which the certificate is issued. If the ship's officers and crew do not keep that equipment in good order it may deteriorate from then onwards. In three months' time the master may say: "I have a certificate here. Look at it." It is wise that the port authorities should have the right to inspect ships, if they think that the standard of safety is not up to the standard of the certificate.
  I would refer to only one other matter, which is very important, and on which one or two other hon. Members have touched. It is the coastal trade of this country. It wants a lot of protection. It is a very important private enterprise which commends itself to me. There are hundreds of skilled men—I am not exaggerating—operating around the country and owning one or more ships, up to quite

  1257
  big companies. Their captains are not certificated but they are none the less good seamen. They know their way round the coast all right. Some of these ships which we see going past this House down the Thames go from the Thames to the Tyneside and make about 70 round voyages in the year. That is an average for the first-class ships. These men have not certificates, but I judge by results. These ships want care and protection. There is some slight danger that they are a little bit over-burdened with this and that regulation. We should do all we can to encourage them.
  One thing that they are up against is foreign competition. I am not quite sure how the figures stand now, but practically every Continental country used to send coastal ships trading round our coasts. The custom then was for a Continental ship to take a full cargo to a port on, say, the South Coast and there discharge it. That would cover the cost of the round voyage. It would then pick up some other cargo, at whatever charge it could extort from the shipper, deliver it somewhere on our East Coast, get paid for doing so, and then make the homeward journey to its own port. This practice militated against our own coastal shipping. Foreign ships can work and trade in this country, but our ships cannot go and trade in theirs. I do not know the latest figures, but in the four years before the war, this foreign trade round our coasts had doubled itself. No doubt, when this market is open, the same ships or others like them will return.
  It might be asked how those ships can compete against ours. Some of the reasons are very obvious, one being that. Continental shipyards can build ships—if they cannot build them now they will be doing so soon—considerably cheaper than we can. There was one particular case—and hon. Members opposite who speak of unemployment in the past should remember this—during the time of great unemployment, when our shipyards were having a thin time and many skilled workers were idle, when the Scottish Cooperative Society ordered a ship to be built in Holland; that was their little contribution to our unemployment problem. That ship operated around our coast having cost considerably less than the same type of vessel built here. At that time Dutch ships, in addition to being
  1258
  built cheaply, used to be given some sort of subsidy by their Government; the wages of their crews were less than ours, their men worked longer hours and lived much more comfortably than the crews in our own ships. All that we were up against.
  I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to let us know what consideration his Department are giving to this matter of our coastal trade, and I hope he can give the promise also—with which, I believe, the House would be in agreement—that any nation which has not signed the Convention and is not observing its undertakings, shall not be allowed to enter the coastal trade around our coasts.
  5.33 p.m.
  Mr. Keenan: I am not altogether happy about the atmosphere of the Debate and what has been said in it. Today, it seems, most hon. Members feel that they are giving something, or making a sort of present, to the Merchant Navy. My opinion, however is that much of what is embodied in the Bill is long overdue and should have been the subject of legislation, not last year or the year before, but before the war.
  The Bill, which is based upon the Convention of last year, is, perhaps, the first real effort since 1932 to do something in a reasonable way for the Merchant Navy. The Bill is designed to amend and supplement in some degree the provisions of the Bill which was passed through Parliament in 1932 following the 1929 International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea. The main concern at that time was the question of the load-line, to which reference has been made today. To my amazement, however, except for a remark by the right hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) the word "Plimsoll" has not been mentioned. The proposals with which we are concerned today are the result of a petition or convention signed by the representatives of 29 nations. The Bill, when it is implemented, will be the result of agreement by, perhaps, an even greater number of nations.
  I should like to refer briefly to events leading up to the present time. It is 70 or more years ago, I think, since the Plimsoll load-line was agreed to as a result of the experiences of the "coffin

  1259
  ships" and the awful disasters of the sea, and following the work of Plimsoll in persuading Parliament to agree to the introduction of the load-line. That remained in operation until 1906. Some alterations were made, rightly, in the shipping Acts at that time. I remember, as a youngster, hearing a great deal of criticism of the then President of the Board of Trade, the late Mr. Lloyd George, who raised the Plimsoll line and in doing so caused considerable commotion in shipping circles. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether in the recent Convention or in the framing of the proposals contained in the Bill, any consideration was given to the restoration of the original Plimsoll line. The load-line now in operation is that which was adjusted, I think, by the President of the Board of Trade in 1908.
  When hon. Members speak of hurried legislation and all the efforts which have been made—one hon. Member suggested we should not introduce these Measures more frequently than at five-yearly intervals—we should remember that nothing reasonable has been done for merchant shipping since 1932. Because of dissatisfaction in shipping circles and the many disasters which occurred, an attempt was made in 1913 to introduce new legislation, following the agitation for the raising of the Plimsoll line. As one who has shipping interests in various ports, I believe that many of the shipping disasters since that time have been due in no small measure to the fact that the Plimsoll load-line no longer exists.
  Mr. Maclay: I think that the hon. Member is speaking under a misunderstanding. Every ship, of course, today has a load-line. The Plimsoll line certainly continues to exist.
  Mr. Keenan: I agree that the Plimsoll line is still called the load-line, but it is not now the same line that was introduced by Plimsoll; it is higher. It has not been adjusted back to the level to which Plimsoll, by his life's work, succeeded in getting agreement.
  In 1913 an effort was made to do something along the lines of the proposals embodied in the Bill. They were not, of course, as up to date; nevertheless, the effort was made, but the 1914 war prevented their completion. It is rather
  1260
  extraordinary, especially when hon. Members say we should not initiate Measures such as this more often than every five years, that we had to wait for the results of the 1930 Convention to be embodied in the Act of 1932 before any further tangible steps were taken. Nothing has been done since. We have not progressed very far, because in the Convention of 1930 the very subject I am ventilating today—the original Plimsoll load-line—the conclusion was reached that there was no reason whatever for thinking that the alteration which had been made in the load-line made ships any less safe. Having perused the names of the signatories of that Convention, I feel that financial interests in shipping were far better represented than were the men who sailed in the ships.
  In the years which have followed we should have travelled very much further than is the case. I am sorry to see that there is not even a mention of any restoration of that line. The phrase "safety at sea" is meaningless unless there is a proper load-line which keeps every vessel within a satisfactory limit. That fact was obvious 70 odd years ago, and it is still obvious today. We know that in the period between the wars ships left these and other shores and were never heard of again. How far their disappearance can be attributed to lack of safety provisions is a matter of guesswork, but until the suspicions which have been engendered are removed, we cannot complain if those who sail in ships believe that the absence of proper precautions was the cause of their disappearance.
  In this Bill the Minister takes power in respect of certain provisions. I was glad to hear so many hon. Members express the opinion that we should not wait for other countries to do these things. If we wait for a lead from the rest of the mercantile countries of the world, with the possible exception of America whose standards are higher than our own—
  Commander Pursey: Scandinavia.
  Mr. George Thomas: Canada.
  Mr. Keenan: Standards in Scandinavia, except on the question of accommodation, are no higher than our own. We have already given a lead in many respects and I consider that we must give a lead here.

  1261
  I was glad to note that mention was made of those ships which go under the Panama flag. I hope that the Ministry will be able to do something to prevent transfers of the kind mentioned. We ought to be able to deal with some of those who have financial interests in shipping firms. In recent years, and particularly during the effort to get ships for Palestine, we know perfectly well that certain financial shipping interests in this country transferred ships to the Panama flag so that they could do what they wished and avoid the safety measures with which they would have to conform if they had continued to sail under the British flag.
  I should like to have an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that the precautions mentioned in several of the Clauses in respect of the safety of passenger vessels will have equal application to cargo vessels. I should also like to know whether the Ministry have given any further consideration to the adoption of the parachute distress signal, the Schermuly rocket flare. Within the last two years two demonstrations of this flare have been given for the benefit of Members of Parliament and others concerned. This flare, which is used for signalling at sea, is a costly one. A wire is pulled from the end of a cylinder and automatically a flare is sent up to a height of many thousands of feet. It can be seen for a distance of 50 miles and has an exposure of approximately one minute. I saw a demonstration at Brighton when I was able to compare it with other recognised apparatus in use. None could compare with it, but the trouble is that it is costly. I suggest that those who sail the seas are entitled to this further safety precaution. They are the people to whom we gladly pay tribute—the men who made a greater contribution than did any other service during the war, when the death roll was 32,000 out of a strength of 180,000. No service has had less done for it than the Merchant Navy since the end of the war. Are the Ministry considering the value of the Schermuly rocket with a view to making it compulsory? It is the best apparatus of its type known today.
  In our coastwise traffic I do not think that we have any need to worry about foreign competition. There is an obligation upon us to do everything we can for the men who sail in these ships. Those
  1262
  of us who are concerned with dockyards, as I have been for many years, have had the opportunity to inspect many of these ships, some of which are 40 or 50 years old, and we agree that something should be done. I know that this is not the time to talk about accommodation, but I wish to suggest that the problem of loading is one which should be tackled. I refer particularly to the loading of bulk cargoes, including grain. I appreciate that the Board of Trade have not been indifferent to this question.
  On many occasions bulk grain is not correctly loaded. There may be a portable bulkhead, in which case if the ship is carrying grain, there should be a certain percentage of bagged grain. The fact remains, however, that there have been occasions when risks have been taken, because it is cheaper not to bag grain and not to have the portable bulkhead. Within the last 20 years or so ships have been built which are tankers of a kind, in which there is no need for a bulkhead or for bagging. I have seen small coastwise vessels where a couple of dozen bags of grain would be used to prevent the rest of the grain from shifting. In my judgment, something more should be done. Definite standards should be laid down for the protection of ships carrying bulk cargoes. The Minister has an opportunity now, and I hope that when we come to the Committee stage, something will be done.
  There is a reference in the Bill to the question of deck cargo. Those of us who are concerned with the loading and discharging of ships know something about this subject. I have frequently seen very high deck cargoes coming into Liverpool, and no doubt they come into other ports as well. Sometimes, half the cargo has been lost overboard, or a ship comes into port with half the cargo over the side instead of on the deck. I think too great an allowance has been made on this question of the extent to which a ship should be loaded with a timber cargo. It is considered that a deck cargo does not prejudice a vessel in very deep water or in heavy seas, but what I am concerned about is that there should be a better arrangement of deck cargoes than there is at present.
  My experience has been that deck cargoes are loaded far too high. What does this mean to the crew? If the crew's quarters are forward in the forecastle,

  1263
  they often have to climb over the top of the cargo, though sometimes a passage Us made through it for them. Often enough, the passage does not exist, and, in other cases, where it did exist, it is destroyed by the shifting of the cargo. The regulations should be much more definite on this point.
  In the regulations that will be made under this Bill, we should see that no ship is allowed to be loaded to the extent that will prevent a reasonable passage to and from their quarters to the members of the crew. Although the recent tendency has been not to have the crew's quarters forward, as in the old days, but to place them aft, the problem still arises and free access for the crew must be ensured. Today, when we are concerned so much with large shipments for the export trade, we must consider particularly the extent to which these large cargoes are to be allowed, when they create so many difficulties for the crew. These are matters which should be taken into consideration by the Government in the interests of the crews of these vessels. I realise that I have made one or two harsh criticisms, but I have done so largely because we are today feeling too proud of ourselves for what we have done, when it is really nothing to be proud of, but something that should have been done long ago. I hope the goodwill of the House, which I am sure the Minister has in connection with this Bill, will enable him to go forward and make a good job of it.
  5.54 p.m.
  Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I am sure that the shade of the late Mr. Plimsoll, a distinguished private Member of this House of his own generation, must have hovered benevolently over this Debate, although at times puzzled and perplexed by the references to his famous load-line made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan).
  Two hon. Gentlemen have already raised a point to which I should like to refer before passing to the main issue of the Bill. It was a reference to ships trading under foreign flags, particularly that of Panama. I believe that, during the Palestine troubles, there were certain ships which were chartered and sailed under foreign flags by those interested in one of the protagonists in that country, but am I not right in saying that no ship
  1264
  can be transferred to a foreign flag at present without the permission of the Government? I only wish to protect the Government from some of the more vociferous hon. Gentlemen who sit behind the Minister. The references made by the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) and the hon. Member for Kirkdale, had they been accurate, which, of course, they are not, would have been a reflection upon the present Government. Having brushed aside their irrelevancies—
  Commander Pursey: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to me, will he state specifically where I was wrong? I referred to ships registered under the Panama flag—but I made no reference to Palestine—by certain people who would be able to operate them on a lower standard than that of this country. The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot deny that, and, therefore, there was nothing in what I said to which he could take exception from the point of view of accuracy.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: All I said was that no British ship can be transferred to a foreign flag without the permission of His Majesty's Government. That, I believe, is incontestable. That makes the remark of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, when he said that it is happening at present, if it meant anything at all, an attack on his own Minister. That is all I said, and that is what I repeat. I am sorry to have to correct the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because I was about to congratulate him on having addressed the House for 15 minutes without making a single reference to the British Legion.
  Commander Pursey: That, apparently, is what the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot do.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Hon. Members who had the honour of being present in the last Parliament may recall a Debate which we had when the war was drawing to a close on this particular topic of the Mercantile Marine, in which I had the opportunity of intervening. I expressed the hope that, when hostilities were concluded, it would be possible for some Convention of this kind to be agreed upon. It was very difficult in the years between the wars to reach agreement with some of our foreign sea-going competitors, because they were among the Axis Powers, and it was therefore diffi-

  1265
  cult at that time to arrive at any agreement on anything at all, let alone the subject of merchant shipping.
  Now, we have this excellent Convention, and, here again, may I disabuse the minds of certain hon. Members opposite, some of whom are so extremely ill-informed on this Bill. They seem to think that the ship-owning interests predominated in the delegation which negotiated this Convention, and I appeal to the Minister to confirm what I say. Surely, long and useful preliminary discussions took place on the National Maritime Board, a body which consists of representatives of all those interested and on which the Merchant Officers' Guild and the National Seamen's and Firemen's Union, and all other bodies representing sea-going personnel, have adequate representation. If there is one criticism which one might make of the composition of the delegations which went to negotiate this Convention, I think it is one that is inevitable and inescapable. It is that—and I think the Minister will confirm this—by the very nature of their calling, it is impossible for sea-going representatives on the National Maritime Board to have continuity of service. They come and go; their ships come into port and sail again for the seven seas. There are representatives of the sea-going personnel, but, of course, those representatives are constantly changing, owing to the fact that they are sailors and are not all permanently ashore. I hope hon. Members opposite will therefore disabuse their minds upon that subject.
  Comfort in ships has increased, very largely owing to the switch-over from coal to oil fuel. Anyone who has been on a voyage in a ship driven by oil immediately notices the cleanliness and pleasantness of the surroundings, and it is upon that point that I would offer some observations concerning those ships which are still coal-burning, notably the coasters and the colliers. When the war was reaching its close, such was the pressure upon the tonnage of this country that a number of unsatisfactory vessels came into use in our ports to meet the grave need. There were some French, some Greek and some Scandinavian ships, and we often found that there were appalling conditions in some of these foreign colliers. Some of the more aged of ours also had bad conditions, but it was always noticeable that, ship for ship,
  1266
  according to age, the British ship was superior in her accommodation. Some of the colliers built during the war, and which are now engaged on coastal traffic, had really quite splendid modern quarters for their crews.
  The hon. and gallant Member for East Hull—and here I am going to agree with him for once—referred to the medical arrangements on board ship. I should like to endorse what he said. Of course, the ocean-going ships of considerable tonnage carry a doctor, but not so the coastal craft. It would not be possible to allot one doctor to each coaster. Therefore, it is unavoidably the case that the medical knowledge displayed on some of those ships is, to put it mildly, primitive. I could tell the House one or two stories about that which would probably be out of Order. But the fact remains that in a number of these coastal vessels the one cure prescribed for all ills, including, almost, a broken leg, is a stiff dose of castor oil. There is a first-aid box, but a good deal more could be done by way of training and instruction of ships' officers in this direction.
  The hon. and gallant Member for East Hull also said that the bad old days had gone so far as seafaring was concerned because we were now in an age of full employment. He said that we should not now see our rivers cluttered up with the tramps and other craft as were the Fal and the Dart in 1932 and 1933. So we are, but there are highly disturbing signs and portents at this very moment. Only the other day the National Coal Board expressed anxiety as to whether they could sell their commodity at competitive prices abroad. If that situation develops there will be a decline in the cargoes available for British ships. Let us not assume that we shall not get back into a situation in which British shipping will be put in considerable jeopardy. That is all the more reason why, while the situation is propitious for making these reforms, and while we have the opportunity and the funds for carrying them out, we should improve our craft, and put the safety appliances into operation.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman said, too, that purely financial considerations no longer weighed with hon. Members opposite. A week today, at about this hour, we shall be a good deal wiser and so will they. We shall find that, indeed, financial considerations do weigh, and

  1267
  weigh heavily in the affairs of this country. But, again, this seems to me the psychological moment for making the reforms to which our sea-going officers and men are so highly entitled. It is a pleasure to take an afternoon off from dull care when contemplating next week's Budget, and to find the House unanimous in its desire to further the welfare of those who sail under the Red Ensign.
  6.4 p.m.
  Mr. Guy: I have no desire to introduce any discordant notes into this Debate, because in my judgment we are discussing this afternoon a Measure which is long overdue. Whilst I subscribe to the many tributes paid by the Minister to all concerned in the introduction of this Bill, I wish to say a word or two about a colleague of mine with whom I was associated for a number of years. He is Mr. Jarman, the late General Secretary of the Seamen's Union, who worked unceasingly in an effort to convince hon. Members of this House, Government Departments and shipowners, that measures for life-saving at sea should be implemented at the earliest possible moment. I am sure that a large number of my colleagues with whom I served not only in the 1914–18 war, but since in the Merchant Service, would wish me at this moment to pay a tribute to Mr. Jarman for his efforts on their behalf. It is a tragedy that he was not spared long enough to see the introduction of this Bill today.
  In my judgment, repetition is one of the worst features of discussion in this House, and I have no desire to repeat any of the points made in the speeches to which we have listened so far. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) said all it was necessary to say on behalf of those engaged in the Merchant Service, but I should like to extend my tribute to include a large section of the Merchant Service in the London area. Many points were made about which I do not desire to say anything at this juncture, but I must confess that I was disturbed at the utterances of the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser). It is very unusual for him to use such words as he used this afternoon when he implored the Minister to adopt a go-slow policy which I feel sure most hon. Members would not welcome.
  1268
  Those of us who have served at sea know only too well the dangers which confront those who follow that calling. We must not delude ourselves into thinking that this Bill is the end; it is merely the beginning of the fulfilment of what we in this House have claimed since 1945 for those gallant comrades of ours who serve at sea. We cannot do too much for them, and I hope that in the coming months my right hon. Friend will consider the smaller vessels and the difficulties of our coastwise shipping. Many of the ships are a discredit to us. Many of them should have gone out of service long ago. If it is possible to increase the life-saving facilities on the smaller vessels, I am sure that we shall all be very pleased. We must ensure that the inspections which are provided for in the various Measures which pass through this House are, in fact, carried out, because the inspection of ships is of primary importance. Too long in the past we have suffered from these skimpy inspections; many ships have gone to sea in an unsafe condition. I therefore beg the right hon. Gentleman to see that the officers appointed—and I do not care how many are appointed or what expense is incurred—ensure that the inspections are carried out in accordance with the Acts of Parliament which are passed in the interests of this gallant Service.
  6.12 p.m.
  Mr. George Thomas: In company with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and the Minister of Pensions, it is my privilege to share the representation of the City and port of Cardiff—a port which has played a great part in the life of the Merchant Service. I know that in that area, as well as throughout the island country to which we belong, there will be a warm welcome for this Measure. I am glad that both sides of the House support this Measure so cordially, although I must express surprise at the way in which some hon. Members on both sides of the House, when speaking on a Measure which is non-controversial, are able to work themselves up almost into a passion. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) does not think that I have him in mind, although, after the eloquent way in which he addressed the House this afternoon, I only wish that it had been

  1269
  my privilege to hear his eloquence when he was on the bridge of a ship. I am quite sure that it would have been just as informative as his contribution this afternoon.
  Reference has been made to the transfer of British ships to the Panama flag. The Parliamentary Secretary informed me recently in a Parliamentary answer that, with his permission, 135,000 tons of British shipping had been transferred to the Panama register, but his reason, which he gave in a Written Reply so that I had no opportunity to comment on it at the time, was that they were very old ships and that it did not matter very much. I hope that the references which have been made to this matter in the Debate will make my hon. Friend aware that this can develop into a serious question. In one week recently on three ships the British flag was hauled down and replaced by foreign flags, by permission of my right hon. Friend. That matter needs watching.
  I am glad that provision is made in the Bill whereby direction-finders are to be made available on ships of 1,600 tons and over. I believe that to be one of the most important parts of this Measure. Last autumn when I was on a small merchant ship, the Steamer "Hawkinge," of 4,500 tons dead weight, we were caught in a hurricane in the Belle Isle Straits. Visibility was nil, the ship was rolling, and the only way in which that ship and her crew were saved was through the direction-finder, the ability of the radio officer, the captain and his shipmates. The direction-finder, of course, is most valuable when near shore, and it gives to the master of a ship a feeling of confidence which otherwise he would not enjoy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kirk-dale (Mr. Keenan) referred to safety measures in relation to deck cargo. It is obvious that in a merchant ship nine times out of ten the crew will be found in the forecastle and they have to climb over the deck's cargo to get amidships. If they have to climb over pit props for example, then indeed accidents are far more likely to happen. I hope that we shall be able to deal with that point in Committee.
  I join with hon. Members in all parts of the House in paying tribute to the
  1270
  Merchant Service not only for their gallantry but for their constant loyalty.
  Mr. Gallacher: And their toughness.
  Mr. Thomas: Yes, I agree we owe a great deal to their toughness. At times they have been a forgotten factor in our community, although I am not laying blame anywhere for this. We have only remembered them when they have come ashore for brief intervals. Their ship is not only the place of work but is the home of these men. I rejoice at the new spirit which is abroad in dealing with the Merchant Service. I know that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are concerned with improving the comfort as well as the safety of these men, and I am very glad that this Measure has come before the House.
  6.19 p.m.
  Mr. Sargood: I should like to add my voice to those of other hon. Members who have welcomed this Bill. The only point I particularly want to raise concerns the power in Clause 23 which will be given to the Minister to make rules wherever possible or necessary to ensure that there will be proper handling of dangerous goods. I hope that he will not only use that power to make new and stringent rules wherever necessary, but will also ensure that existing rules and regulations are carried out to the utmost, particularly in relation to the handling and transport of explosive cargoes.
  We in the fire-fighting services of London have reason to feel somewhat perturbed about the present situation in the Port of London. War has bred a certain carelessness in the handling of explosives which was inevitable. Care has been relaxed. It may be that we in the fire-fighting services are somewhat over-cautious on this matter, but I am sure that that will be counted as merit rather than otherwise. Nevertheless, there are reasons for being perturbed about this matter. My only reason for intervening in the Debate is to ask the Minister to see that this carelessness which has grown up as a result of war conditions, will be dealt with and that new and existing regulations will see to it that the maximum amount of safety is guaranteed in the handling of cargoes of explosives.
  6.21 p.m.
  Mr. Awbery: I also want to say a word or two about the men "who go down to the sea in ships." A fortnight or so ago I was walking along the Embankment when I came to the bust of Samuel Plimsoll. I took off my hat in reverence to a great man who did more to save the lives of the seamen of this country than any other man who ever lived. I felt that I could hear the voice of Samuel Plimsoll putting his case for a Plimsoll line on ships over half a century ago, and perhaps, for all we know, his shadow still hovers over this Chamber listening to the Debate. This Bill is a continuation of the great task which he started in the middle of the last century.
  I have been told that when Samuel Plimsoll went to Hull, he was stoned by the very men he was trying to save in the sailing ships. I am not blaming the sailors, because there was an agitation by the shipowners who detested the rules and regulations which Samuel Plimsoll wanted to introduce. I am glad to pay a tribute not only to our gallant seamen for what they did in the war, but also to that great man, Samuel Plimsoll. When I go down to the docks, taking the lads with me, I have pleasure in pointing out to them the load-line. I say, "See that circle with a line through it, with the words L.R.—Lloyds Register? That is the load-line, and it was Samuel Plimsoll who agitated in the House of Commons to have that line put there in order to prevent ships from being overloaded."
  Mr. Gallacher: Coffin ships.
  Mr. Awbery: Reference has been made to ships that were known as coffin ships. I do not think there are coffin ships today in the sense that we understood that phrase years ago. What were known as coffin ships years ago were those ships which were overloaded deliberately, which went out to sea and were sunk. Nobody knew any more about them, except the owners who went to the insurance company and picked up the money. Those were known as coffin ships. I do not think there are coffin ships today, but at the same time I believe there are conditions in our Mercantile Marine which are undesirable and I believe there is much room for still more improvement.
  I rose not only to pay tribute to Samuel Plimsoll, but also because I represent a
  1272
  great port. Bristol was at one time the second port in this country and it was from that port that Cabot sailed in his little cockleshell of 70 tons to find what we now call the United States of America. I am not myself a seaman and I have never been to sea, but I come from a seagoing family and my father sailed round Cape Horn on ten occasions in a sailing ship of 600 tons. He has told me a good many tales of the conditions in the sailing ships of those days. The food they received was almost beyond human consumption; the wages were £3 a month, for seven days a week, 12 hours a day, which worked out at an average of 2s. a day and 2d. an hour, plus, of course their bread and their keep. When I was a lad my father always told me, "It is a dog's life; never go to sea if you can possibly avoid it." Perhaps that is one of the reasons why I find myself in the House of Commons and not on the deck of a ship.
  Since those days there has been a tremendous increase in the interest in the human element of our Mercantile Navy, and I am glad that we have had an assurance from the Opposition today that they will give their wholehearted approval and blessing to this Bill, as all good men should. I am here to pay a tribute to the finest seamen in the world. Because they are the finest seamen in the world, they deserve the finest conditions and the finest devices that the mind of man can conceive to save their lives when a danger arises. I am convinced that many of the great disasters at sea in the past could have been avoided if this Convention, which we are discussing today, had been in operation years ago. On many occasions in this House we have discussed Factory Acts introduced to protect the conditions of the men in the factories. Now we are discussing a Convention to protect the lives of men at sea. We satisfied ourselves by saying that the disasters of the past were acts of God. I am not convinced that most of those accidents were acts of God at all; they were due to the neglect of man. In this Bill we are trying to remove some of that neglect.
  We have heard comments on deck cargoes. I have seen a ship coming up the Bristol Channel with a deck cargo of 12 ft. of timber and with a cable round the ship and the cargo to keep the cargo from moving. Those things should not be.

  1273
  Surely the men deserve something better than that to protect them. I am satisfied that the casualty list is growing less as far as our sea-going fraternity are concerned. The food is better; the water is purer; accommodation is more substantial; and there have been improvements in every way; yet I believe there is room for further progress. The preservation of life at sea and ashore is the primary object of a government and I am glad that the Government are introducing this Bill dealing with the construction and the stability of ships, with the condition of the lifeboats, with life-saving apparatus, and with radio aids. All those are necessary.
  I think, too that there should be a uniform standard as far as the maritime nations of the world are concerned. If, as one hon. Member said, we are to prevent undue competition between the maritime nations of the world, there must be some uniformity of standards. Those who have high standards are unable to compete with those who have low standards, and because of that undue competition, as the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) said, we may, when competition becomes more acute, find ourselves in a difficult position because we have a high standard while other nations' standards are low. I suggest to the Minister that, in order to obtain a high standard in the ships, there should be more frequent surveys. We have the Number Three Survey very often, and it is very severe. I think it might be made more frequently.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) spoke about the Panamanian ships. Twelve months ago, I asked about two ships in one of the ports of South Wales that were changing their flag to the flag of Panama. I was given to understand that the owner of one of the ships was domiciled in South Wales. The people repairing the ship were unable to obtain the materials for the job, but the owner was able to do it for them. Rumour in the port was that one ship was to carry illegal immigrants to the East. Whether that was true or not, I cannot say.
  I am glad that on this Bill there is co-operation between the Government and the Opposition, and between the Government and trade unions concerned and
  1274
  the owners themselves. There has not always been that sort of co-operation. Reference has been made to our friend Jarman. I should like to mention Harold Wilson, who did a great work among the seamen. The provisions contained in this Bill are the very thing for which he was fighting. He was sent to prison in Cardiff for six months for fighting for these things. He was a generation in advance of his time. I want to pay tribute to the Merchant Navy's war record. During the war one sailor in every six was drowned or killed.
  This Bill is the climax of many years of effort. The 1929 Convention gives way to the 1948 Convention. The new Convention will be superseded by another at a future date. It has been suggested that that should be in five years' time. I hope the position will be reviewed in five years' time, and that another Convention more in harmony with that time will be prepared. I ask the Minister to consider the hostels for seamen. At some of the ports the hostels provided for the seamen during the war are now being closed, and the men who come ashore at night have nowhere to go but to the public houses. I also ask him to consider lifeboats, about which nothing has been said here today, so far as I remember. Sooner or later the lifeboats must become a national responsibility, and not the responsibility of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. That Institution has done a great and noble work, and no one would say a word in disparagement of what it has done, but this is really work the Government should do, because it is a part of the great work of the saving of the lives of the seamen of this country.
  When a ship comes into port she is handed over to the harbour pilot, the dock pilot, who is not on the same status as a deep-sea pilot. Yet he is responsible for manoeuvring a ship in a small space, which is very difficult, and I ask the Minister to consider placing these men on the same basis as the deep-sea pilots, because their responsibilities are the same. I hope that my hon. Friend, when he replies to the Debate, will answer these questions.
  6.34 p.m.
  Mr. McAllister: Many who have taken part in this Debate were able to speak with far more intimate knowledge of the sea than I can lay any

  1275
  claim to, but I think I can claim, on one or two grounds, the right to say a few words. For one thing, I was editor of the "Merchant Navy Journal" during the war, the organ of the Merchant Officers' Federation. I regard it as a great privilege to have been able to serve that organisation in that way. In 1935 I spent a good many months off the coasts of this country in a rattle tub of a ship of a kind that is not covered by this Convention. I was appalled at the conditions in the ship for the men and the officers, and since then my intense interest in the merchant seamen's conditions has developed.
  I claim a modest right to speak, too, because, after all, the Clyde has done as much as any other river for the Merchant Navy of this country and the merchant navies of the world. We welcome this Bill. Scots Members of Parliament and the Clydeside seamen welcome the Bill. I was glad that, while tributes were paid to Samuel Plimsoll, a word of tribute was also paid to Mr. Jarman, for if it had not been for his work, this Convention would not have developed in the way it has, and this Bill would not have been shaped as it is. I think one should add some words of tribute also to people like Captain Coombs, the President of the Merchant Officers' Federation, and Mr. Douglas Tennant, who springs from Clydeside, and has been for many years secretary to the Navigators' and Engineer Officers' Union. Their work is, to some extent, enshrined in this Bill.
  We all know the perils of life at sea, but there are others beside the seamen who will welcome this Bill particularly, and they are sailors' wives. The anxieties that the seafarers' wives go through are not often told. I imagine, too, that the members of that great collateral, the watch ashore, will follow the progress of this Bill through Committee with interest, and be profoundly thankful to Members on all sides of the House who help to make the Bill even better than it is at present.
  I am glad that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) is to wind up the Debate for the other side, because he and his family have always taken a most profound interest in all questions affecting the welfare and safety of our seafarers, and it
  1276
  is right that he should play an important part in this Debate. We shall never be able to eliminate the hazards of the sea, the great natural hazards which yet are a stimulus to the men who go to sea. The sea is a great calling, and part of its attraction lies in its adventurousness and its perils, but so far as science and ingenuity can contrive to reduce the perils, and to make life better for the men at sea, we should encourage all such efforts. I hope that this Bill will have a successful passage, and that the Minister will look with a kindly eye on any efforts we may make to improve it at later stages.
  6.40 p.m.
  Mr. Maclay: I must thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) for the kind remarks he made about my family and myself in connection with shipping in Scotland. If I may touch on a personal note which he has started, it is to me a rather remarkable thing that my father, who is in his 92nd year, has seen the whole progress of the British Mercantile Marine from the days of sailing vessels, and he is extremely interested in this latest development with regard to the safety of ships.
  As the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) said, it is remarkable to find twice in one year the same Minister coming to this House with a Bill which gets universal approval. That, I believe, is a unique record for any Minister of this Government. Perhaps we might well look for the reason for it in the personality and general conduct of the Minister, but I must not go too far or I might find myself qualifying for the Transport Commission. I think that we have to watch the Minister of Transport very carefully. He has a most persuasive way which conceals a relentless purpose when he knows what he wants and is determined to get it. Today we need not worry about that aspect of the Minister because we are all in agreement with the object of this Bill which he has brought before us.
  There is another reason why both the Bills which the Minister has brought before the House in the last year have received universal approval, and it is the obvious one that they both deal with shipping. The first dealt with the conditions of life on board, and this one deals with the conditions and safety of

  1277
  ships. Throughout our history as a nation, where anything to do with the Merchant Navy has been involved, the nation has worked as one with the minimum controversy. We have had a remarkable record of labour relations in the shipping industry for a great many years. Conditions, on the other hand, have not been everything that could be expected in the past. It takes time to bring ships, of all things up to date. We cannot do it overnight, and I think that there has been great restraint and understanding on the part of all concerned in the relationship between employers and seamen. The National Maritime Board is a classic example of joint consultation on conditions of service between employers and employees.
  The Bill, of course, implements a Convention which is a remarkable achievement in its own way, and without going over the ground already covered, I think it is worth rubbing in that the Conference was attended by no fewer than 30 nations with full delegations and by three or four observing nations. There were seven weeks of highly technical discussions, and a number of controversial points came up which were bound to arise. Some nations had certain enthusiasms, but it is a remarkable tribute to all those negotiating that agreement was reached in the end on a document which was not signed by the 30 nations but by 28, with the orthodox and proper abstention of Russia and Yugoslavia. I hope that in spite of that abstention, those nations will be inspired by the unanimity of the other nations, and that some good results may come. I hope that their ships will not fail to conform to the standards of safety laid down by the Conference and by this Convention.
  I think that it is worth while pointing out the actual composition of the British delegation. Some hon. Members opposite seem to have the fear that the representation of the sea-going officers and men was not adequate, and that there was more representation of shipowners and shipbuilders. I do not think that numerically that is so. The actual delegation was a most remarkable mixture of talent. The Minister of Transport was there, and representatives of the Admiralty, the Foreign Office, the Air Ministry, the Ministry of Civil Aviation,
  1278
  the Post Office, the Meteorological Office, Trinity House, the great classification societies, the organisations representing the sea-going officers and men and, last but not least, the shipbuilders and shipowners. That was a remarkable team to get together and to work together. Not only had we this very large number of delegates but a number of expert advisers.
  I have brought this in for two purposes. There is no doubt, from everything that I have been told about this Conference, that the British delegation did distinguish itself quite remarkably. I have met foreign shipowners who attended, and they were full of praise for the way that the British delegation worked, and the organisation put into the Conference in advance, which did tremendous credit to all concerned. Tributes have already been paid today to the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), in which we must join. Tribute must also be paid to some of the senior officials of the Ministry of Transport on whom fell the heavy load of organisation and keeping the whole Conference going. I think it is only right that we should depart from the Parliamentary practice of never saying anything about civil servants except to be rude about them, and say that on this occasion we can do nothing but give them the highest praise.
  Another thing remarkable about the Convention and the Bill, which may be because of the excellent preparatory work done, is that they are models of clarity. One can read this Bill and know what it is trying to do. That is a very remarkable achievement in these days. The Minister has got over certain difficulties by not annexing the Convention to the Bill. He has published the Convention as a separate White Paper. Had he had to work it into the Bill, there might have been real trouble. The Bill is understandable, and if one studies the Convention, apart from those sections of it which only highly technical experts could possibly understand, the Convention is also a model for that kind of international conference. It is better than the earlier one which it replaces. It has tidied up the lay-out of the Convention, making the articles at the beginning quite clear-cut and laying down basic intergovernmental procedure; and then come the regulations dealing with the technical matters.

  1279
  I do not propose to go into details about the Bill or the Convention. Many points have been covered in the course of this Debate, and if we started on any of the details of the Convention or the Bill we should be talking for hours, and I do not think to any great advantage.
  I mention one particular point at this stage because it was touched on by hon. Members opposite. That is Article 9 which requires a two-thirds majority of the participating nations to amend the Convention. It is important that in an international convention of this kind, which has very great implications on the design, structure and lay-out of ships, it should not be too easy to amend it year by year. Hon. Members opposite take another line on that. They say that as soon as there is any new practice available it should be incorporated, if necessary by law, in any new ships that come out and possibly also in existing ships. When we get down to the kind of matter dealt with by this Convention, it is better to get reasonable stability and make certain that there will not be too much chopping and changing. That safeguard is given by the central committee of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, which is watching this thing, and if there is some new development which emerges which it is very desirable to incorporate into shipping practice, then it can come up for consideration, and with a two-thirds majority we can get that new development incorporated. I think that is a sensible safeguard.
  There is a danger in anything to do with the safety of ships. Seafaring people do not forget that the sea is a hard master and tests out very carefully indeed all the things done to it. When a ship of new design goes to sea, the best and most skilful calculations may all be proved quite wrong, owing to the quite unpredictable things that one meets at sea. It therefore behoves people to move fairly carefully and slowly in trying new safety devices and new techniques for subdivision or anything like that. The old devices which we have got and the structure that has been developed, have been developed over a long period, and one wants to move very carefully in trying any thing radical and new. The
  1280
  Convention is very sound in its provision for revision.
  There is one other point about the Convention worth mentioning, and that concerns the grain carriage regulations. It is undoubtedly excellent that at long last there is to be a uniform standard of fitting for the carriage of grain in deep-sea ships. One small question on this concerns the fines imposed if a ship, whether British or foreign, arrives in a British port with its equipment, the grain feeders, and so on, not in accordance with the regulations.
  Mr. Awbery: I think the hon. Member is referring to shifting boards.
  Mr. Maclay: That is right, the shifting boards and feeders. I was really taking up the point made by the hon. Member in another way. We find in the Bill provisions for fining the master of a ship, whether foreign or not, arriving in a British port with its shifting boards not in position or in bad condition. A ship which arrives in that condition must have been in grave danger at sea, because a shifting cargo of grain can cause the loss of a ship. Yet we find the maximum fine that can be imposed on summary conviction is £100, and on indictment £300. I was most impressed this afternoon to discover that precisely the same fine can be imposed for making a false statement when registering a pig. If the Minister refers to Question 59 of today, he will find that is so. I do not know whether the sense of proportion of the Minister of Transport or that of the Minister of Food is out in this respect, but that does raise an important question.
  Obviously, we do not want to lay down in Acts of Parliament excessive fines which courts would have great reluctance in imposing; but equally, we cannot help recalling a time between the wars when ships sailing under a certain flag, not British, were trading between the Black Sea and this country and arriving here without shifting boards of any kind. They were duly and properly fined £100. Now to have fitted out their ships properly in the Black Sea would have cost them anything from £2,000 to £2,500, and it obviously paid them much better not to do so and to pay the £100 fine. That is a very difficult thing to deal with, because we do not want to make the fines so heavy as to make the

  1281
  bill unreasonable. However, now that all these nations have at least initialled this Convention, I hope that sort of thing will cease, and that ships of all flags will keep to the rules and regulations in the same way as British ships, by and large, have done for a very great many years now without the need for close supervision.
  The hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan), who is not here at the moment, said one or two things with which I should like to deal. He mentioned the Plimsoll line, and I think he probably realised that the load-line is a very proper and effective successor to the original Plimsoll line. Perhaps he will read my speech in the morning and get some comfort from what I say. I think the House should know that during the war, when shipping space was very scarce, it was found possible to increase the amount of shipping space, without danger to the ships, by permitting ships sailing in summer conditions to load to their tropical load-line. Normally ships have three load-lines: winter, summer, and tropical marks. The pre-war rules for load-lines, made under the scrutiny of the classification societies, had such a margin of safety that during the war, with the agreement of the classification societies and the trade unions, ships were allowed to load down to the tropical line in what was known as the summer zone. I only mention that to show that with the present load-line there must be a very substantial margin of safety, because during the war there was never any question—
  Mr. Awbery: The Plimsoll line was fixed according to the displacement of the ship. I understand that during the 1914–18 war that was altered, with the result that the load-line was raised a few inches, and it was never put back to its original position. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale was referring to.
  Mr. Maclay: I do not remember offhand the history of each change in the position of the load-line. I am only trying to make quite clear that, whatever the calculations, under normal conditions, such as we have now, there is such a margin of safety that, with the agreement of all concerned loading to the tropical mark was allowed in the summer zone. I think that is a great testimony to the safety margin.
  1282
  I entirely agree that the question of deck cargoes needs watching closely. People are sometimes very frightened at seeing a ship come into harbour with a 15 ft. deck load of timber, secured apparently by pieces of rope and wire. If anybody who sees a ship so loaded looks closely, he will find that in almost every case it is a highly skilled job to stow a deck cargo well—and deck cargoes are stowed well; they are secured by a series of chains with toe and buckle, and occasionally wire ropes are necessary to fill in the places where the chains do not exactly fit because of the size of the pieces of timber. The general practice of all shipowners who send their ships to sea with timber deck cargoes is to take the most extreme care, and I do know—and I think an hon. Member opposite mentioned this—that masters going to sea in very bad weather sometimes prefer sailing with a deck cargo on top of the hatches to sailing without one, particularly in heavy seas.
  Mr. Awbery: The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale was not so much about the deck cargo itself, as the danger to members of the crew going from the forepeak to amidships.
  Mr. Maclay: I respect the hon. Gentleman for so adequately looking after the interests of his hon. Friend in his absence. The difficulty of getting men backwards and forwards over a deck cargo in bad weather conditions is very worrying. As a matter of fact this concerns one of the bees in my own bonnet, because I have always believed that sooner or later every ship should manage to get its crew amidships. Aft is better than forward, but as technical design improves, and as more and more ships become diesel engine driven, the crews will be brought amidships, which will solve a whole lot of problems consequent upon their being fore or aft—not the least of these being to obtain hot food. However, that is not the subject of this Convention.
  I do not want to go through all the details mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) but half-way through his speech I did promise that I would touch on some of the points he made, which I think are probably better dealt with from this side of the House than from the Government Front Bench, although I have every confidence that the Parliamentary Secretary could deal with them, because in a matter

  1283
  connected with shipping I am sure that he is eminently fair and reasonable.
  The main point made by the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull, as far as I could make out, was that safety must never be assessed against finance or vice versa. In other words, safety must always be the main consideration, and finance the secondary consideration. Broadly speaking, we all agree with that, but on such a matter the question has to be examined carefully. Passenger ships and cargo ships can be made safer by spending a certain amount of money on them; but what would be ridiculous would be to make it so safe by subdivision that the ship could not possibly load cargo. That is an extreme case. What I think hon. Members opposite have been trying to say—and I agree—is that we are all concerned to see ships made as safe as we can make them.
  But we must bear in mind the practical use of the ship; and, although this has been criticised by hon. Members opposite, we cannot go too far ahead of other nations in taking extreme measures for safety. We must make certain that British practice is as good as the best. In the past we have always been ahead of other nations, and we shall continue to be ahead in the future, but when we come down to some of the possible suggestions that can be made for improving the safety of ships, we can reach ridiculous extremes, in improvements that will certainly make ships more safe but will reduce their earning capacity to such an extent as to make them non-competitive. As I have said, the merchant shipping industry in this country has been away up in the forefront, and I hope that we shall always be in that position.
  Commander Pursey: I was not arguing that an undue amount of money should be spent on construction or reconstruction. I was merely relating the financial factor to new aids for navigation which have come along as a result of scientific development, such as improvements in radar and so on. I took up the point because of what the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) said.
  Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) seemed to get into trouble for saying what I have tried to repeat, that there must be moderation
  1284
  in these extremes of safety measures. We simply cannot go right ahead of other nations. With a Convention like this, this matter is all-important, because a universal standard can be produced which means that no one is given an undue advantage or is put at an undue disadvantage. It would be impossible, in a period of bad freights, for British ships to compete with foreigners if the foreigners continually carried grain without shifting boards and the British ships had to fit these boards at a cost of anything up to £3,000. That is the advantage of these conventions. We must do out utmost to bring others along with us.
  There is another point I should like to take up, and that is the suggestion from hon. Members opposite that these reforms are long overdue and we should have had a Bill of this kind some time ago. I do not think it would have been humanly possible to have had a Bill like this some time ago. This business of safety at sea is a slow developing process, and we have to work up to an international convention. It is remarkable that so soon after the war it should have been possible to produce a Bill of this kind. Obviously, we learned a lot in the war about safety, and a lot of the experience gained during the war has gone into this Convention. It is quite wrong to imply that these reforms could have taken place long ago, because it has been a matter of getting individual nations to see the light and come along and work on an international basis.
  I do not wish to detain the House any longer, except to refer to what the Minister said at the end of his speech. We all agree that we must pay tribute of the highest kind to the men who gave their lives in the Service in the two wars, but I should like to add to that and say that we must remember also all the men who have lost their lives, not during the war, but as pioneers in one way or another in shipping. We have been told by the hon. Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Awbery) that he does not like the phrase, "An act of God," because sometimes "neglect" could be read for it. I do not think that is very often a fair criticism of British ships at sea. For "neglect" I would substitute "the gaining of experience." There is no doubt that with new types that have been

  1285
  evolved and tried out there have been losses. As I said earlier, the sea is a very hard master, and what has been proved to be right over a great many years is not something we should dispense with too easily. In any alterations in design, such as the turret ships, which were a very unsuccessful experiment and a dangerous one—and there were one or two losses of that sort—there is danger.
  The Minister also said that, in spite of these great losses in personnel during the war, it was most encouraging to find that immediately after the war there were waiting lists for every branch of the Merchant Service. I have received a stream of letters from constituents who want to go to sea, and I have found that what the Minister said is absolutely true, which is a high tribute to all concerned. The Minister also paid tribute to the contribution the Merchant Service is making to the recovery of the country and the balance of payments. That is, of course, a matter of great pride to the industry, and the industry are confident that, given a straight run, they can help the nation in international competition. But, as some of my hon. Friends have said, do not let anyone fool himself, because there is a period of acute and difficult competition in the years ahead which cannot be avoided. Despite that, the industry welcomes this Convention, believing that the reforms are necessary and admirable, and will do everything they can to make the implementation of the Convention a success.
  7.6 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan): We have had a very interesting Debate during which a general welcome has been given to the Bill my right hon. Friend has brought forward It is a non-controversial Measure. As the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) said, and he was reinforced by the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay), this is the second occasion during the last 12 months that my right hon. Friend has brought forward a Measure that has been received with acclamation from both sides. I regard this with some mixed feelings, because by nature I have a combative temperament. Today, I stand here in an atmosphere which is most agreeable and
  1286
  I do not have to restrain the fires of controversy which sometimes boil within me. Perhaps at some time I shall get my right hon. Friend to produce a Bill on which I shall be able to have a bit of a fight with the Opposition.
  This Bill is having rather a different course from the 1854 Bill. The Government of the day then got their 548 Clauses through the Committee stage which lasted only 4½ hours. I am afraid that we are not what our predecessors were. Perhaps I ought to call the attention of the Leader of the House to this. It has been interesting to see the way this Bill has developed as a result of the 1894 Act. The Convention and the measures that have followed, have not altered the main structure of the 1894 Act, but brought it up to date and in line with modern developments in the industry and in safety devices. We all welcome the fact that this Bill has been received so well by both sides of the House, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) who was speaking on behalf of the trade unions. It is, of course, a machinery Bill, and therefore a number of the matters we have been discussing are not really appropriate to the Bill in the first sense, since they will come along at the regulation stage, when it will be possible to have ample discussion under the negative resolution procedure that we all know so well.
  What my right hon. Friend is really asking for in this Bill is power to make the regulations. Therefore, he devoted himself to explaining the need for these powers, leaving the actual content of the regulations for a later date. I should like to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs about the present position as regards a number of these regulations that will come into force in due course. It would be wrong to suppose that we shall be inviting the industry in this country to undertake something entirely new by putting these regulations into force. In many ships these appliances in the matter of safety of life at sea are already in existence. What we are doing is to ratify an agreement which brings into line a great many other countries. It is important that we should make this point and not allow the impression to get abroad that we are having to bring up our standards of

  1287
  safety from a low level. As the nation which took the initiative in calling this Conference, what we have done is to bring a large number of other nations into line. That is to the benefit of every seafarer, wherever he may be, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs made that point as strongly as he did. It is true that in certain directions we shall be lifting the standard somewhat higher. That will be done by agreement with all those in the industry.
  In a Debate such as this it is not surprising that almost every speaker says he has been to sea, or worked in a port or has a relative who has been to sea. After all, we are a nation of 50 million people, none of whom lives more than about 100 miles from the sea, and it is in our interest that we should know as much as possible about this matter. I cannot deal with some of the points which have been raised tonight, as I must confine myself to the provisions of the Bill and the regulations that spring from it. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Awbery) made a number of interesting points in a well-informed speech. He knows the Bristol Channel very well indeed, but I do not feel that that subject is within the ambit of the Bill and I must ask leave not to reply to him tonight.
  The hon. Member for Hereford, in opening the Debate for the Opposition, said we were going further than the Convention provided for in certain respects. He did not take exception, but merely asked us to be careful. The consultations we have with the industry will ensure this; there is no lack of confidence on the part of the industry that we shall run too far ahead of them. My right hon. Friend will, of course, reserve the right on all occasions to take the final decision, but I can foresee no matter on which he will want to run far ahead of the industry. My right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs said that changes in practice should not be frequent. I agree.
  In the field of testing new devices and equipment I believe there should be a long period of experiment and trial. That is one of the reasons why radar has not been made compulsory at the moment—a point which was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland). Considerable experience was gained during the war, starting
  1288
  with the old 268 set, but every one of the nations at the Safety Conference agreed that it would be a little early at present to make radar compulsory. The number of sets in existence, and being produced, means that it would be some time before every ship of over 500 tons or 1,600 tons—or whatever the tonnage was—could get a radar set of any real utility. We are not, however, dropping behind. The Ministry have issued a specification for radar sets. Wherever sets are established they must conform to that minimum standard. We have also made provision for testing; three types have been approved, and are now available for owners to put into their ships as they come on the market. That reinforces the point made about the need for continuous experiment before something which is final is written into the Convention.
  The hon. Member for Hereford hoped that I.M.C.O. would not be in permanent session. The organisation is not yet set up. This country is still the bureau power for the purpose of these safety regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring and the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) both referred to the question of medical aid. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) said, we are fairly well covered on all deep-sea ships. All navigating officers must have a knowledge of first-aid. Passenger ships must carry doctors if they have more than a certain number of passengers. In the case of coasters the situation is a little different. I suppose that in the past a coaster, by definition, meant a ship which remained just off the coast, which meant that it ought to be able to get help quickly. I have not examined this point, however, and perhaps we might deal with it in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) raised the question of the Convention being accepted by other nations. As the Explanatory Memorandum says, there must be 15 acceptances of the Convention, including seven by countries which have at least one million gross tons of shipping. The Bill, according to Clause 37, will not come into force until
  "such day as His Majesty may by Order in Council appoint."
  The intention is that the Bill shall come into force when acceptances have been

  1289
  made by the other nations. I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities also referred to the co-operation between the nations attending the conference. It was remarkably good; the whole atmosphere was one we should like to see in other international conferences. I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs for what they said about the services rendered by the Departmental officials. It would have been a little immodest for my right hon. Friend to refer to that himself, but I saw our officials working late into the night to prepare papers for the next day. They rendered excellent and devoted service during the conference.
  Mr. Gerald Williams: Have any other nations ratified the Convention yet?
  Mr. Callaghan: No. The Conference did not report until last June. The speed with which the Government always move means that we have introduced legislation—which has met with the full approval of the House—very rapidly. I understand that other nations are now preparing their own modes of ratification. We do not know what the position will be, but we are taking the lead, properly so, I think, as the largest seafaring Power.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) said that some of these reforms should have been introduced earlier. As I have already said, many have been introduced in our own ships. It is the other nations we are bringing up to date in various respects. The hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle asked why troopships were excluded. If he will look at Clause 29 again he will see that it provides that the Admiralty does not have to produce evidence that they have acted in accordance with the Convention. That does not mean that the Minister and the Admiralty will not prescribe substantive rules for the carriage of soldiers and other military personnel in troopships that will be on the same level as those coming under the Convention. But this exemption for His Majesty's ships was made in the Act of 1894, and has been carried on in this Bill.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden) asked that coastwise shipping should be protected
  1290
  against foreign competition. I do not intend to follow him on that point, but there are good reasons why we should have free and open ports in this country if we are to expect the same conditions elsewhere. I would not like to pursue that point very far.
  Captain Marsden: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that our coastal ships get the same facilities in other ports as we give here, because they are not allowed into those ports?
  Mr. Callaghan: It is quite true that our coastwise shipping is having a difficult job to survive at the moment. That is probably because of the low charges made by the railways. It may surprise hon. Members, but coastwise shipping would be in a difficult position if it were not receiving a subsidy in order to enable it to carry on. It is vitally important that coastwise shipping should be maintained and the crews kept together in case of a further emergency. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bermondsey (Mr. Sargood) raised the question of the carriage of explosives. I would like to assure him that at this moment a working party is engaged in sorting out war-time relaxations in order to tighten up the provisions covering the carriage of explosives from enclosed docks. We want to segregate as far as possible the carriage of explosives so that they will only go through docks which are not in confined spaces.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) gave the Bill a welcome, but he said other things, too. He argued that nothing had been done for the Merchant Navy since the end of the war, and I will reply to him very shortly with four brief answers. An establishment scheme has been approved, and it has brought a measure of security to the industry; there is a continuous high level of employment; the Seattle Convention found its place in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1948, and finally there is this Bill. My hon. Friend also referred to the load-line, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burghs made some observations on that too. No country at the Conference suggested that anything was wrong with the load-line. We ourselves do not think there is. I can say straight away that if we thought there was anything wrong with the load-line provisions, which are so fundamental

  1291
  to the safety of our ships, we should have no hesitation in bringing it to the notice of other nations involved in order to get it righted.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Mr. G. Thomas) referred to the usefulness of radio direction finding. That is one of the most important parts of this Bill. It is one of the ways in which science has come to our aid and has enabled us to bring forward a further convention of this nature. We all recognise the practical possibilities of radio aids and the way they have developed during the last 20 years. The hon. Member for Montrose Burghs asked whether the penalties are high enough. That is a point we might look at in Committee, and if it is desired to do so we can meet the hon. Member.
  I should like in conclusion to bring out a new point of importance, which very much attracted me as I saw it on my way through the Bill. It concerns the position of a master who is told that another ship is in distress. As is well-known, it is the duty of a master if he receives a message from any ship saying it is in distress, to go to the aid of that ship with all despatch. One small and significant way in which that regulation has been tightened up is that the duty is now laid upon him to go to the aid of that ship whether he gets a message from another ship or from any other source. In a small way that shows how we are constantly trying to improve these regulations to bring them into line with marine practice, and to build on what I think is a sound foundation.
  I believe that the safety in British ships is as good as that of any other nation and better than most. We have nothing to be ashamed of in our record, and in bringing forward this Convention it is not designed to imply that our levels of safety are low. Indeed, they are not. Our levels of safety are high, and rightly they must continue to be high, for all those who go to sea. It is with great pleasure that I commend this Bill to the House.
  Mr. Solley: Could my hon. Friend deal with the question of the lower degree of safety in some British ships manned by British crews but which fly a foreign flag?
  Mr. Callaghan: All I can say is that if a ship flying a foreign flag comes to a
  1292
  British port and it is found to be in an unsafe condition, it can be detained by the Ministry's surveyors. The same conditions of survey and level of safety would apply to any such ship visiting our ports as we already apply to our own ships.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  WAYS AND MEANS
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  I. MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY CONVEN- TION) (CERTIFICATES AND INSPECTION)
  Resolved:
  "That, under any Act of the present Session to enable effect to be given to an International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, signed in London on the 10th day of June, 1948, to amend the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1948, relating to matters affected by the said Convention and to amend the provisions of those Acts relating to fees,—

  (a) such fees as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister of Transport with the approval of the Treasury shall be paid in respect of certificates issued by the said Minister under the said Act of the present Session and in respect of any inspection of a ship for the purpose of seeing that she complies with any rules made by the said Minister under the said Act;

  (b) for the amount or the maximum amount of the fees payable under any of the enactments of the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1948, specified in that behalf in the said Act of the present Session there shall be substituted such amount or maximum amount as may be prescribed by regulations made by the said Minister with the approval of the Treasury."—[Mr. Barnes.]

  II. MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY CON- VENTION) (PAYMENT INTO THE EXCHEQUER OF FEES AND FINES)
  Resolved:
  "That there shall be paid into the Exchequer—

  (a) all fees received in respect of certificates issued by the Minister of Transport under any Act of the present Session to enable effect to be given to an International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, signed in London on the 10th day of June, 1948, and all fees received in respect of any inspection of a ship for the purpose of seeing that she complies with any rules made by the said Minister under the said Act;

  1293

  (b) all fines payable into the Exchequer by virtue of any provision of the said Act applying to fines under that Act the provisions of subsection (2) of section seven hundred and sixteen of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (which provides for the payment into the Exchequer of fines under the said Act of 1894)."—[Mr. Barnes.]

  Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (QUOTAS)
7.28 p.m.
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I beg to move,
"That the Cinematograph Films (Quotas) Amendment Order. 1949, dated 22nd March, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd March, be approved."
This order fixes the quota under the Cinematograph Films Act for first feature films at 40 per cent. instead of the 45 per cent. fixed last year. The House will have noted that no change is made in the quota of 25 per cent. for the supporting programme. It is my duty to inform the House that this order does not represent an uncontroversial proposal. No quota in this unhappy and divided industry could be uncontroversial. The comments on it range very widely. There is the representative of a union largely concerned with production, on the one hand, who supported a higher quota and said that I had succumbed to pressure mainly from the exhibiting side of the industry; and, on the other hand, there are the exhibitors, a representative of whom pressed for a lower quota and said "Exhibitors have been treated with contempt, and the Films Council ignored. If it is the Government's intention to ruin the British cinematograph industry, then they are going the right way about it." Somewhere between these two extremes the truth may well be found. I recently saw a report in the "Daily Worker" which summarised it under the heading: "Minister gives in to Hollywood." Incidentally, I feel it right to inform the House that I have received no representations whatsoever, official or unofficial, from Hollywood or any other part of America. The quota was fixed by the Board of Trade conscientiously and fairly in relation to all the available facts.
Secondly, I feel it my duty to inform the House that in fixing this figure I have
1294
departed from the figure recommended by at least half the Films Council which I am statutorily required to consult. The producers and renters at the meeting of the Films Council were in favour of maintaining the existing percentage of 45 and they were supported by half the trade union representatives. The exhibitors and the other half of the trade union representatives supported a proposal to reduce the quota to 33⅓ per cent. Apart from the chairman, the voting was exactly equal. The chairman cast his vote in favour of a reduction but said that he did not favour a reduction to as low a figure as 33⅓ per cent. In those circumstances and with that division on the Council, it can hardly be represented truthfully that I have flouted the advice of the Council, since it is quite clear that the Council's advice was very sharply divided.
There has, however, been—it is right that I should inform the House of this—some criticism of the very fact that I did not accept what is considered to be the majority view of the Cinematograph Films Council, which was re-established by the recent Act. A typically extravagant article in one section of the trade Press began with a quotation from John Adams in 1789 and continued with a quotation from Thomas Jefferson:
"The whole of government consists in the art of being honest."
It went on:
"What could be more honest than for Mr. Wilson to abide by the decision of the Films Council; neither to add to nor subtract from their figure?"
It went on:
"His innate modesty—"
which is, perhaps, less controversial—
"should never allow him to consider himself sufficiently intimately acquainted with all the intricacies of all the businesses in the country to warrant him altering a decision arrived at by the vote of a trustworthy body of experienced people he himself has commissioned."
In other words, it suggested that I should automatically have taken what the Films Council said, but by the same token I should have fixed last year 50 per cent., since this was recommended by a clear, though small, majority of the Films Council last summer. Last year when I to that extent ignored the majority advice of the Films Council and fixed quota slightly lower than the 50 per cent. which was then recommended, there was no criticism from those sources that I fixed

1295
a wrong quota. I therefore hope that this subject, which is difficult enough, will not be made more confused and difficult by arguments based on the so-called advice of the Cinematograph Films Council.
There are two considerations—there are many considerations but two principal ones—to be borne in mind when fixing the quota. The first is the paramount necessity of building up a sound and healthy production industry in this country. Last year's quota was meant to be an encouragement and incentive to the film production industry to build up their production to the maximum possible figure. Indeed, during the passage through Parliament of the recent Act, I gave an undertaking that I would fix the quota at such a level as would provide a distribution outlet to all British films of reasonable quality. Last summer the quota was fixed, as it has been this year, on a sober calculation of the supply of films available. The second consideration is that in fixing this quota, obviously the Board of Trade and the House must have in mind ensuring exhibitors a reasonable choice of films for their patrons—those who come to the box office—and, therefore, it would be quite wrong to fix the quota, merely in the interests of encouraging British film production, which is too high in relation to the films of good quality which may be expected to materialise during the year.
From the figures discussed in the Film Council, it seems reasonable to assume that during the new quota period the releases of new British first feature films will number between 70 and 80. As against this, a 40 per cent. quota will mean that towns with three cinemas, each changing its programmes not oftener than once a week, can satisfy their obligations with 63 British films between them. As the current year's 45 per cent. quota requires for this situation a total of 72 British films to be shown as first features, compared with releases which are unlikely to exceed roughly 78, the House will see that the new order gives a slightly larger margin as between the number of films available and the number required in these circumstances and therefore slightly more freedom of choice to exhibitors than last year's order, now in force, actually gave. So much for the fixation of the quotas.
1296
Naturally, the House will expect me to give the reasons for reducing the quota compared with last year. It is indeed a great disappointment to me to have to reduce the quota, and I am sure it will be a disappointment to the whole House. I said last year that it was not only my intention to fix the quota each year in accordance with the number of films expected but that I hoped we should look forward to a gradually rising quota year by year, and I had held out the hope that whatever quota was fixed on the first occasion could be regarded as a minimum below which we should not fall. It is, therefore, a great disappointment to all of us who had hopes of increasing film production this year that we have had to fix this somewhat lower quota. I do not want to sound too discouraging about it. The industry is going through difficult times at the moment and if I thought the reduction was anything but a temporary reduction I should feel a good deal more concerned about the position than I do. I must tell the House that I approach the reduction in the quota rather with the idea of reculer pour mieux sauter.
Since I fixed the last quota, production has failed to come up to the expectation which we then had, chiefly through lack of finance. I should probably be out of Order if I went into the whole difficult, involved but fundamental question of finance facilities for the industry. The House recently debated it very extensively in the discussions on the Measure which recently became the Film Finance Act, and since that time the Film Finance Company has played a very great part in filling in the gap which has resulted from the drying up of certain normal and previously existing sources of finance. There is a great deal that I could have said on that subject but tonight we are not debating the present film crisis nor are we debating the degree of redundancy and unemployment nor the number of idle studios we are debating the question whether the quota which has been fixed is realistic in the light of the probable supply of films, and on that subject one obviously cannot say too much about the film crisis.
On that subject I will only say that it is a fact that the big companies in the industry have been drawing in their horns for financial reasons, and it is a fact that the films required to honour even

1297
the reduced quota will have to come to a much greater extent than hitherto from independent producers who will need to be financed from sources other than the traditional ones in the industry, particularly from the new Film Finance Corporation. All the background to this crisis—the reduction in costs which is now going on in the industry, the slimming process, a necessary healthy one—perhaps that is at least one of the good things coming out of the crisis—the work of the Working Party on Production Costs, the Portal Committee of Inquiry into distribution and exhibition which has now practically completed the taking of its evidence—all these things are the background to the crisis and, to that extent, the background to the quota, but I do not intend to go into these matters this evening.
However, I want again to emphasise not only the need for reduced costs of production in this industry but the need for maintaining, and if possible improving, the quality of the films which are being made. The recent Hollywood film awards, the "Oscars," have shown that the quality of the best British films is still the best in the world, but I am quite certain that the anxieties which have been expressed by cinematograph exhibitors—who seem to have bombarded hon. Members with telegrams on the subject of this quota—are perhaps even greater on the matter of quality than on the matter of quantity. They may well have confidence that the films will be produced in quantity but they fear—and one must express one's concern on this question—that the quantity will be achieved only at the expense of the average quality and, therefore, of the average entertainment value of the films produced.
Before I sit down, there is one last point I feel it is my duty to make, and that is about the position of certain of the independent exhibitors. The quota is, of course, particularly biting on the circuits. It is essential to fix a relatively high quota if that quota is to be effective on these powerful circuits who, after all, represent such a high proportion of the box office takings of the industry. However, apprehensions have been expressed about the position of the non-circuit exhibitor from whom—not from the circuits
1298
—these complaints are coming that the proposed quota is too high.
On that I would remind the House that the Board of Trade are empowered by Section 4 of the Cinematograph Films Act of last year to award reduced quota percentages, or in some cases total exemption from the quotas, to exhibitors who apply for relief and satisfy certain prescribed conditions. Each application must be able to show that, owing to circumstances beyond his control, two or more competing theatres in the same locality as his theatre are showing British films before his theatre can show them. It is at present too early to say to what extent such reliefs will be given in respect of the new quota period beginning next October, but the House might like to know that in relation to the current year we have granted reliefs of varying amounts to altogether 1,471 cinemas, besides awarding total exemption to a further 307.
In those circumstances, I think the House will agree that in most cases, though not in all cases, it will be possible to award reliefs to those exhibitors who require them, and in those other cases where the Board of Trade have no power to award reliefs in advance, but where the exhibitor nevertheless is able to show at the end of the quota period that he did his best to fulfil his quota and only failed to do it because that was "not commercially practicable," his default does not constitute an offence, and the Board can certify under Section 13 of the Act of 1938 that it was due to circumstances beyond his control.
Mr. Emrys Roberts: Before the President of the Board of Trade leaves that point, can he say whether the provisions for relief from the quota would apply in what is a common case in North Wales, the small town with one small cinema, with no other town near it, on which the quota bears hardly?
Mr. Wilson: We should have to look at the circumstances of each case. It could not get exemption under the Act in respect of the competitive situation of two cinemas in the same town but, of course, it could get relief under the "commercially practicable" Clause. Perhaps I might say a word about that later.
Mr. Blackburn: Could the President answer one other question? There will be an increased flow of American films as a result of the reduction in the quota. How are those films to be paid for under the Johnson Agreement?
Mr. Wilson: If my hon. Friend is referring to an increased flow of imported American films—not American films made in this country—
Mr. Blackburn: Imported.
Mr. Wilson: —the position under the agreement to which he refers is quite unaffected because that agreement provided that of all the earnings which American films obtain in this country only a certain figure—17 million dollars a year—should be remitted. Therefore, this does not in any way affect the amount of money remittable. It slightly increases the amount of blocked sterling which will be earned and which will be held in this country and disposed of by the means specified in the agreement.
This is a very difficult subject and I am sure the House, which has spent so much time in the past year or 18 months on the subject of the film industry, will share my disappointment that it has been necessary to reduce the quota and will be concerned about the present position in the film industry. I am quite certain that it was right to reduce the quota. It would have been an unfair burden on the exhibitors in the light of the number of films expected to come forward to have required them to show 45 per cent. of their screen time through British films. It might possibly have led, indeed, to a breakdown of the Act if a large number of cinemas could not fulfil the quota that was set. Nor would it, in my view, have been in the best interests of British film production. On the other hand, to have reduced the quota further—to such a figure as 33⅓ per cent. or 25 per cent., as is being advocated in many quarters—would have dealt a grevious blow to British film production in this country.
I can well understand why exhibitors in general are pressing for a lower quota, but it is a fact which they must realise, and which I know this House realises, that the short-term direct financial interest of the cinematograph exhibitor
1300
does not coincide with either the short-term or long-term economic interests of the country as a whole. However true it may be that the profits of exhibitors would be increased if they were allowed to show a much higher proportion of imported films, it is certainly true that the economic condition of the country would be gravely prejudiced by such a course. Indeed, it would be dealing such a serious blow at the British film production industry that it might endanger the supply of films to the exhibitors and, in the long run, might well turn out to be opposed even to their interests.
7.48 p.m.
Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: We recognise on this side of the House that the film position today is sufficiently critical to warrant careful handling, and in anything I have to say, I particularly do not want to make the task which faces the President of the Board of Trade any more difficult, for it is quite difficult enough as it is. However, it is necessary that the House should consider this matter on a fairly wide basis.
First, I think there has grown up amongst exhibitors the feeling that their interests have been rather neglected. At least, speaking for hon. Members on this side of the House, that is not the case. We have had to criticise certain things in the film industry from here hut, after all, the exhibitors have the largest capital investment in the industry, they are those who are directly in touch with the public, and what they think has to be given due weight in the whole picture. On the whole, they want a low quota because in the past their profits have been built up largely upon American films. They are extremely perturbed about the quality of British films which are being produced under a quota which they think is unduly high. From what I gather myself about the industry, the effect of fixing the 45 per cent. quota has undoubtedly been to give some substance to the fears about the quality of British production which, I think, have been formed as a result of fixing too high a quota.
Perhaps somebody from the Treasury Bench will tell me whether what I am about to say is correct. Last year during some of our Debates on the film industry it was said that the takings in this country from the first-feature British film exceeded the takings from American films

1301
of similar character. I believe that since we discussed this matter last year the position has rather been reversed and that the exhibitor has some cause for anxiety that the high quota and protected position of the British producer has led to a distinct falling off in the quality of his products. Of course, as the President of the Board of Trade has said, the best of those products, no doubt, are the best in the world; but we must look at rather more than that, and see whether in trying to fill a quota, once 45 per cent. and now 40 per cent., they are able to maintain the same quality. So much for the exhibitor. We must look at his interests as well as those of the producer.
Producers, admittedly, are finding finance extremely difficult and the President's film corporation was formed to try to fill in some of the gaps. But the position of the producer, both independent and otherwise, is certainly serious. The advances which one joint stock bank has made to one large film concern, I think, are greatly in excess of £10 million, and the security which that bank has against these advances largely consists of canned films. That is not the type of banker's advance which is particularly popular in either Lombard Street or Threadneedle Street. The producers in theory want a high quota, which they think will stimulate production and make the gaining of finance easier. It has not, of course, had that effect.
In all this matter the House is in considerable difficulty in trying to strike the correct balance between the interests of the exhibitor, on the one hand, and the producer, on the other hand; the President of the Board of Trade indeed, touched upon this matter. One thing which is certain is that the amount of unemployment which is now begining to be apparent all over the industry is a matter which concerns every hon. Member in this House. When we are trying to find the correct balance between the interests of the exhibitor and those of the producer, including the independent producer, we shall generally find a rough and ready answer by looking at the state of employment and trying to direct our policy so that this so-called redundancy is removed and that our studio space begins to be used again. I will have something to say about that presently.
Besides the exhibitor, the producer and the worker in the industry, there is another
1302
most interested party: that is, the Treasury, who are vitally concerned. There is no doubt about whether we are able to afford any increased imports of American celluloid. That, I imagine, is out of the question.
From that I am led, I hope in an equally objective way, to say something—I am afraid some of this will be very critical—about the contemporary history of these negotiations, upon which I really cannot congratulate the Government. We gave what support we could to the Government in making it clear that we could not afford the unrestricted importation of American films. I think that at the time of our first film Debate, the President of the Board of Trade was in negotiation with the Americans. We on this side reinforced so far as we could what hon. Members were saying opposite, that the Government should not give way. The balance of payments crisis was too serious to admit of any playing about with an increase in the amount of remittable sterling earned by American film companies in this country.
At that time we urged—and the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. O'Brien) was also insistent on this point—that every effort should be made to gain an agreement with the Americans—to gain more than agreement in fact; to gain also their co-operation. The result of the President's negotiations was the conclusion of an agreement between Mr. Eric Johnston and himself, which went some way to clear up the mess from the broken plates left by the original penal tax upon the importation of American films. At that time both the hon. Member for West Nottingham and, in a less responsible position, I myself, felt that considerable advances had been made and that there was a possibility of the film business being on the verge of better times.
A great mistake was made at that time, because immediately after the agreement had been concluded, the quota was put at 45 per cent. without any previous consultation at all with the Americans. That was a very immature piece of negotiation. Whether rightly or wrongly—that question really does not arise—it infuriated American opinion; they thought they had not been treated on the square. Much of their subsequent attitude has been dictated by the feeling that the President ought not to have fixed so high a quota so soon after

1303
the agreement with Mr. Eric Johnston, without having informed those on the other side of the negotiations. This has nothing whatever to do with our right, which remains absolute and sovereign, to fix whatever quota we think suits British interests. That is not the question. But those experienced in commercial negotiations, especially with the Americans, know that it is far better to put all the cards on the table and tell them what action it is proposed to take beyond the actual negotiations which are in hand, if we want a lasting agreement. I am not saying that the Americans are right in their attitude, but the fact that they did not know what action about the British quota was going to be taken, has led to a number of very unpleasant consequences for ourselves.
As far as the present quota which we are now discussing is concerned, I notice from reports, not only in the Press, which I have received from America that the reduction of the quota from 45 to 40 per cent. has done nothing whatever to relieve the bitterness—I do not think that is too strong a word—which the American film industry have at the size of the quota generally.
Mr. Benn Levy: Will the right hon. Gentleman specify what are the injurious consequences to ourselves to which he referred?
Mr. Lyttelton: I am just coming to that. The result is that we are getting the worst of all worlds in this matter. First, the Americans are extremely obstructive to British films being shown in the United States, with the result that the organisations which want to export films to America are exporting them in the face of an industry which, rightly or wrongly—I do not want to make a smart point about this—feel that they have been treated in rather a smart way by the British Government. Hon. Members who want support for what I am saying can read the speech of an American Senator and others on this point. They feel that they ought to have been told at the time of the negotiations what quota the British Government intended to impose.
That is the first consequence and the second consequence is that there is something like a sit-down strike of American producers in this country concerning the
1304
use of the blocked sterling that they accumulated here for films shown in this country and which was accumulated because of the agreement, to which the President of the Board of Trade referred, limiting the amount of remittable sterling to the equivalent of 17 million dollars. I am thinking particularly now of the intervention by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough; the other effect is that the Americans are sullen and uncooperative in this country. So far as I am informed, they are not using the blocked sterling to produce what would rank as British films here in much of the empty studio space available. The consequence of these events is that exhibitors are short of first feature films, the public are definitely put off attendance at the cinema by the quality of the films and the receipts are tending to fall. The consequence of all these things is that unemployment is beginning to be rife.
Taking all these things together, the rather maladroit way in which the Government have conducted these negotiations has resulted in the industry as a whole getting the worst of all worlds. Its affairs, as far as the Government have interfered with them, have been conducted in such a way as might lead one to suppose that the industry had already been nationalised. It gives one very little confidence about the future. Upon one thing there is surprising agreement. Every part of the industry is agreed that taxation is excessive. I do not disguise the fact that I could, by canvassing other industries, obtain the same agreement of consent that their taxation was similarly excessive.
Mr. H. Wilson: It would be similarly out of Order.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The right hon. Gentleman may not discuss proposals to set the industry on its feet, but the proposal as it exists for reducing the quota from 45 to 40 per cent. As long as he is referring to an alteration in the quota, he is in Order, but discussion of alternative plans would be out of Order.
Mr. Lyttelton: I was not discussing alternative plans, but I was saying that if we had to seek agreement from all sides of the industry, we could find agreement on an all-round reduction of taxation. I will leave that point, which is a digression from the main question on which I

1305
wish to address the House. I ask the President of the Board of Trade, although I think I know the answer, whether any mention of the 40 per cent. quota was made to the Americans before it was instituted and whether he will consider in future that these negotiations could be arrived at on a much better level if all the actions consequent on agreements with Mr. Eric Johnston and the Hollywood industry were discussed at the same time. In my experience, and I do not want to be pompous at all, the last thing we want to do with Americans, particularly when in commercial negotiations with them, is to leave them with the feeling that something is being held out of the deal and will come along later. They particularly respond to frank and even brutal statements in negotiations. California is a long way from Whitehall and they are not happy about the way in which they have been treated. A great deal could have been done to gain their co-operation if the matter of the size of the quota had been put on the table at the time of the negotiations, but, so far as I know, it was not disclosed. No doubt the President would have been precluded from being too precise on the matter, but the general idea that the British quota was going up very sharply from what it had been should have been stated.
As a result of all this, large quantities of taxpayers' money have to be risked in a very hazardous part of the industry and I hope that the lessons of this mess will be borne home on His Majesty's Government. The time has come when a certain amount of face-losing has to be recognised and that we should try to obtain the co-operation of the Americans. That does not mean—and I emphasise this—that I am advocating any increase in the amount of remittable sterling which at present is the main feature which covers the agreement with Mr. Eric Johnston.
Mr. Gallacher: What is the right hon. Gentleman advocating? Is he suggesting that the amount of British films shown in British cinemas should be a subject for negotiation with the Americans, or that the Minister should have told them the amount, or the percentage, that Britain intended to have? What difference would it have made if the President had told them the per-
1306
centage and if Mr. Johnston objected and the Minister refused to negotiate? Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that it should be the subject of negotiation?
Mr. Lyttelton: I am suggesting that at the time of the original negotiation the approximate height of the British quota should have been told to the Americans. They might then have wished other parts of the agreement to be altered. The point is simply that we must deal with the thing on the whole basis over the whole field, and not make agreements about remittable sterling and the amount which Americans are allowed to invest here and the way in which they can invest it, but at the same time keep up one's sleeve the major card in the whole pack, which is the size of the quota. I think it would have been quite possible to maintain a very high quota, just as high as this 40 per cent. with the co-operation of the Americans if the negotiations had been conducted in a different way.
My main reply to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is that I think the negotiations ought to have been conducted so as to get the American blocked sterling invested in what would be a British film and one which would qualify for a British quota. One way or another that has not happened and we must criticise the Government for not having brought that about This is the way in which we should hope to be able to help the British film industry and to help in regard to unemployment, which is now becoming a matter of real anxiety to all those connected with the industry. The intervention of the hon. Member underlines my point. What I want to see is a form of co-operation with the Americans which would induce them to invest rather than repel them from investing their blocked sterling in production of British films in this country, which would come in as part of the quota laid down by the Government. I do not wish to commit myself or my hon. Friends to detailed programmes in relation to the domestic affairs of the industry until the Portal Report comes out, because I think we shall see a number of objective proposals there which I would not like to prejudge.
It is clear to everyone that the industry is in great jeopardy and the first step to take is to secure the co-operation of those who are as much hit as we are in trying

1307
to clear up the mess. I ask the President if he agrees that the answer to these questions is, first to re-open the subject with the American producers, to release some of the British film earnings abroad and, possibly, to consider at a very early date some remission of the Purchase Tax which, according—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is out of Order to discuss that.
Mr. Lyttelton: I will confine myself to suggesting to the President of the Board of Trade that he should re-open the question of the quota with the Americans with a view to trying to get them to cooperate in seeing that it is filled by the production of films in this country with the American blocked sterling.
8.10 p.m.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: I cannot help feeling that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) has been much less than fair to the President of the Board of Trade in the criticisms which he has made, because I have been reading the speeches which he made when we considered, about this time last year, or a little later, the order fixing the quota at 45 per cent., and also the speech which he made earlier when this House was asked to approve what is now known as the Johnston-Wilson Agreement. It is noteworthy that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Members behind him did not a year ago oppose the fixing of the quota at 45 per cent.; nor did they then suggest that there would be any American opposition to the fixing of a quota of 45 per cent., or that there had been any breach of faith with the Americans in fixing the quota at that level. On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman did not oppose the fixing of that quota of 45 per cent. He merely expressed doubt whether the industry would be able to fulfil that quota.
It is important to point out that when this House was asked to approve the Johnston-Wilson Agreement the right hon. Gentleman criticised it for a reason precisely the opposite of that which is the basis of his criticism today. A few minutes ago he said that the Americans were behaving churlishly because they had a lot of unremittable sterling and they did not seem to be doing very much
1308
to assist British film production. That is the sense of what he said. It is curious that when this matter was discussed in June last year the objection he then made to the agreement was that he thought that by reason of limiting the amount of payments that could go to America the American companies would accumulate a great deal of sterling with which, he thought, they would use our studios and make a lot of films, which he thought would be a bad thing for British companies. He said:
"it is not really in our interests for American film companies to make films which are American in idea, presentation and character and label them as British films, and put them on the open market."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June, 1948; Vol. 452, c. 742.]
Mr. Lyttelton: What the hon. Member is saying is quite correct. At that time I feared that if too large quantities of blocked sterling were accumulated by American film companies they might then, by competition for studio space, artists, etc., increase the costs of British films. That is the fear I expressed, and I stand by it. The hon. Member is quite correct in saying that I did not anticipate at that time—because I did not know—what attitude the British film industry would take to a 45 per cent. quota. So far from my fears having been unfounded in that direction, something which I did not anticipate has happened. The President of the Board of Trade has succeeded. I think by rather maladroit negotiations, in preventing the Americans investing any money at all.
Mr. Fletcher: I was only trying to point out the inconsistency between what the right hon. Gentleman said a year ago and what he said today. I am not really very interested in whether there is more sense in the criticisim which he made a year ago or more sense in the criticism which he has made today. I am not trying to be disrespectful but I thought it fair to say that because, as the President of the Board of Trade has said, and the right hon. Gentleman has said, this is a rather difficult and intricate subject. It is easy to be wise after the event but it is not easy to prophesy what will happen in this industry.
Mr. William Shepherd: What is the point of the remarks which the hon. Member has been addressing to the House? Is he telling us that there

1309
has been no change in the situation which demands a change in our attitude?
Mr. Fletcher: If the hon. Member will contain himself for a moment it will emerge how relevant what I have said by way of preface and what I am now about to say is to the point which we have to consider tonight. I have observed your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as to what is in Order and what is not, and I will only observe that a great deal could be said about the industry at this stage or at any other stage of its history.
I propose to confine myself to the question of whether we should approve this order or not. Three courses were open to the Government. The quota was fixed at 45 per cent. We could, for the ensuing year, retain that percentage, increase it, or reduce it—to 40 per cent. or some other figure. As the House has heard, different views are inevitably expressed by different sections of the industry as to what is best, or rather what they think is best in their sectional interests. We have to consider what is best in the national interests. Upon that question it is not difficult to be objective. The House will appreciate that whatever be the figure at which the quota for British films is fixed there will be no alteration in the amount of money which this country pays at present to America, because that is fixed under the so-called Johnston-Wilson Agreement at the figure of 17 million dollars plus the earnings of British films in America. That figure remains unchanged whether we have a 45 per cent. quota, a 40 per cent. quota or any other quota.
It was extraordinarily difficult for my right hon. Friend, when he fixed the quota at 45 per cent. a year ago, to know whether the industry could or could not fulfil it. Undoubtedly such a high quota was a great surprise to the industry. I am bound to say, having studied such evidence as is available—and this is very largely a matter of mathematics and statistics which we have to decide tonight—and looking back at the information then available with regard to the number of films likely to be produced, I think that my right hon. Friend was justified in fixing the quota at 45 per cent, a year ago. I do not think it follows from that that he would be equally justified in fixing it at that percentage for the ensuing year. There has been a considerable change in the position since
1310
then. The industry has been able to fulfil the quota of 45 per cent., but only just. One of the criticisms I hear from certain sections of the industry is that 45 per cent. has not been a reality because of the large number of exemptions and reliefs that have been granted. I will return to that point in a moment.
It seems to me that in fixing that quota there is no financial consideration involved with regard to dollar payments. One assumes, therefore, that the only object in fixing the quota is to succour the British film production and to ensure that the quota is fixed at such a figure as to enable all British films produced in this country to earn in this country the maximum revenue they can by being shown in the largest possible number of cinemas, thereby earning revenue for the producers of the films, for everyone engaged in the industry and incidentally for the Exchequer. It then becomes purely a matter of mathematics to fix a quota at a figure which will enable all British films which one hopes will be made to be given a maximum showing. On that basis I think that a figure of about 40 per cent. is about right.
The criticism will be made in the future—as it has been made in the current year—about the reliefs and exemptions, unless my right hon. Friend is very careful. He gave a figure, the very large one, of 1,471 cinemas in this country which have already been told that they need not fulfil the 45 per cent. quota. What he did not add was that they have also been told the reduced quota they need fulfil. The House should know these figures. Eighty-two cinemas have been told that they will satisfy the law by a quota of 40 per cent.; 17 cinemas have been told that they need show only 35 per cent. of British films; 412 that they need show only 30 per cent.; 46 need show only 25 per cent.; 30 have been told that they need show only 22½ per cent.; 341 cinemas need show only 20 per cent.; 161 need show only 15 per cent.; and 221 have been told that they need show only 10 per cent. There have been 305 exemptions altogether.
There is a legitimate distinction between cinemas which show the same film for six days and those which show the same film for three days and then make a change. A very large number of cinemas who have been granted reduced

1311
quotas show a film for the normal six days. If the object of the quota is to give the maximum assistance to British film production, as I think it ought to be, it follows that no unnecessary or unjustified release should be given, or the quota, which is nominally 40 per cent. or 45 per cent., ceases to be a reality. Granting these reliefs has a double effect. In the old Act, every exhibitor was expected to try to fulfil the quota. If for reasons beyond his control he found he could not do so, he was entitled to apply for relief, quite unnecessarily, because there is no warrant for it in the Act, since by the Act of last year a different system has been introduced. Exhibitors are now told in advance that they will be excused from the quota which we are going to fix tonight, and that they need only have 25 per cent., 15 per cent. or 10 per cent. quota, or whatever it may be.
The effect of that is that those exhibitors, having to show a smaller number of British films, are placed in a much better bargaining position than the independent British film producers whom we are so anxious to assist, but who suffer in consequence because of the numerous and very large reliefs given to so many exhibitors. There is the further result that those cinemas who have this relief from the full quota and consequently are able to show more American films, draw off revenue from the cinemas who are fulfilling a higher quota and showing British films. As a result there is a net loss, which I am told may amount to £1,000,000 a year, to British film production. I hope that although the House will approve this order of 40 per cent., when the operation of the quota for the ensuing year comes to be considered by the Board of Trade care will be taken to review very carefully the conditions in which relief is given. Having regard to the circumstances and to the legitimate views of British film producers in this matter, I hope that there will not be the criticism next year of the large exemptions that occur at the present moment.
May I add one point? In the current year the quota is 45 per cent. While it has been fulfilled, by and large, except in those three-day situations where double the quantity of films is required, it has had an unexpected result. Instead of
1312
being a stimulus to British production, instead of studios being filled, instead of there being a demand for studios and a rush to make high quality British films, under the protection of a high quota, the reverse has happened. As we know, studios are empty, there has been redundancy and there has been financial loss. The high quota, although it has been fulfilled this year, has not put the industry upon a basis which would justify the President of the Board of Trade in contemplating a 45 per cent. quota for next year.
What is the reason for that? As we know, it is the difficulty of getting finance. Experience tends to show that the public in this country prefer British films to American films. Statistics show that they certainly prefer good British films even to good American films. On the other hand, I think that they are more critical of indifferent British films than they are of indifferent American films. Whatever the quota which is fixed, we have to look at the reverse of the picture to see whether American films can fulfil their quota. If we fix the quota for British films at 40 per cent., it means that the Americans have to fulfil a quota of 60 per cent. There is no argument that they cannot do it quantitatively. The question is whether they can do it qualitatively, and that is the test that we have to apply to our own films.
The justification for the quota is the fact that because of our limited markets we cannot afford to spend as much money in producing films as the Americans can. Equally we cannot afford to make indifferent films because the British public are critical about indifferent British films. We cannot afford to spend money on them as the Americans can afford to spend money. British film producers are threatened with financial loss. They want the House to realise that if we fix a figure of 40 per cent., knowing that the finances that were previously available by private sources, like banks and insurance companies and others, will no longer be available, then sooner or later, as the House must realise, the corollary to fixing this 40 per cent. quota will be for the Government to give increased financial assistance to enable British film producers to produce films required to satisfy a 40 per cent. quota.
Perhaps I might finally say that I regard these proposals as an interim

1313
measure. While I criticise what was said by the right hon. Member for Aldershot in criticising my right hon. Friend, I agree that sooner or later we must try to work out a concordat with the Americans in this matter that will ensure that films of high-class quality are made both here and in America, and that they are made upon a basis on which there will be reciprocal showing both here and in America.
Mr. O'Brien: Would my hon. Friend make it clear whether he is supporting the order or not? Is he facing up to it?
Mr. Fletcher: I thought that I had made my position clear. I am not opposing the order.
8.29 p.m.
Sir Ian Fraser: I wish to intervene for two minutes to report what my constituents tell me. Exhibitors in different parts of a considerable area of the North West of England tell me that they cannot fulfil a quota of 45 per cent. They say they cannot fulfil a quota of 40 per cent. Therefore, they visualise that they will have to commit, if not a felony, at any rate a misdemeanour or an offence, if the law says they are to do it. They tell me that they have tried to comply with the law. They have been willing to show good films, indifferent films and bad films, and they have shown films over and over again, but they still cannot fulfil the law.
I am not in this industry, and I am not acquainted with its technicalities. I have not been informed that there is a special arrangement whereby certain cinemas can be allowed to take a less amount, 30 per cent., 25 per cent., and so on. It may be that that would meet the requirements of my constituents. I ask the President of the Board of Trade to issue such a licence to them so that their anxiety may be relieved, or at any rate to explain to us what kind of cinemas do get this lower allowance. As I see it, in a laudable attempt to encourage the making of British films and the saving of dollars, the President has fixed a figure which is too high for all practical purposes. He admits that by coming to this House and asking to be allowed to change his figure from 45 per cent. to 40 per cent. My friends in my constituency tell me that this will not relieve the situation. They favour a quota of 33⅓ per cent. I have no technical knowledge—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Member cannot suggest any other figure which is above 45 per cent. or below 40 per cent.
Sir I. Fraser: Perhaps, as I have already done so, I may leave the matter by saying that I think this is a bad order, because 40 per cent. is a wrong figure.
8.31 p.m.
Mr. Neil Maclean: I consider that proper scope is not being allowed for the matter under discussion. The limit is narrowed considerably, and consequently the full discussion that ought to take place on the situation of the cinema industry in this country cannot take place. I am not questioning your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I am merely pointing out that we can only discuss a part of what is the actual trouble within the cinema industry. I intend to keep within the strict limits of your Ruling.
The particular quota which has been established and which now, according to the President of the Board of Trade, should be reduced in its percentage is, in my opinion, still too high. As a matter of fact the 40 per cent. which he is now suggesting is in defiance of the recommendations of the organisation which he himself set up, the Cinematograph Films Council. That Council recommended a 33⅓ per cent. quota. The President wishes to impose a 40 per cent. quota instead of the 45 per cent. quota that presently exists. In doing so I consider that he is acting in defiance of the Council he set up and to which he looks for advice and guidance in what he is to do with regard to the cinema industry. They give him advice which he now recognises as partly correct by the reduction he is now proposing, but, he will not go the full distance—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I informed the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) that he could not discuss any other than a 40 per cent. or 45 per cent. quota, and that applies also to the hon. Gentleman. This Debate is restricted. It is not restricted by me; it is restricted because the issue before the House is restricted.
Mr. Maclean: If we are to discuss the cinema industry, and what is likely to benefit it, surely we are entitled to take into consideration recommendations

1315
which have been made by a Council set up by the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: On another occasion perhaps, but not on this one. That is the unfortunate position in which the House finds itself tonight. The issue is very narrow as laid down by the alteration proposed in this order.
Mr. Maclean: In that case I shall reserve my comments for another occasion.
8.35 p.m.
Mr. Edgar Granville: The President of the Board of Trade, in introducing this order, referred to the fact that British films had been extremely successful in a Hollywood competition recently and had won several "Oscars." I have listened to most of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks when he has been introducing various measures on behalf of the film industry from that Box, but I do not think that he would have qualified for an "Oscar" on tonight's performance. The right hon. Gentleman has introduced a great number of these orders, and the Board of Trade now has such a great deal to do with these matters that it is not a sleeping partner but almost the chief partner in the film industry. The right hon. Gentleman might well offer an "Oscar" for competition among the many advisers by whom he is surrounded, in order to decide what he is to do in this complex and difficult problem.
I agree with one of the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton). The result of this business is that we are losing the celluloid cold war with the United States interests. This cut of 5 per cent. and the fact that there is a great deal of redundancy in British studios—I believe that unemployment is higher than ever before in the history of the industry—show that either the President's advisers are wrong, or that there is something radically and fundamentally wrong with the industry itself. My impression is that this 5 per cent. cut indicates that the right hon. Gentleman is making a retreat from the policy which he declared in this House when he first proposed the quota. This only emphasises still further what has been published in the Press about the
1316
industry in this country being in a parlous condition.
When the 45 per cent. quota was introduced, I was one of those who doubted whether it could be fulfilled. Indeed, I do not think that that quota ever has been fulfilled. If the matter were taken strictly on a legal basis and prosecutions were instituted against exhibitors and renters who failed to fulfil their quota, I think it would be found that no one had fulfilled it. I do not believe that the quota can be fulfilled at 45 per cent. or 40 per cent. I believe this is a bluff and that the right hon. Gentleman, with his various qualifications under the Act, knows very well at the bottom of his heart that it is a bluff and that the industry cannot fulfil the quota. The 40 per cent. quota is impossible unless we can cut costs and improve the quality of the film, produced here.
It has been said over and over again by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. O'Brien) and others who have taken part in these Debates that we cannot safeguard the future of this industry by quota qualifications. In the end, if we lose, or if we are losing, the celluloid cold war with California, the right hon. Gentleman will have to put all his cards on the table. If he thinks that it is impossible to follow the advice of his advisers, the only thing for him to do is to leave the problem to the people who are concerned with the production, distribution and exhibition-of films on both sides of the Atlantic to come together and try to reach an agreement on their own without the interference of the Board of Trade or Mr. Eric Johnston.
I have said repeatedly when discussing this problem that any attempt to try to build up our film industry on parochial lines will fail, whether the quota be 40 per cent. or 45 per cent. Films are international. I should have thought that the party opposite, with its international outlook on all matters of culture and recreation, would have been the first to admit that. At this late hour I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to get together with the United States and any other interests and let us have an international agreement which will give the production side of the industry in this country the first real opportunity it has had for 20 years.
8.40 p.m.
Mr. O'Brien: I am sure the House must feel bored by these long and tedious discussions on the film industry which, almost from day to day and certainly from month to month, in one way or another, keep coming before it. Tonight, we are discussing the suggestion from the President of the Board of Trade on how the Board of Trade proposes to deal with the present situation in the film industry with regard to the quota. My right hon. Friend the President, since he took office at the Board of Trade, has done all he possibly could and everything he could think of, to try to encourage British films. I have on more than one occasion, both in this House and outside, paid him a proper tribute and he has the sincere praise of the entire industry for the efforts which he has made.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), apart from his inconsistencies, spoke very fairly and constructively on this very difficult and complicated problem. I think he was a little more consistent in his inconsistencies than my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher), who, I am sorry to say, is not in his place to hear what I have to say. The House will appreciate the difficulties of this industry and the inconsistencies and contradictions within the industry itself. I am glad to note that my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington is returning to his place and will be able to hear what I have to say. I was referring to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot had been mildly rebuked by my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington, who himself is in a very difficult position tonight. It is just as well that the House should know, in order that it can appreciate the difficulties, the contradictions and inconsistencies within the industry itself.
The Chairman of the Associated British Picture Corporation, Ltd., Sir Philip Warter, is in favour of a cut in the quota, but he is against this quota of 40 per cent., while we find that the deputy-chairman of the same Corporation, the hon. Member for East Islington, supports the 40 per cent. quota. That is a matter which is his own business; he may, either as a Member of Parliament, a private citizen or a private cinemagoer, do what he thinks fit.
1318
Nevertheless, it is a keen embarrassment to those of us in the industry who have to undertake from day to day the difficult task of sorting out the various contradictions and complications.
There is another difficulty. The President of the Board of Trade, in his opening remarks, said that he was not obliged to accept the advice of the Cinematograph Films Council. He is quite correct, and he has not, on this occasion, accepted the majority advice, arrived at by the casting vote of the Chairman, to cut the quota more violently than he has in fact done. The right hon. Gentleman has himself stated quite rightly that, had he acted on that advice last year, the quota would have been 50 per cent. but he omitted to inform the House that no less a person than a distinguished member of the Cinematograph Films Council, a man who has the interests of the industry at heart from the national point of view and who is well versed in the economics of the film industry—I refer to Professor Sir Arnold Plant—supported the quota at a different and lower level than the quota suggested by my right hon. Friend.
I know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that your Ruling has made it extremely difficult for myself and other hon. Members to confine themselves within the strict limits of order, but I wish to endeavour to do so sincerely and will try to compress what I have to say. The difficulty which the industry has to face is this. The quota to assist British films has been in existence for two years—
Mr. Levy: On a point of Order. Are we to understand from what has just been said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that your Ruling is that, while we may discuss whether 40 per cent. or 45 per cent. is the correct figure for the quota, we are actually prohibited from discussing whether some other figure should be the correct quota?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, that is so. The hon. Gentleman can say that 40 per cent. or 45 per cent. will have certain consequences, but he cannot advocate any other figure except either 40 per cent. or 45 per cent.
Mr. Levy: Surely, however, it is in Order for us to say that we consider that the figure is either too high or too low, without suggesting an alternative figure?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid not. I am sorry, but that is my Ruling.
Mr. Shepherd: Is it not a fact that the President of the Board of Trade referred at some length to the recommendations of the Films Council, and are we therefore, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, out of Order in following the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman in presenting this order to the House?
Mr. H. Wilson: My references to the Films Council were not an argument for or against the figure of 33⅓per cent. which may have been quoted by them; it was an attempt on my part to anticipate the argument which has been put forward by certain hon. Members who think that the quota which I fixed is wrong because it is contrary to the advice of the Films Council.
Mr. E. P. Smith: On this point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, while I understand that we may be in Order in referring to the figures of 40 or 45 per cent. or any figure in between, should we be in Order in referring to any figure such as x plus or x minus?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member would not be in Order in referring to x plus or x minus and neither would he be in Order in referring to any figure between 40 and 45. Either the quota shall be changed to 40 per cent. or remain as it is.
Mr. O'Brien: It is just as well that we are dealing with a quota on our speeches this evening as well as with the quota in the order. The British film industry has had a quota for the last 20 years, and during that time some of us have looked forward to an industry that would no longer depend upon a quota. Some of us, both inside and outside the industry feel ashamed that even though the film industry has been buttressed in this way for 20 years, it has even now failed to stand up to the Americans on its own feet. It is a source of considerable disquiet to us that that should be the case.
I agree with most of the statements made by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville), and with the fair criticisms of the right hon. Member for Aldershot. What is the position which we find today? It is the view of the people concerned in the industry—they may be
1320
forgiven if they are wrong—it is the view of exhibitors, distributors, of even of some of the producers, and certainly of the overwhelming majority of those employed in the British film industry—
Mr. McAllister: What about the cinemagoers?
Mr. O'Brien: I will come to that in a moment. Before the 45 per cent. quota was established, I was one of those who believed that such a quota would work. I did not support it in the Films Council at the time; at that time, a year ago, I supported a lower quota, which was, in fact, the 40 per cent. now proposed. The chairman of that Council, the Earl of Drogheda, and I were the only two who opposed a 45 per cent. quota; we supported a 40 per cent. quota. But some of us were led to believe—and in this sense we have a real grievance against the producers in the British film industry—by men like Arthur Rank, Alexander Korda, and others that they could support a 45 per cent. quota. In fact, they went even higher, but I cannot mention the figure. They stated that a number of films could be produced, and I hope the House will bear with me a little while I traverse this ground as briefly as I can.
A year ago they convinced the Films Council, and subsequently my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and his advisers, that they could make a number of films that would meet a 45 per cent. quota. The figure ranged from 109 down to something less, but, in fact, 30 to 40 of the films which they stated were to be made were not made. In that year we thought that the prosperity of the industry would continue; indeed, we thought that it would increase. But what have we found?
This is the position today, after the working of the 45 per cent. quota for less than a year. Looking back, there were better British films made as a whole before the 45 per cent. quota was introduced, and the audiences at the cinemas were larger than they are today. In fact, a few months before the 45 per cent. quota was introduced my right hon. Friend was pestered, worried and nagged by people like myself, by the unions and other interests in the industry, to provide more studio space. So much was the demand for studio space at that time that there was not sufficient studio space to accommodate those who wanted to make

1321
films. That was the position shortly before the imposition of the 45 per cent. quota.
Today, this is the position of the British film studio industry as a direct or sole result—I will not say exclusively the result, because I should be dishonest in saying that knowing the industry as I do—of the 45 per cent. quota; it was largely due to that, as I shall explain. The A.B.C. studios at Elstree, owned by the company in which my hon. Friend is interested, had no production according to the Chart last week; Brighton, empty; Bushey, empty; Carlton Hill, empty, and Cookham Dean, empty. All these are small but important studios. Denham that has seven stages and can make a considerable number of films at one and the same time, has two films in production. one, strangely enough, being known as "The Chiltern Hundreds" and the other a retake called "The Lost People." At Ealing there is one film, "Train of Events." The Gate Studio is closed, Highbury is closed, Isleworth is closed. Islington is closed and Manchester and Marylebone are closed, Merton Park are making one or two documentary films, M.G.M., one of the largest studios in Britain, is closed. National is closed. Nettlefold has "Old Mother Riley" and Pinewood has "Poet's Pub," which I commend to my hon. Friends the Members for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith) and Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy). Shepperton has one picture. Riverside is closed. Shepherd's Bush is closed, Southall is closed, Teddington is closed, Twickenham is closed, Viking is closed, Welwyn has one picture, and Windsor is closed.
That is a damning indictment of the inability of British producers and the the British film industry as a whole to co-operate and to use the facilities and advantages which my right hon. Friend has given in the last year or two. The facts speak for themselves. That is partly the result of the 45 per cent. quota. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Let me proceed. The reason for the 45 per cent quota was due, in the main, to the Rank Organisation, with the support of British Lion film distributors, Sir Alexander Korda. It was partly due to their anxiety to provide, and quite rightly so, alternatives in the event of the Americans refusing to send their films over here. That was done shortly after the threat of the imposition of the 75 per cent.
1322
ad valorem duty which caused all the trouble. Before that the industry was going on from prosperity to prosperity.
The Rank Organisation, Sir Alexander Korda, and one or two other producers saw in a large quota the possibility of answering the Americans, and they backed the 45 per cent. quota with the support of most of the industry in order to produce the films we thought would meet the situation. We have found that the desire to make a larger number of films has greatly affected the quality of those films. One swallow does not make a summer. My right hon. Friend referred to "Oscars." Great credit is due to those who have succeeded in winning these treasured international awards of the film industry. But the pictures with which those "Oscars" were won, were not made under 45 per cent. quota conditions. I doubt very much whether any picture made under 45 per cent. quota conditions would ever see the shadow of an "Oscar," let alone its substance.
We have to face the fact, whether we like it or not, that the general tendency of British audiences at present is to prefer American pictures to British pictures. I am sorry that I have to disagree on this point with my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington, although he no doubt knows all about his own company. My hon. Friend's company says one thing and the Minister says another, on the same subject. The Minister should be able to check my statement that British audiences, during the past six months or so, have not been supporting British pictures in the way we expected. They say that the quality of British films as a whole is going down. There are one or two films that can be described as good, but the industry cannot be run on one "Hamlet" one "Red Shoes" or one "Great Expectations," however meritorious.
In the field of entertainment there is one thing that even our friends the Russians have failed to do. They have succeeded in everything else, but they have failed to make their own people, and people in the countries they control, see films they do not like, even at the point of a gun. We cannot make people see films they do not want to see—no quota, whether high or low, will succeed in doing that. If we wish to have a successful British film industry, and to maintain and expand it, we must do it

1323
on quality. Quality does not mean extravagance, waste and unnecessary costs. We must not aim at an arithmetical quota merely to satisfy ourselves that we have a 40 or 45 per cent. quota of films—which people do not want to see. We must satisfy ourselves: first, that the quota can be met and that what is made is good; second, that the pictures will commend themselves by their own merit; third, that finance is available to stand up to the quota.
I am not convinced, and a considerable section of informed opinion in the industry and the country is not convinced, having regard to what has happened during the past year, that finance is available, or will become available, to meet a 40 per cent. quota. I asked producers three questions on the 40 or 45 per cent. quota, which they failed to answer. In view of the dreadful unemployment in the industry, in which people with 10, 15 or 20 years' service are losing jobs, and studios are being closed, thus causing great anxiety, I asked the producers to submit a list of those films which would be made to meet this 40 per cent. quota. Some of the films they have submitted have already been made, and would do nothing to relieve the employment situation in the British film industry. We asked them if they could name the studios in which these films are to be made, and if they could say, without any specific guarantee but with a reasonable assurance, that if we agreed to this 40 per cent. quota we would see the last of redundancy and the closing of studios. The third question I posed to them was to give an indication of the finances available to finance this quota production. If we are asked to support such a quota, this House is entitled to know or to be reasonably assured that finance and other facilities are available to meet the position.
Mr. Granville: The hon. Gentleman has given us a very imposing list of studios which are closed at the present time, but can he estimate how many of those studios will be opened for the production of films under the 40 per cent. quota which is to be imposed?
Mr. O'Brien: I was going to finish my sentence on that point. The producers did not and could not answer one or any
1324
of those three questions. It is my own view as well as that of other people that this 40 per cent. quota will create further unemployment. It will compel the making of further films because of smaller receipts from cinemas which are now losing money on existing quota pictures.
Mr. Blackburn: Could my hon. Friend tell us why the whole of the producers and renters were unanimous in their view in support of the 45 per cent. quota? Why should they want to cut their own throats?
Mr. O'Brien: That is one of those inexplicable things we find in the film industry, where people do from time to time cut their own throats. My hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn), as a new expert in the film industry, ought to answer that question himself. Producers may not want to cut their own throats, but they may wish to cut other people's throats. I am on the side of the producers, as are most of us when it comes to standing up to a quota that can be worked, but many of us are convinced in our hearts that they cannot stand up to this quota.
If my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in winding up tonight could tell us that he is going to guarantee the finance involved to meet this 40 per cent. quota then it is another matter. But this 40 per cent. quota or anything like it will not put into employment one man who is now unemployed. Indeed it may lead to further unemployment. The series of problems can only be solved by taking away the artificial props which this and previous Governments have erected to bolster this industry. The more props that are put up the more disagreements there will be amongst the interests in the industry. I have come to that conclusion regretfully after many years' experience of it.
The time has come when we should tell the film industry as a whole, that they can no longer, or at least after a certain period, expect any Government permanently to assist them. The answer is in our own audiences. We cannot keep our cinemas open for many years to come with British films alone, even if every studio in this country were fully occupied and were producing first-class films. That is an accepted fact which the Board of Trade will not deny. Whether we like it or not,

1325
we have to have American films. The people have to like American films and they like good British films. The castigation of "a bad British film" is worse than a castigation of "a bad American film" but nevertheless we shall have to depend upon American films whether we like it or not, for many years to come. I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot and other hon. Members that we should apply our minds to a long-term solution; to making arrangements or trying to re-open the matter in some way, to avoid a quota—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) was out of Order in referring to that matter, and so is the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. O'Brien: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Nevertheless, I support what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot said in this matter. I therefore beg the President of the Board of Trade, if it is not too late, to reconsider the 40 per cent. quota in the light of its effect on the producers themselves. There is such a thing in life as saving one from oneself. There is such a thing as saving the producers from their own enthusiasm, having regard to their record last year; there is such a thing as saving the exhibitors even from their concept of the problem; and it is the same with the distributors. I ask my right hon. Friend to have regard to the employment situation as well, and to the thousands who have lost their jobs and to the fact that there is no possibility of their being reabsorbed in the industry under a quota of this character; and to remember that the only permanent solution for the British film industry—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot go into that.
Mr. O'Brien: I will not use the word "solution." The only way in which we can deal with the matter by quota is to see that quality comes before quantity and that the interests of the entire industry are placed more before those of sections of the industry.
9.7 p.m.
Major McCallum: The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. O'Brien) has shown great skill in keeping with the hounds of Order in dealing with
1326
the quota question. I shall endeavour to follow his lead. I only regret that I have not got the experience of this very technical industry that he has, and therefore I hope the House will forgive me if I do not go into the question of the production side of the industry. I merely want to make a few remarks concerning the Scottish independent exhibitors in the cinema industry. I am sure that all hon. Members from north of the Tweed have been bombarded, as I have, with telegrams and letters on the subject of the quota. The President of the Board of Trade said he was aware of that fact.
When the original order fixing the 45 per cent. quota was debated in June last year, I raised the question of the small cinemas and small cinema owners in the landward areas of Scotland, particularly in the Highlands, and pointed out that there were cinemas in that part of the country where there are not only two programmes but three programmes a week. My remarks were greeted with hilarity and levity by hon. Members on all sides of the House, who asked how any cinema could be allowed to change its programme three times a week. We were taken severely to task by my hon. Friend the Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) because such a thing happened.
Mr. W. Shepherd: Is my hon. and gallant Friend seriously suggesting that we should condition the British film production industry because Scotsmen want to change their films more often than they change their shirts?
Major McCallum: I can assure my hon. Friend that Scotsmen have a point of view to put forward. I now come to the question of the new quota of 40 per cent. We are not allowed to mention any other figure and that will make it rather difficult, but the President of the Board of Trade said that 1,471 partial or total exemptions had been granted in the current year. I remember that in the Debate last June he said that perhaps if there were cases of particular hardship amongst these small cinemas, proceedings might not be taken against them if they did not fulfil their quotas.
I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) said in giving that list of the partial or total exemptions, in which he mentioned the figures that we are not

1327
allowed to mention now, showing that the holding to the quota was so lax, if I may put it that way, that in over 300 cases there was total exemption from a quota of any sort. I hope that whoever replies to the Debate will give us some information for the benefit of Scottish Members as to how many or what proportion of the 1,471 total or partial exemptions concerns Scottish independent cinemas. While we cannot mention any other figures, that would give us a shrewd idea of what consideration had been given to the plea that I and many other hon. Members from North of the Tweed, on all sides of the House, put forward last June. I would like to put the matter more strongly, but I have not the skill of the hon. Member for West Nottingham in getting round your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, so I must content myself with asking the Minister whether he can give us some idea of what consideration has been given to the independent Scottish exhibitors.
9.13 p.m.
Mr. Benn Levy: I should like to speak briefly in reference to two speeches which have been delivered tonight. As I understood it, the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) made two main points. The first, which was dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher), was that in which he advanced the following proposition. He said that whereas when the 45 per cent. quota was first discussed he had criticised it on the grounds that it would promote excessive American production in this country, he now criticised it on the ground that it had done nothing of the kind. That seems to me to answer itself. His second point did not really deal with whether this was the right figure—
Mr. Shepherd: I think the hon. Gentleman is misstating the argument. The argument of my right hon. Friend was that the films agreement entered into might cause the Americans to indulge in unfair competition and inflate the price of film stars, etc., in this country, not the quota.
Mr. Levy: But surely the point was that the thing which the right hon. Gentleman feared during the previous Debate was the thing whose absence he regretted in this Debate, and it was on
1328
that ground that he criticised my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
Now, his only other criticism seemed to me to centre solely on how the negotiations had been conducted. This was a vague, nebulous and nagging charge but what it seemed to amount to was that simply owing to my right hon. Friend's lack of skill in negotiations, the psychology of the Americans had been affected and they had become an extremely difficult factor with which to contend. The actual words I think he used were that "they had become obstructive to British films in the United States" as a result of the President's lack of skill in negotiation. Really, that does not seem a very serious argument. In the first place, as Mr. Rank or anybody else could have told the right hon. Gentleman, the Americans always were extremely obstructive and antagonistic to British films in the United States. The difficulty of gate-crashing the United States with British films certainly does not date from the time when my right hon. Friend showed this alleged mal-adroitness in negotiation.
Furthermore, said the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot, not only had the Americans become obstructive and reluctant to import British films in America, but they had become unco-operative here in England. That point has already been discussed by both my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington and myself. From these two weird allegations the right hon. Gentleman built up the conclusion that here was the root cause of unemployment in the film industry and that the starting point of it all was my right hon. Friend's mal-adroitness in negotiation. Of course, neither that nor the quota itself had anything to do with unemployment in the film industry.
And that brings me to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. O'Brien). He began by attacking, perhaps more in sorrow than in anger, his hon. Friend the Member for East Islington, who is a deputy-chairman and a right-hand man of Sir Philip Warter, one of the bosses in the industry. He felt that his hon. Friend had displayed a great disloyalty in taking a view contrary to that of Sir Philip Warter, but

1329
perhaps the hon. Member for East Islington had felt that it was a legitimate liberty to take as he could rely on his hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham to rectify it and exhibit the loyalty which he himself had lacked. When my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham went on to say that the size of the quota was responsible for unemployment, he was interrupted and asked to explain the connection, and he promised to do so. The hon. Gentleman spoke, however, for a great length of time, but he sat down without having done so. It is, of course, a clear case of post hoc non propter hoc, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham, I am sure, must realise.
The purpose of keeping a big quota is twofold. It is first to save dollars—
Mr. O'Brien: No.
Mr. Levy: Yes, indirectly it is to save dollars.
Mr. Blackburn: Yes.
Mr. Levy: Second, it is because if we lower the quota—I am wondering whether I am in Order, Sir, in view of your Ruling—if taking the two figures, we compare the figures of 45 and 40 per cent., obviously the lower quota must encourage the pressure of American competition. If a quota is a deterrent to American competition, obviously it must be an encouragement to British film production, and I cannot understand how any measure which encourages British film production can itself produce unemployment.
In so far as my right hon. Friend has decided to reduce the quota I am inclined to regret it, unless he will follow the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington and at the same time as he makes the reduction—which after all is not a substantial one and which we should accept in relation to the new figures which, no doubt, he has at his disposal—I think it would allay a great deal of disquiet if he gave an undertaking that this reduction in quota will be accompanied by a careful overhauling of the exemptions and reliefs to which attention has been called this afternoon. When my right hon. Friend discussed the quota, in June last year I think, he related it to the question of reliefs. If he would relate the two again today and
1330
assure us that he will satisfy himself that the great number of exhibitors who are obtaining exemption and relief are obtaining no more than the minimum to which they are entitled, then, I think, the whole House would.readily accept the reduction.
Mr. O'Brien: Would my hon. Friend finish the question to my right hon. Friend by asking, if a 40 per cent. quota is agreed, that an assurance will be forthcoming to back that quota, so that there would be no further unemployment of skilled labour in the industry?
Mr. Levy: My hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham was at pains on Friday to exhibit that he did not know a very great deal about the theatre; but he really cannot convince us that he knows so little about the film industry that he cannot answer his own question on that subject.
Dr. Morgan: Why cannot my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) answer it?
Mr. Levy: I can and I will, if you will allow me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The answer is that no amount of money such as my hon. Friend is advocating as a loan, or a gift, to the production side of the industry, is any use whatever, unless there is a fairer distribution of the box office earnings between the production, distribution and exhibition—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member may not go into that.
Mr. Levy: I was afraid I could not. I will instruct my hon. Friend privately later.
9.22 p.m.
Mr. William Shepherd: I think it would be almost indecent of me to interfere in the internecine strife among hon. Members on the other side of the House. I can only say that it reflects the condition, of the industry itself, where there is no agreement and where all seem to be working against each other, rather than pulling together. I have been disappointed by the speeches of hon. Members opposite. I was disappointed by the extremely naïve speech of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. O'Brien). To assume, as he tried to lead the House to assume, that all the evils from which the industry now suffers come

1331
about as a result of the operation for six months or so of the 45 per cent. quota, is reducing the problem to a simplicity which if does not possess.
Mr. O'Brien: I did not say that.
Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Member says he did not say that, but I think it was the conclusion which the House could reasonably be expected to draw from his remarks. I was also very annoyed by the remarks of the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) who has disappeared. He made great play about inconsistency on the part of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton). It is true, as the hon. Member for East Islington admitted, that there has been a change in the circumstances since 12 months ago, and it is true that we are entitled now to take a different view from that which prevailed at that time.
The burden of my remarks tonight is that the time has come to take a slightly different view from that which we expressed when the quota was last discussed. The unhappy and uncomfortable speech of the President of the Board of Trade was an indication of the difficulties in which the industry and the President are placed. We hoped last year that this would be an expanding industry in which there would be more and more British production, in which the quality would go up and in which we should be able perhaps to increase the quota when we came to fix it, as we are now doing. None of these expectations has been realised. Instead of getting increased production we have got lowered production, we have lower box-office receipts and we have to some extent a lower public appreciation of British films. There is slightly less enthusiasm for them now than there was 12 months ago. We are faced with an entirely changed situation.
If I were asked what was the basic cause of the present difficulty, I should say that it was because we did not get the necessary co-operation of our American friends. We shall never run this industry without their co-operation. If any one person is to blame for the position in that respect, it is not the present President of the Board of Trade but the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He is the man who set the conditions which were absolutely unfavourable to
1332
the British film industry; he is the man who unnecessarily put up the back of the American industry; and he is the man to whom we should address our complaints about the present condition of British films.
Mr. Michael Foot: If all the ills of the industry are due to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, will the hon. Member explain why neither he nor his party objected to that proposal when it was presented to the House of Commons?
Mr. Shepherd: The answer is simple. We tried to preserve a national outlook rather than a party outlook, something which I have no doubt will make no appeal to the hon. Member. We were mindful at that time of the danger inherent in that attempt to "put one over" on the Americans, and we did make that clear, but we did not wish in the circumstances to appear to be taking the side of America in an issue in which the two countries were concerned.
Mr. Benn Levy: Did the hon. Member suppose that he was serving the national interest by supporting a tax which he now says is the root of the ruin of the film industry?
Mr. Shepherd: No, I was pointing out that when that was done, we were presented with a fait accompli. We had to appear either to oppose the action of the British Government or give that action some sort of support. I think that we took the proper national view in the circumstances. There is no question about that action having been ill-advised and having caused much ill-feeling between this country and the United States. Until we get co-operation between the British film industry and the Americans, we shall get nowhere, and until we get something like co-operation within the industry itself in this country we shall get nowhere.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is referring to general policy and not merely to this order.
Mr. Shepherd: I merely intended to say that the disunity that is shown in the industry today is reflected in the demands for different kinds of quotas which we have seen put forward by various parts of the industry, and which have been expressed by Members in this

1333
House. We must get some sort of unity in this industry in this country if we are to get anywhere at all.
It is obvious that we must have some sort of quota at the present time. The hon. Member for West Nottingham looks forward to the time when there will be no quota. We should all like to see the British industry operating without a quota. We should like to see it in so strong a position that a quota was completely unnecessary. At the moment, a quota cannot be avoided, and we must direct our attention to what that quota ought to be.
The issue before the House is simply whether this quota of 40 per cent. is likely to lead to a resumption of American activity in film production in this country and whether it will assist in getting British films shown in the U.S.A. Whether we believe it is right or wrong, there is at the moment a sort of war between the British interests and American interests so far as films are concerned. At this moment an excellent British film, "Quartet," is being shown in New York in a cinema holding 250 people. "Hamlet" is being shown in a cinema which holds even less. Therefore, we have to consider, in discussing this question of a 40 per cent. quota, whether it will make for a reconciliation between the American interests and the British interests, because that is paramount at the present time. If we pursue a course which is antagonistic to our American friends, the industry in this country will never really get on its feet.
I suggest that this quota, although it is reduced from 45 per cent. to 40 per cent., is perhaps not best calculated to achieve that end. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will do all that he can in the next two or three months to try to get some agreement with our American friends. What is happening now is damaging to the interests of both the American and the British industries, and unless we get some reconciliation, we shall see no improvement in our position. I should have liked a figure other than the present percentage. I cannot say what it is, because that would be outside the rules of Order. But in the circumstances I hope that the House will accept the figure proposed, and I hope that the President will bear in mind the para-
1334
mount importance to the industry of getting American co-operation.
9.32 p.m.
Mr. H. Wilson: I can reply only by leave of the House, but as some very important matters have been raised, I hope the House will allow me to intervene again.
The different views expressed tonight, which, once again, have cut right across party divisions, have demonstrated the extreme complexity and difficulty of this subject, and also the fact that the industry itself is so sharply divided on this question. I have not heard any strong opposition to the order, certainly not from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd). They have, of course—and it was only fair that they should—criticised the various aspects not of this order, but of the previous order. They have stressed the high importance of good relations with the American film industry, and with that I am in complete agreement. I think, however, that it is fair to say that neither of them indicated any strong opposition to the actual figure which has been fixed.
The hon. Member for Bucklow, a year ago, generously endorsed the 45 per cent. quota and I do not think that he is really suggesting that the 40 per cent. quota is wrong. The main criticism of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot was that I fixed too high a quota immediately after the Johnston Agreement last year without consulting the Americans. I do not know how far I shall be in Order in following that point, but as it was developed at considerable length by the right hon. Gentleman, I would say that I did warn the American negotiators that I should fix the highest possible quota figure. I could not give that figure at that time, or even indicate the figure I had in mind, because I had no specific figure in mind, and by statute I was required to consult the new Films Council, which could not be set up until the Act was passed.
I am sure that on the occasion of making the quota now before the House, the right hon. Gentleman would have been the first to complain—or some of his supporters would have complained—if I had come to the House and said that I had negotiated this quota before placing

1335
it before this House. I am most desirous of developing good relations with the cinema industry of the United States. I think I may claim that the agreement last year certainly did do a lot to develop good relations with that industry after the difficulties which followed the tax and the boycott. But I am not sure that it would lead to good relationships with that industry if I were to regard myself as under an obligation to consult them about the fixation of this quota before it is laid on the Table of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether this quota was mentioned to the Americans. I can certainly tell him that it was not negotiated with them. But the Americans were told—I thought that it was right that they should be told—that I had to fix the quota by 31st March. Indeed, it required the assent of both Houses if any change were to be made. They were told that if they had any representations it was hoped they would make them in good time so that I could give them the fullest consideration before the quota was fixed after the Films Council had met. In fact, no such representations were received.
Mr. Lyttelton: I am only seeking in this matter to try to get the right hon. Gentleman's assent to the general proposition that we should try to bring the Americans along with us now. I think that it would do a great deal of good if he could say something in that sense, as I think he is doing now.
Mr. Wilson: I have already answered the right hon. Gentleman's point. Certainly, I would welcome much greater production by the American film companies in this country at present, and I am sure that the whole House would, though I must once again remind the right hon. Gentleman, as did my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher), that the main theme of his criticism of the agreement last year was that the Americans were likely to produce too many films in this country and drive out our own producers I cannot accept the view he put tonight that it was the fixing of the 45 per cent. quota a year ago which caused this sudden change of attitude on their part and led to them becoming—and I use a phrase which I would not for one moment endorse—
1336
sullen and unto-operative. I do not accept that view at all.
When the right hon. Gentleman suggests—and I think this was supported by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville)—that I should reopen the subject, I am not quite sure whether he means that I should reopen negotiations on the quota for the coming quota year, namely, the quota which is at present before the House. Quite apart from the fact that once it has passed this House I think it would be beyond negotiations of any kind, the Act requires six months' notice. Since it has to come into force on 1st October, it would mean that the negotiations would have to take place and the assent of both Houses of Parliament would have to be received by Friday of this week. That, of course, is not a practical proposition.
I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman, if he for one moment considers the position of the two industries, will realise that there are difficulties facing the American industry which it would not be proper for me to discuss tonight. They are facing possible changes in organisation as a result of a legal decision which makes it difficult for them to negotiate either with the British Government or with the British film industry. The recently planned visit of the British film producers to America was postponed at the request of Mr. Johnston because of these self-same difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for East Islington and the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) raised the question of the special quota and the exemptions and reliefs. In answer to the hon. Member for Lonsdale, who wanted to know if his constituents can get special relief, I would say that each of them has to make a special case before the appointed authority. Naturally, I cannot give any indication of what would be the result of their attempting to make such a case.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. O'Brien) made a speech which I must say disappointed me. It was very different from the sort of speech we have heard from him in the past. I do not know what has caused this sudden change in his attitude. He has recently been supporting increased production, but tonight he was speaking from an entirely different point of view. Although he has great experience of this industry,

1337
I suggest that he was not at his best tonight. He was completely wrong to suggest that the present situation is due to the 40 per cent. quota.
Mr. O'Brien: Partly due.
Mr. Wilson: Or even partly due. If it is his argument that the falling-off in box office attendances is due to the low quality of the films produced under the quota, he, with his great knowledge, must realise that, since the quota was only announced in the middle of June and did not come into effect until October, it would have been practically impossible to get the films produced under the quota in order to have an effect on the attendances and the finances of the industry. Therefore, as he suggested in his concluding words, the financial difficulties of this industry are far more deep-seated and more fundamental than is suggested by that rather simple explanation. That I think covers the point put by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) and by the hon. Gentleman himself.
I regret that the hon. Member for West Nottingham has tonight been so frank about the proceedings of the Films Council set up under the statute. He has, in fact, given us very freely all the arguments which he put to the Films Council, but not all the arguments of the other side, as represented to the Council.
Mr. O'Brien: On a point of Order. I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but he himself referred to proceedings in the Council and reviewed the way in which the vote was taken. I merely commented mildly on the same point which he had introduced.
Mr. Wilson: With respect, I think there is a great difference between what my hon. Friend said and what I said. What I did was to give a summary of the facts, so that the House might realise that the Council was equally divided, and I showed how the Council divided at the end of that discussion. What I think was a little unfair of my hon. Friend was to give in full all the arguments which he put at the meeting of the Films Council, and that it was not possible to give any of the arguments of other interests represented on the Council, either the arguments which were put to him in that discussion or the point of view of the producers or renters or that of the other trade
1338
union. He seemed to have been satisfied by giving only his own argument. I suggest that another point of view must have been put at the Films Council, and I think it would be wrong that this House should be unduly swayed by what he said was the argument put forward at that meeting.
My hon. Friend said that we must have regard to the unemployed and those who will lose their jobs as a result of the quota. I would say that the whole House is deeply concerned about the unemployment in this industry, though I do not think anyone believes that it is being increased by a high quota. Rather is this high quota an encouragement to certain producers and certain people on the financial side to go on producing. I have heard it said that there were independent producers who were considering going on, but, if this quota had been fixed at any other figure, which I am not now able to discuss, their production would have come to a stop, because they would not have been certain of a showing.
The hon. Member for Bucklow asked me about the prospects of exemptions in respect of Scottish cinemas. I am sorry I have not got the figures here tonight, and I think it would take a little time to extract them, but if the hon. Member will put down a Question I will do my best to get the information for him. Similarly, regarding the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum), on the consideration given to the independent Scottish producers, if he wants the information I hope he will put a Question down.
The Order now before the House represents a setback to all of us who were hoping for a continually expanding production to enable the industry to settle its other problems—financial and distribution problems, and all the rest. I hope, not only that this quota can be realised without hardship to anyone, but that we can look forward to a reversion to a higher quota in the reasonably near future, and to seeing a firmly-established British film industry.
9.44 p.m.
Mr. Blackburn: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, before saying a few words on this order, I should like to withdraw what I said in some remarks which I made on

1339
the last occasion when I spoke in this House, and in which I repeated what I now know to be incorrect information which I had received as a Member of the Committee of Inspection in the liquidation of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, to the effect that Mr. Baldwin had intervened in regard to the prosecution of Lord Kylsant. I wish to withdraw that statement, since I now know it was, in fact, incorrect.
I only want to say a few words about this Measure tonight, but I am afraid they will be very different from what has been said by most hon. Members, although I agree in general with what my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) said. Quite frankly, I would vote against this Measure tonight if it came to a Division, and I certainly give a mental vote against it here and now because I feel that we have not had a realistic atmosphere on this subject. We have all the resources in this country, and all the men to fulfil the 45 per cent. quota. No valid reason has yet been given why the 45 per cent. quota should not be fulfilled in toto. We have the men, the resources, and the studio space. We have heard in detail from my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. O'Brien) of the vacant studios available; he read them out one after the other. Why cannot the Government requisition that space and see that we produce the films for the quota?
I am very anxious to keep strictly in Order, following your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that we are only entitled to discuss the 40 or the 45 per cent. quotas, and the consequence of those quotas. The consequence of a reduction to 40 per cent. is undoubtedly that 5 per cent. more American films are going to be imported into this country. How are we going to pay for them? The President of the Board of Trade said quite frankly that the only way is to accumulate sterling balances. We have to pay interest on those balances as investments; we have to pay 4 per cent. to the United States in respect of some of those inverted sterling balances accumulating as a result of the reduction of this quota from 45 to 40 per cent. In other words, there is absolutely no escape from the fact that to some extent we are still putting the importation of American films before meat. I say that
1340
this country wants meat before American films. I was very much encouraged by the general tone of my right hon. Friend's remarks tonight because I do not believe that he likes the reduction from 45 to 40 per cent. He indicated that quite clearly tonight, and I welcome the fact that he will get it back to 45 per cent. as soon as he possibly can.
Mr. H. Wilson: I should not like those last remarks of the hon. Gentleman to go out uncorrected. The change in the quota does not mean any change in the dollar situation, and does not mean more films in the place of meat. That remark is really completely wrong, and I think it must be contradicted.
Mr. Blackburn: My right hon. Friend was not in his place when I was making my remarks. I made it perfectly clear that I accepted his statement, in reply to my previous intervention, that there is no increase in respect of the 17 million dollars because it is always already exhausted, but only in respect of the accumulation of sterling balances. These sterling balances can be invested in this country in a number of ways, and interest is paid to the United States in respect of them at, say, a rate of 4 per cent. Therefore, in respect of the interest on the sterling balances, we are undoubtedly increasing the amount of money that is leaving this country. The point has been made over and over again; I think that it was made only last week by the "Economist" or some other paper.
Mr. H. Wilson Mr. H. Wilson indicated dissent.
Mr. W. Shepherd: Will the hon. Gentleman say what is the basis of this 4 per cent.? I thought sterling balances only attracted interest at the rate of one-half per cent.
Mr. Blackburn: The President of the Board of Trade allows sterling balances to be invested, for instance, in the hotel industry. If the Americans have an interest in the hotel industry, they are therefore able to obtain interest upon their investments in this country. There is absolutely no doubt about it. I think the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) was right in his original remark. We do not want an American film industry built up in this country. Surely, we in this House ought to be fighting to have our own film industry

1341
and nobody else's. Therefore, it seems to me that everyone ought to feel—and here I agree with my right hon. Friend because I think he expressed the right sentiment—thoroughly sad to confess the fact that we cannot produce this 45 per cent. quota.
I wish to say only two more things. The first is, and it is the most important, that all the producers and renters appear to be unanimous on the subject—they want to retain the 45 per cent. quota. This decision—and my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham knows it—is a sacrifice of British production to the interests of the exhibitors and the interests of the Treasury. There can be no doubt whatsoever about it, and the President of the Board of Trade has admitted it, that the producers and the renters on the Cinematograph Films Council were unanimously in favour of retaining the 45 per cent. quota. I know of no one on the production side not in any way associated with distribution who would not like the 45 per cent. to be retained. I believe that this failure to fulfil the 45 per cent. quota is something about which we all ought to feel very deeply, and I shall continue to press the President of the Board of Trade to get back to the 45 per cent., arid also to a quota above that figure, so that we may at least, and at last have our own British film industry and not someone else's.
9.52 p.m.
Mr. Gallacher: I must take this opportunity, even if I lay myself open to the possible charge of being a fellow-traveller to support the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn). The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. O'Brien) said that the unemployment in the film industry was caused by the quota. It was not the quota and not the tax, but the American illusion. Rank and Co. laid the foundations for the ruin of the industry and mass unemployment, by enormous expenditure on films in an attempt to gain the American market. It is an illusion; they will never get it, and so the job we have to do is to get the film industry built up in this country.
It will be a shameful thing if the film industry is neglected, because it is such an important industry. An old Member
1342
of this House—he has gone now—John Burns of Battersea, was down on the Terrace one day with some visitors from America. John, in his very dramatic way, led them over to the parapet and said, "The Thames," and one of the young Americans replied, "It is not up to much. It does not compare with the Hudson." "Sir," John said, "that is liquid history." There is not only liquid history but terrestrial history in this country. There is no country that has greater opportunities for the making of films which will be of the greatest value, not only from the point of view of entertainment but from the point of view of education and inspiration.
Mr. Speaker: We are not discussing the film history of this country, but whether the figure shall be 45 per cent. or 40 per cent.
Mr. O'Brien: Will the hon. Member say why it is that the Soviet Government do not show British films?
Mr. Speaker: I think that that is going wide of the Debate.
Mr. Gallacher: Like the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy), I shall have to tell the hon. Member the reply in private. It is quite an easy matter, and there is no reason why an arrangement should not be made. The 45 per cent. quota can quite easily be fulfilled. The important and vital question was raised only by the hon. Member for King's Norton. The hon. Member for West Nottingham wasted time with a lot of trashy nonsense. It is quite obvious that he is becoming Americanised which is the big danger. There are so many people in the industry who are becoming Americanised. I say that the 45 per cent. quota can easily be fulfilled. The studios are there, the men are there, the scripts are there and all the material is there. Let the Minister take over the control of the studios and set the men to work, and then we can get real development in the British film industry.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved:
"That the Cinematograph Films (Quotas) Amendment Order, 1949, dated 22nd March, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd March, be approved."

NEW DEVELOPMENT AREAS
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the first of the next two orders, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I pointed out that those Members who wish to refer to areas others than those which are contained in either of the orders will be out of Order. The two orders apply entirely to the areas which are in the order, and to no others. It will not be in Order to ask that other areas should be included.
Sir Ian Fraser: Would it not be in Order to point out how much more deserving other areas are than those in the two orders we shall be discussing?
Mr. Speaker: No. That could be discussed on Supply, but not on this occasion.
Mr. Carmichael: Will it be in Order, in discussing the places named in these orders, to object if we consider that a Development Area is being too widely extended?
Mr. Speaker: It will certainly be in Order to object to an order.
9.56 p.m.
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I beg to move,
"That the Distribution of Industry (Development Areas) Order, 1949, dated 4th March, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved."
The occasion of this order, as the House knows, is to review the working of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, Section 7 of which provides that three years after the passing of the Act the Board of Trade should consider whether any area should be added to, or removed from, the Schedule of Development Areas therein listed. As I told the House on 17th September last, and as was more fully discussed in the White Paper on the Distribution of Industry, last October, it was proposed to make minor boundary alterations by adding to the South Wales Development Area and to the Scottish Development Area and to schedule two new areas—Merseyside and parts of the Highlands. The order deals with changes in the South Wales boundaries, and also with Merseyside. So far as South Wales and Monmouthshire are concerned, certain parishes in the Llandilo Rural District, namely, the parishes of Llandybie,
1344
Bettws and Quarter-Bach and the Glynamman ward of the parish of LlandiloFawr Rural are added. The object of including these parishes is to correct a long-standing anomaly, and to bring wholly within the Development Area the industrial parts of the Amman Valley, which forms a single social and economic unit.
The second main purpose of the order is to create a new Development Area, the Merseyside Development Area by adding to the Schedule the county boroughs of Liverpool and Bootle, the urban districts of Litherland and Huyton-with-Roby, the parishes of Netherton, Aintree, Kirkby, Simonswood and Halewood, the country boroughs of Birkenhead and Wallasey and the borough of Bebbington. The Merseyside Development Area comprises approximately 112 square miles and has a present population of some 1,197,000. As required by Section 7 (4) of the Distribution of Industry Act, all local authorities affected by the Order, including the Lancashire County Council, have been consulted and all agree that the area should be scheduled as a welcome aid to the solution of Merseyside's economic and unemployment problems. Their several observations upon the boundaries of the area have been fully considered.
In accordance with past Debates of this kind I should now justify to the House, from the unemployment history of the area, the reasons for this new order. Before the war the Merseyside area suffered consistently and to a very marked extent from unemployment. In 1932 some 109,000 or 28 per cent. of the insured population were out of work. The average unemployment in the years 1932–38 was some 97,000, which is 24 per cent. of the insured population. Of these 83,000 were male workers, representing 29 per cent. of the insured male workers. Unemployment on Merseyside has a special character differing from that of the other Development Areas, because Merseyside is primarily a port and commercial centre rather than an industrial area, and, unlike the other Development Areas, it is not dependent primarily on heavy industries which have gone into a decline. In 1939 manufacturing industries, including those connected with shipping and port industries, accounted for 38 per cent. of the total insured

1345
population. For Great Britain as a whole the comparable figure was 53 per cent. Many of its main manufacturing industries were connected with the port activities and the area was seriously under-industrialised. The pre-war decline in shipping and port activities, adversely affected by the decline in the volume of international trade, and the drop in exports of textiles, was not balanced by the growth of other industries. The number of factories opened between 1933 and mid-1939 was only 39, and that is only three more than the total number of factories closed on Merseyside during that period, 36 factories being, in fact, closed in those six years.
During the war the situation changed very rapidly. Apart from the effects of the call-up to the Armed Forces, the port, during the war, was very active. The munitions factories, particularly the large Royal Ordnance Factories at Kirkby and Fazakerley and the Ministry of Aircraft Production factory at Speke employed many thousands on semi-skilled engineering work. As a result, by the end of the war, unemployment had fallen to a very low level.
In the post-war period steps have been taken to convert the war factories to peace-time production, but employment in them has inevitably fallen below the war-time peak. In addition, the area has suffered badly from war damage. In consequence, as men and women returned from the Forces, the number out of work has risen. By June, 1946, the unemployment figures were 28,700, or 6½ per cent. of the insured population—22,400 males, 7½ per cent. of the insured men workers. Even so this level was about one-third of that of the best pre-war years; a quarter of the average figure in the 'thirties. Taking the hard core—the numbers unemployed for a year or more—these represent today only one-sixth of the figures in 1939—and that was one of the best ever pre-war years—and a much smaller proportion of the hard-core unemployment problem in the slump years.
I should like to say a word about the composition of unemployment there. There is a special feature on Merseyside. As the House knows, female unemployment, especially on the north side of the river, does not present a
1346
serious problem at all. In fact, the Ministry of Labour's forecast, on the basis of the known forward industrial developments, indicates a shortage of 6,000 female workers, whilst a very substantial surplus of male unemployed remains to be catered for.
The problem is made more difficult by the high proportion—more than half of the total—of those out of work who are unskilled, mostly general labourers. In June, 1948, of the 20,200 unemployed men aged over 18 years, 11,100 were classified as labourers or 55 per cent. of the total, including builders' labourers, engineering, shipbuilding and metal trade labourers, general labourers for heavy work, and general labourers for light work.
The majority of the non-labourers were in the building trades or in occupations associated with utility services and port activities. There were unemployed seamen and other ships' crews totalling 1,600. Manufacturing industries accounted for only one-quarter of the total non-labourers unemployed. I should also mention that nearly half of the unemployed males are aged over 40; in June, 1948, they represented 45 per cent. of the total. This is a serious problem, though it is a smaller proportion than that for Great Britain as a whole, the figure for Great Britain as a whole being 55 per cent.
Having referred to the unemployment figures, I would like to say a word about the employment situation on Merseyside. The employment position on Merseyside has changed very considerably since before the war. In mid-1939 the total number of insured persons in employment was 372,700; in mid-1945, the figure was slightly higher at 376,600. In the first year after the war, employment rose by 21,000, and in the following year by 31,000, but from 1947 to 1948 this rate of progress has fallen off to only 4,000 for that period. However, by the middle of 1948 the total numbers in employment were 433,000; that is, some 60,000 more men and women in employment on Merseyside than in 1939. When expressing our concern at the still high level of unemployment, we should not forget that the numbers employed today are not only 60,000 greater than immediately before the war but far higher than those at any time in all recorded history on Merseyside.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Does the right hon. Gentleman include Ellesmere Port in those figures?
Mr. Wilson: No, only the area covered by the new order. If we had developments at Ellesmere Port, the figures would be that much better. This increased employment is the result of a number of factors, including increased activity in the Merseyside existing industries and the steps taken by the Government and the Merseyside local authorities to provide special schemes of employment by converting war factories to civilian use and by the post-war factory building programme, and so on. However, as I have said, although unemployment, and especially the hard core problem, is much less than before the war, the problem still remains and it is a matter for grave concern especially to those of us who have the honour to represent Merseyside constituencies in Parliament and know the human and social tragedies—as well as the economic loss—which even this reduced figure represents. I should therefore say a word about what is being done in the way of new factory building. Up to the end of January, 1949, 28 new factory buildings, with a production space of 391,000 square feet, and providing an estimated eventual employment of some 4,000, have been completed on Merseyside since the war.
Mr. Collick: Can the President of the Board of Trade tell us what proportion of those figures applies to Birkenhead?
Mr. Wilson: I am sorry that I have not got the figures. My hon. Friend may deal with that when he replies. I must apologise to the House for giving all these figures; to break them up between the two sides of Merseyside would make it even more tedious for the House. A further 31 schemes, with a production area of 1,465,000 square feet and an eventual employment of some 6,000 persons, are under construction and a further 41 new industrial projects, leading to the employment of 5,350 persons, have been approved or have been granted industrial development certificates. This gives a total programme to date of 100 new factory schemes, providing eventual employment for well over 15,000 people, more than half of whom will be men, and only 4,000 of whom are at present
1348
employed. I have not included blitz reinstatements, repairs, renovations and alterations in the figures of factory buildings, nor have I included the fact that nearly five million square feet of Government factory space in the area have been allocated for industrial use.
Turning to what this order will make it possible to do, there is the question of the availability of sites for industrial development. The development plans of the local planning authorities show a fair amount of land available for industrial development; and the Board of Trade have been considering the question of the siting of new industrial building in this area and the scale of development required, and a preliminary survey is being made at the present moment of a number of possible sites with a view to the selection of those most suitable for industrial development and, with Treasury consent, their acquisition. I hope that some part of the future factory building will be on industrial estate lines, in co-operation with and in extension of those trading estates already existing both on the north and south sides of the river which the local authorities have already established at Kirkby, Speke, Fazakerley, Netherton and Bromborough.
Industrial estates are particularly suitable for the establishments of small and medium-sized projects, and although I do not think they will make a major contribution to Merseyside's unemployment problem, which requires the provision of employment for large numbers of unskilled males, they will, especially on the south side of the river, meet some male employment needs and the incidental needs of female employees. There are some major projects, such as the I.C.I. copper project, B.I. Cables and the Kodak projects for the Kirkby Industrial Estates which are already in view. The remaining parts of the future new industrial developments will take place on individual sites and the Board of Trade are already trying to steer suitable industrial projects to the Merseyside area.
As my hon. Friends know, the Liverpool Corporation have already, and have had since 1936, powers to provide many of the special advantages which Development Areas can provide with Government assistance. They have, indeed, done a considerable amount in that direction

1349
already but we all recognise that what they can do is limited to Liverpool only. There are many areas in Merseyside in addition to Liverpool and I do not think any of us can be satisfied that the mere existence or exercise of those powers will solve the problem in that area. I want to stress the fact that the problem is Merseyside and not Liverpool alone. The scheduled area forms a closely knit economic unit, and it is essential that it should be regarded as one whole area within which all industrial development has to be co-ordinated. If one goes any day and watches the flow of the population across the river on the Mersey ferries, one will see the essential economic unity of the whole area. There are some 58,000 workmen's weekly tickets issued from the Cheshire side to Liverpool every week, and 48,000 in the opposite direction. And, of course, there is a large number of black-coated workers from the hon. Gentleman's constituency going a little later in the day.
It is clear that the planning of industrial development should be unified within an area comprising both sides of the river. Where it has been possible to view the problem as a whole—for instance, by the Dock Access Committee—there has been great benefit. The scheduling of the central part of this area as a Development Area, and the extension of the activities of the Industrial Estate Company, should provide one important means of ensuring that the employment needs of the area are treated as a whole.
But although the powers of the Board of Trade are limited to the scheduling under this order and to the establishment of the Estates Company, I am sure it will be generally agreed on Merseyside that this is not enough. The Estates Company will be necessarily limited in its powers and functions. Its main duty will be to build factories for industrialists who can be induced by various means to come to Merseyside. Clearly the needs of the area go far wider than this. I throw this out as a suggestion to all the local authorities in the Greater Mersey area, that parallel with the Estates Company, but closely linked with it, especially in terms of officials, there should be established some joint organisation, a development council or board—call it what you will—both to act on behalf of the whole
1350
area for the attraction of industries to Merseyside, and also to be capable of discussing all matters affecting the economic future of the area as a whole, and ensuring discussion and, where possible, appropriate action on those matters affecting the area.
Membership of such an organisation after its establishment will clearly go beyond the local authorities covered in this scheduling order and should include a number of those bodies on both sides of the Mersey which are not considered suitable locations for industrial building but which, nevertheless, have a real interest in furthering opportunities for the employment of their citizens. I have in mind, for instance, some of the local authority areas within the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), not to mention that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Waterloo (Captain Bullock).
There is at present no single body capable of considering these problems and discussing the various ancillary services and needs—transport, housing, basic services, docks and harbour industries, and so on—and I sincerely hope that the authorities concerned will seriously get together to consider the establishment of some such organisation. I would commend them to study the model of Cumberland, where the Estates Company and the Development Council have worked together for a period of years and between them have, with the help of the Government and private industry, virtually solved what at one time seemed an almost insoluble hard core unemployment problem in that area.
Finally, I want to come to the effects of the order. The scheduling of a Development Area does not provide the Board of Trade with almost unlimited powers over the direction of industry to that area, but it does make it easier to encourage industry to go to a particular area. It works in with the national policy of restricting the continued spread of industry in areas already congested, for which we have adequate powers, of course, under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and under the building controls. As we found before the war, when the Liverpool Corporation—though not the other local authorities—had many of the powers of financial attraction, the absence of any national policy of steering industry away from the overcrowded

1351
London and South Eastern areas meant that local powers to attract were of little use, and, as I have said, there were almost as many factories closed as opened on Merseyside during those pre-war years.
But, taken together with our national controls, the machinery provided under this order does provide inducements under the powers given in the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, in relation to the Development Areas, to erect factory premises with ancillary services where necessary, to purchase land for that purpose to assist industrialists wishing to build for themselves, to improve the basic services on which the industrial development of the area depends, to promote the reclamation of derelict and bomb-damaged land for industrial use, and to improve amenities. On Merseyside this should make it easier to set up factories providing employment for men, preferably factories requiring a high proportion of unskilled and semi-skilled labour.
The formal act of scheduling will not result in any immediate large-scale industrial development. The process is likely to be a hard and a slow one. Apart from any preliminary site development work that needs to be done, it is not certain that an extension of industrial estate activities or the building of standard factories will do more than lead to the solution of part of the unemployment problem. With the present restrictions on capital development, limiting new construction to projects which either develop our export potential or are valuable import savers, we cannot for the present build advance factories before a suitable tenant is found. So practical results in the building of new factories may depend on whether and what type of projects come forward. Very few new developments are coming forward today providing jobs mainly for men, although we are doing all we can to steer such suitable factories to the Merseyside area.
I should explain to the House that it is proposed that the North Western Industrial Estates Company, which is already responsible for Government factory buildings in the existing South Lancashire Development Area, will undertake similar work on Merseyside. I am in course of reconstructing the board of the Company so as to include
1352
directors, probably forming a majority of the board, who have special knowledge of Merseyside's needs and problems.
Mr. Logan: Will there be co-option on that Board?
Mr. Wilson: Not on the board; but it may work through a local committee.
As I have said, this task of solving the unemployment problem of Merseyside is not going to be an easy one or one which, from its very nature, can be rapid of solution. Serious as the problems which still remain in South Wales, the North East Coast and Scotland are, I regard the Merseyside problem as far more difficult, both in its size and in its nature, even than them. An area which has grown up on a largely non-industrial basis, an area which contributed greatly to the development of international trade and commerce, but as trade and commerce declined remained un-industrialised, has suffered both from the lack of skill and industrial services and, indeed, from a wanton neglect by Government and industry alike in the prewar period in the provision of enough factories to employ its population. It was an area which invested heavily in the Victorian and Edwardian prosperity and it contributed to that prosperity, to the welfare of the country, in its ports and shipping services. By its investment and by that contribution it suffered mass unemployment and great social and personal tragedy.
I think all hon. Members on both sides of the House who know Merseyside remember what that unemployment and tragedy was when a third of the men on Merseyside were unemployed and 30 per cent. of the working-class families on Merseyside were on a lower standard of living than that of Seebohm Rowntree's "Human Needs" standard. Those who lived on Merseyside, as I did, during those darkest days, remember what the area suffered, and I am sure all hon. Members representing the area will testify to the great qualities of those people, their courage and heroism and their willingness and great adaptability in learning new trades and new skill such as some people, not knowing them, might have thought they could never develop.
I am sure hon. Members in all parts of the House will wish to see some pledge given, some surety vouchsafed

1353
to the people of Merseyside, that there is hope of a new future for the area, on entirely different lines from the past, an industrial rather than a commercial future. In making this order it is the policy of the Government and of the House to set the people of Merseyside free from the unemployment, poverty and insecurity which too many of them knew in the dark days before the war. This order is to be seen, not as a mere administrative measure, but as a measure of hope and encouragement from this House to the people of Merseyside.
10.22 p.m.
Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: The House may know that I have a particular interest in this subject. The Bill under which this order is to be made was introduced into the House by myself, although it was largely the work of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when in the Coalition Government. I have a particular interest in these subjects. When we hear that employment has increased by 60,000—which I think is the figure the President of the Board of Trade mentioned—it is a source of gratification to everyone but we must realise that the reasons which have lead to this very large increase are extraordinary. We must not get lulled into any sense that we can maintain that increase without constant effort. The general state of demand in the world is entirely abnormal, partly as a result of eight years of non-maintenance. Therefore we regret the necessity which leads to more areas being included as development areas, because this is evidence that the Government consider the unemployment problem to be a very serious and pressing one. Nevertheless, we think this is the right measure to take.
In scheduling a new area, it is most important to control the cost of the factory space put up as much as possible. I would remind the House that long before the Act was introduced into the House my Ministry during the war started the building of factories in development areas. It is most important that the cost should be very closely controlled, otherwise we are creating a bias which has to go out in some way or another. Either the Government have to charge an uneconomic rent for their factory, or the industrialist is put off from going to those scheduled areas by a
1354
higher cost. I am trying not to be overcritical but I think it is true to say that the cost per square foot of the Government-erected factories since the war is pretty high. The capital cost per man employed causes me some anxiety. I therefore ask the President of the Board of Trade to pay particular attention to keeping down the cost of this new development.
As all hon. Members know who are familiar with this problem, the difficulty is to secure new employment either for men or women. In this case it is chiefly for men—
Mr. Speaker: We are discussing the order, not the general question of unemployment, and debate must be confined to the order.
Mr. Lyttelton: With great respect, I was trying to show that in this particular area, as in others, the same problem arises of trying to promote new employment without taking the labour supplies from existing industries. This remark applies more particularly to the Welsh part of this new order than to Merseyside.
Mr. Speaker: It applies more to the Act and to general policy and not to the order. The order is made under the Act, but we cannot discuss the Act.
Mr. Lyttelton: Am I not entitled to say that if the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to schedule areas in Wales, he must pay particular attention to promoting the employment of women more than of men in the Welsh valleys? Otherwise an unbalanced employment situation which we do not wish to see might result. That is the point I am making. I am trying to confine myself strictly to the new areas which are to be included under this order. I do not think that the conditions which I have been mentioning apply to the Merseyside project as much as to the Welsh part. It is one of the difficulties which Ministers will always have in adding new schedules—not to create the position of labour being taken away from existing industries into new ones.
Whilst we regret that the Government feel that the unemployment problem is obdurate enough to make this addition to the development areas necessary,

1355
nevertheless, if that is their opinion we must wholeheartedly support the order in this form. I would go a little further and say that I believe that private industry has, all the time, been entirely behind the Government in trying to place new projects in the development areas, and these new areas which are now being scheduled will be no exception. I am quite sure that if the President of the Board of Trade asks for the support of industry in getting as many private projects as possible to go into these areas he will meet with a very ready response.
10.29 p.m.
Mr. Moody: As one of the representatives of Liverpool, the hub of the Merseyside area which it is now proposed to bring under the development order, I would say that we are very thankful and welcome this order making ours a Development Area. This area has been generously endowed by nature. We have the wide, deep, fully tidal, beautiful Mersey, and as the President of the Board of Trade has said, we have a goodly heritage in the history of commerce in this country. When one looks at those who serve the nation in other places, it will be seen that very few areas have made a greater contribution than has the Merseyside area. Now, in spite of what nature has given to us and the heritage handed over to us, we have the appalling spectacle of 23,000 people who are almost wanting bread in the city of Liverpool alone. The most remarkable thing is that this area has been governed predominantly for many years by the party of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and now, in 1949, we find them coming cap in hand to a Labour Minister and saying, "Give us some Socialist planning to get us out of the mess into which we have led Merseyside."
We are thankful that this order, with its power to establish new factories at 1939 rents and its help for those who are prepared to build factories in this area, has been introduced. But we have to recognise that the acid test of whether this order succeeds or not is the way the Development Board functions after it has been set up. Some time ago in Merseyside we hailed with delight the fact that Dunlop had come and provided work for thousands. In their tyre department, dur-
1356
ing the war and immediately afterwards, they produced 2,200 heavy tyres a week. That production is now almost nil. On inquiry we find that the best we are likely to get out of it in the near future is 600 tyres a week, which will mean further unemployment or bringing down the working hours to 35 hours a week.
Something more than this order is required to solve the problem. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it will be difficult. I ask him to look carefully into the area when he comes to administer the order and to ask himself whether the Tories who have run the area for so long have made the best of what they had during their years of office. We have a glorious river, we have many miles of docks, and yet we have never accepted the fact that Liverpool might be a great ship-repairing centre. We have done minor jobs, but we have sent the major jobs of ship repairing outside the Merseyside. The new Development Board will have to look into this question. I think our miles of docking space provide reasonable facilities for major repairs for all kinds of ships, provided we have the equipment. Liverpool should not be just a place at which to load and unload and collect coppers quickly. We should be a great ship-repairing centre. Have we not collected in both wars the cream of shipbuilding craftsmen? One of the tragedies of Liverpool today is that the men who were directed to the city—the young men who have married and wish to settle down there—are becoming unemployed now that the war is over.
We have on Merseyside the finest ship-repairers and craftsmen in the world. Not very many of them are assured of permanent employment. Moreover, the ship-repairing firms have declined to set up joint production committees, and I ask the Minister, in appointing the new board, to look carefully into that point, and to press the desire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for joint production committees for ship-repairing on a large scale. It may be said that costs are high on Merseyside; if that is so, it may be due to inefficient management. That, again, wants to be looked at.
I suggest to this new board that it should consider making Liverpool a fishing port; with all its great miles of docks and all its facilities, we should not have to go to Fleetwood, or anywhere else

1357
to get our fish. Liverpool, with imagination and initiative, could be a great fishing port. The new Development Board must also look at the over-capitalised Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, which has not yet shown any great initiative in modernisation. It almost breaks one's heart when one goes to Liverpool and sees the way our dockers are lumped together like cattle in overcrowded trains when they go to work.
The social conditions on our docks are such that they do not tend to get the best out of the men. The day when anything would do for the docker is gone, and this board must look into the conditions in which these men get their food and the way in which they have to pass their time on the dockside. The whole trouble is that in the past there has been too little trade union representation on these various boards. I do hope that when this board is set up the Minister will realise that trade unionists are the salt of the earth and that they have the greatest contribution to make to a successful British industry. I hope he will give them full and fair representation on all the committees which he starts. If the Minister will proceed on those lines, the scheme has a chance of working.
There is an urgent call from the people of Liverpool that this scheme should be a success; 23,000 of our people, despite the story of full employment, are as I have said almost wanting bread. Their souls are rotting with unemployment, and they are going down. Good craftsmen are being wasted. I appeal to the Minister to take the workers into his confidence, because they are the backbone of the country. If he does that, he will lay the foundations for making this scheme succeed, and will bring to the whole of Merseyside a new hope and a belief in a brighter and higher standard of life. As the children grow up, they will be glad to know of the day when the Labour Party was able to give them Socialist planning in order to get them out of the mess in which the tottering Tories had left them.
10.40 p.m.
Mr. Raikes: I am not in disagreement with the overall picture painted by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade about unemployment, past and present, on Merseyside. I should like, in the first
1358
instance, to pay a tribute, which I think ought to be paid, to the enlightened policy of the Liverpool Corporation, before ever this order came into operation, in developing as they have developed, the industries of Kirkby, Speke and Fazackerley. I am not going to be tempted by the hon. Member for Fairfield (Mr. Moody) into a political battle. All I would say is that, although planning may be a good thing at times, the success of this order will very largely depend on whether the new Development Area works on a wise and businesslike basis, or, on the other hand, whether it allows itself to drift into mere theoretical Socialist planning. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no Tory or citizen of Liverpool would come cap in hand to this or any other Government.
I should like to give one bouquet to the President of the Board of Trade. I am glad that the Development Area has not been made too wide. In fact the Merseyside Development Area is now being treated officially as a single economic unit for what is generally known as Merseyside. Had it been wider, it could have created much greater difficulty. As a hon. Member for Merseyside, the main point which I would like to emphasise is that I hope this Board will not limit its conception of unity purely to the question of manufactures. The President of the Board of Trade made reference to the port, and I think I am on non-controversial ground with other hon. Members for Merseyside if I say that the existence of Merseyside as a major centre is due entirely to the port. So far as industry is concerned, it will only continue and last if linked to the trading interests and facilities of the port. Therefore, the unity of interest between the port and industry is absolutely vital if this order to to prove a success.
The recent history of centralised planning has not always been hopeful, and if the new board is to be successful it has got to encourage the production of those goods which are likely to be in demand both at home and abroad. If we are merely guided by economic theories and recent statistics, we may fall into some grave difficulties indeed, because the sellers' market is rapidly becoming a buyers' market. Therefore, it is necessary, if this new Development Area is to work, that those goods should be encouraged and produced which are likely under the new conditions which will arise not only to be produced but also to be sold. In

1359
fact, one could say that sale is even a greater problem than production itself. Fortunately round the port of Liverpool there is a considerable number of local men of a very vast experience in the art of sale, both at home and abroad. I trust that the directors of this new board will take the advice of local business men who have such experience in order to ensure that we produce the goods that can most rapidly find a market when they are produced.
Theoretical planning—"planning" is a very popular word—may very easily go wrong. I will give one example so far as Merseyside is concerned. I submit that it has suffered very gravely from theoretical planning which has led to an economic trade flirtation on the other side of the Iron Curtain, whereas, had we had the full facilities in the course of the last year or two to exchange, say, British steel for Canadian timber at the port of Liverpool, a very great deal more could have been done to the advantage, not only of Merseyside, but of the nation as a whole.
I close as I began with what is really the main point of this scheme. It is the duty of the area to consider all the time how encouragement can be given to the production of those goods which will give the port not only prosperity, but will be sold for a long, continuous period of time. There we want the help of local men with local knowledge. In my view, it is upon this board taking the practical rather than the theoretical side in their planning that the success or failure of this order on Merseyside depends.
10.47 p.m.
Mr. Logan: I have listened with pleasure to the few remarks that have been made from the Opposition benches in regard to this order, and I am very pleased to find that there is common agreement in regard to it. Anybody who knows the Merseyside knows very well that during the war it was the salvation of this country. Without any doubt it is true to say that the sacrifice made there saved the nation. It was the port of the West; it furnished the seven seas with its best men. Many who came to the battle found that the necessary goods were always there. The dockside has not only been loyal and true to the nation; it has played its part.
I have looked upon the tragedy of the Merseyside for three-quarters of a cen-
1360
tury. I may not look all that old, but for three-quarters of a century I have lived in the midst of the poverty there, and when I look upon the wonderful business opportunities that one Government after another have missed in the great City of Liverpool, I believe that it would be enough to drive an American mad. Any sane American coming here and looking for a city in which to do great things would have found Liverpool, a port with two tides in 24 hours and one able to deal with shipping to and from all parts of the world. But until this order was brought forward, no businessman had been able to see the possibilities of that port on the western side.
Only 18 months ago, we had to go begging and pleading to the energetic City of Liverpool to see if we could get anybody to undertake that Liverpool should be made a Development Area. We could not arouse enough enthusiasm to make a fly move. The dynamic force there is absolutely dead. Apart from the shipping, there seems to be no initiative, and when the shipping on the Merseyside dies, we shall have a surfeit of unemployed, perhaps 100,000 or 120,000. It appears to me that in the past the idea was to have as many unemployed as possible on the market.
I visualise tonight not a Thomas More's "Utopia," but something that is going to vibrate and put force into the life of that city of ours. I can visualise the life of the city with 99 factories being brought into the area, as is reported, under this order. I can see a live body of men with foresight making Liverpool what it ought to be—and not only Liverpool but the rest of Merseyside. Unfortunately, it is a truism that Liverpool always prospered in war but in peace filled her workhouse. We had the biggest workhouse in the world, and filled it well. One out of every 20 men on the dockside died in the workhouse, and yet we made more millionaires in proportion to the poverty of the people in that city than any other City in the Kingdom barring London. In Liverpool today we do not see poverty. That is not on account of the initiative of the business men of Liverpool; it is because we had a war, paid out money and threw it away because we wanted the labour.
But there is a change coming, and I am glad to see that a Labour Minister

1361
has grasped the opportunity and brought forward a Measure which will make the streets of Liverpool free of unemployed and will give our people, the young and the old, the feeble and the aged, the opportunities they need. These factories can bring them employment. What is to stop them bringing in watch-making, clock-making and other industries the products of which we used to import from Germany and Austria? Then there was Switzerland with watches. We can make watches in Liverpool. We made them 100 years ago, and clocks were made round about Liverpool 200 years ago. All that is required is to give the men something to keep them alive.
The line of docks is not the only asset of the City of Liverpool. Going day by day to the docks reduces men to penury and poverty unless they were able to work inside. But for casual labour now, Liverpool is a closed book. No man out of employment now can go to the dockside and get work. I remember that 30, 40 or 50 years ago, any man out of work went to the docks and if the foreman liked him he was taken on. Like sheep they were driven. But all that has passed. There is a new life for the docker. He is a better trained man and lives a different life. He has something at stake. He has boys going to the secondary school and winning scholarships. Some of the dockers' boys are at the university in Liverpool today.
I want to see the dockside develop with all its great capacity—not only the shipping, but the men and women and children of that city. This Measure will give them initiative. If Liverpool is good enough to have a university and two cathedrals, and to have seen the disappearance of the workhouse, it is good enough to be given, under this Measure, an opportunity of security of tenure for employers of labour who will come along to make goods for the home and foreign markets. The sterling and the gold can all be produced by the workers of Liverpool. I pay my testimony to the wonderful foresight of the Minister and the wonderful stand which he has made. I feel proud not only because he is a Labour man, but also because in this generation in the House of Commons, when the change into the new era in Liverpool is coming about, a man representing a seat in that area has brought into this House a Measure which, in my
1362
humble opinion, will add to the lustre of this great city.
10.55 p.m.
Mr. Collick: I welcome the decision of the Government to schedule Merseyside as a Development Area and I want, in particular, to thank the President of the Board of Trade for the particularly keen interest and helpfulness which he has displayed in this matter. It seems to me that the case for scheduling Merseyside is overwhelming. As my hon. Friends who have spoken from this side have said already, there are, and have been for a very long time, roughly 25,000 to 30,000 unemployed men and women in this Merseyside area.
I am not proposing tonight to harrow the feelings of the House on what those figures still mean in terms of human wretchedness and in terms of human tragedy. We can gather something of what they mean by the memories that certainly everyone on this side has, and many hon. Members on the other side of the House have, of the terrible times which people in this country endured in the industrial districts in the terrible interwar years. Not only have there been 25,000 to 30,000 unemployed in Merseyside, but I think the second part of the case for scheduling Merseyside is clearly stated in the White Paper on the Distribution of Industry which referred to Merseyside and in which these words are used dealing with the present situation:
"In fact, male unemployment on Merseyside is still above the postwar peak for the Development Areas and the number of men out of work is still three times the employment for men expected from the whole of the post-war factory-building programme."
There is that significant comment that it is a most unfortunate contrast with the Development Areas.
I think the special problems of Merseyside certainly cannot yield to treatment unless the powers in this Distribution of Industry Act and the order which follows from it, and, it may be much else, are actually applied to the treatment of this problem. Let us never forget that as late as 1937, only just before the war, there were on Merseyside alone no fewer that 80,000 unemployed people. Let us recognise this immediately, because I think it needs to be said that, bad as the problem is today, the whole position is overwhelmingly better than it ever was in the inter-war years.

1363
I want tonight particularly to deal with the position of Birkenhead, which the Solicitor-General and myself have the honour to represent in this House. Birkenhead, as the President of the Board of Trade well knows—and I think I can say this in due modesty—has taken the lead in demanding the scheduling of this area. At first, when we were going along urging the Minister to schedule the area, we had not at the time the support of the municipal authority in Liverpool. It is true that the Birkenhead Council have been overwhelmingly keen to have the place scheduled. It is equally true, I am sure, that the people of Birkenhead, and I think many others on Merseyside, are delighted with the decision which the Government have made now to schedule it. But just as the order to schedule is terrifically important with a view to getting the whole area developed, there is a peculiar problem which needs to be dealt with, namely, the pockets of unemployment within the area itself.
The President of the Board of Trade talked about 30 per cent. of the insured population being unemployed on Merseyside before the war; but let hon. Members not forget the peculiar position of some of the areas within the wider Merseyside area that is to be scheduled. Two-thirds of the industrial works in Birkenhead itself are made up of shipbuilding and ship-repairing, and it goes without saying that when shipbuilding or ship-repairing are in a bad way, enormous numbers of the town's population are thrown out of work. At one period in the inter-war days, when we had not the advantage of a Labour Government, there were in Birkenhead as many as 40 per cent. of the whole of the insured population out of work and out of a job.
I need not describe the social tragedy which that means to a town. In Birkenhead the two main industries are, on the one hand, shipbuilding and ship-repairing, and, on the other hand, work at the docks. The anxiety of Birkenhead in connection with this order is particularly this. We have it on the authority of those who speak with the greatest knowledge that the shipbuilding industry, by the orders it already has, is assured of a reasonable degree of full employment, as it were, in these shipbuilding yards for approximately the next three years. But if there is a trade recession and, if
1364
in particular, there is a recession in shipbuilding—and those in the industry who know it best expect it in about that time—then what is to be the position of the workers in that town unless some alternative industry is found and unless factories are built which can offer them employment?
At the moment we are in the unfortunate position in Birkenhead itself of having next to no factories alternative to the shipyards and the docks. My hope—and I am sure the hope of everybody in authority in Birkenhead and everybody who knows Birkenhead—is that, now that the place is to be scheduled, the authority that is to be created under the order will get to work as speedily as they can and find ways and means of having factories built actually in Birkenhead or as near Birkenhead as possible. I stress this because it is quite obvious that if there are sites near to or within the area where unemployment is expected, the simpler and more economic it will be, and anyone who knows Merseyside knows quite well that it would be possible to build factories on the south side of the river which, in fact, would be easier of access to many of the workers working on the north side of the river. This problem of the location of industry in this area is a tremendously important one.
I made an interjection when the President of the Board of Trade was speaking to ask whether he could tell me the area of these factories to which he referred that had so far been built in Birkenhead. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will give us the advantage of the figures, but I am afraid they are small, because the simple fact remains that so far, despite all our pressure in trying to get something done over the past few years, we have been particularly unfortunate, and we rely upon the authority that will arise out of this order to get to work quickly and get on with its job. There is no time to lose.
No one can be complacent about this situation and though we have been thoroughly friendly with everyone over this matter so far, I want to utter a word of warning. According to the most authoritative information, the Trading Estate Company on the North-East Coast, since it has been operating, has been sucessful in finding work for no fewer than 30,000 men. I hope that when this new body exists it will have a record equal to

1365
the Trading Estate Company and will absorb these 30,000 unemployed in Merseyside.
Mr. Logan: There is plenty of scope.
Mr. Collick: There is unlimited scope. There may be difficulty, and I will face it quite frankly. The difficulty, it seems to me, is that the maximum power of the President of the Board of Trade under the Act and under this order is to do what is called steering the industry there. What does "steering the industry" there mean? Steering, as I understand it, is exercising a power in a negative fashion. We can, under the Town and Country Planning Act, prevent an industry from going into a particular area. We can now, by the whole process of building licences, prevent an industry from being started in any particular part; but there is no power, as far as I understand, to say definitely that a particular industry is to be established on Merseyside. The most we can do is to steer industry there; in other words, to act with the help of the maximum goodwill of industrialists, and try to get them here.
I am a little anxious about whether the power at the moment is in itself sufficient to do the job that needs to be done. We know how it arises. It was one of the legacies that came out of the Coalition Government, and we know the cause of it. It was the maximum agreement that could be got at that time, and there are difficulties consequent upon that, but we are willing to try this order. We are hoping it will do the job, and I am perfectly certain that everyone on Merseyside will co-operate to that end. But I tell the Government frankly that if in our experience we find, for this reason or that, that this order does not do the job successfully, hon. Members on these benches will not rest content until other ways and means are found of successfully overcoming this problem.
11.10 p.m.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: A number of controversial points have been raised in this Debate, and it is extremely tempting to try to follow them all. I think, however, that I can obtain agreement from all sides of the House in two matters. The first is that we all pay tribute to the work that has been done by the people of Merseyside during the past 10 years, and that we have a common bond in our loyalty to Merseyside. At all events some hon. Members opposite and myself
1366
are at one on that matter. We are also at one in our desire to eliminate unemployment from Merseyside so far as it is possible.
With regard to the more controversial matters that have been mentioned, I was not sure whether it was a sneer at my constituents or just a comment in passing, but the President did refer to the black-coated workers who came in from my constituency rather later in the day than other people. I have the honour to represent part of the county borough of Birkenhead, part of the county borough of Wallasey, the borough of Bebington, and the urban district of Ellesmere Port, and in those areas there is a large industrial population. I should have thought there were just as many black-coated workers who come in from Ormskirk rather late in the day as come in from the Wirral peninsula.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Edwards): I am sure my right hon. Friend was not sneering at the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents. He was just stating a fact—that there was a flow of traffic at various hours. I hope the hon. and learned Member does not impute to my right hon. Friend these rather unworthy motives.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: If the right hon. Gentleman was stating a fact, I have just pointed out that he was not wholly accurate, because I also represent a large number of industrial workers who travel early in the day. I was not making my remark in an unpleasant way, but the right hon. Gentleman did rather suggest a slight sneer, as I thought, against the black-coated worker.
The hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) talked about there being no initiative on the part of the business community of Merseyside, and suggested that was responsible for a degree of the unemployment. There has been nothing more conducive to taking initiative away from the people of Merseyside than the policy of this Government. Their whole philosophy has been that the merchant, the broker and the trader are parasites. There are now glimmerings of sense beginning to come forth. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is beginning to appreciate the enormous benefit to the country of their operations—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman can go into these questions on this Motion.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have said all I wanted to say on that point, Sir, but I should have thought it was germane to this matter of unemployment on Merseyside. There is a hard core of unemployment—some 25,000 people. Its existence is significant. This Government, in a period of full employment, with all the benefits of the American Loan and Marshall Aid, would get shortages in supply, and demands for all sorts of goods, have still not been able to deal with this hard core on Merseyside. That shows that it has not all been due to the wicked capitalists in the past, but that there has been a peculiar and difficult problem to deal with.
Little has been said of the part the Liverpool Corporation has sought to play in dealing with this matter. The President of the Board of Trade did say that considerable work had been done by the Corporation under the terms of the Liverpool Corporation Act, 1936, by which the Corporation has power to develop certain trading estates, erect factories, grant building leases, advance money on mortgage—powers similar to those to be taken by the board to be set up under this order. Under the provisions of that Private Act, very vigorous action has been taken. On the Kirkby estate, only taken over on 1st April, 1946, which was before an R.O.F. filling factory, there are now 71 manufacturing concerns in production, employing about 4,000 people. On the Fazackerley estate of 300 acres, 282 acres are already leased for factories, 13 of which are in production, with 10,600 people employed. Three factories are in course of erection, two are just completed and others are awaiting the necessary licences to be granted. With regard to the Speke estate of 310 acres, there 32 firms are in production and 14,000 people are employed. Let us be fair in this matter. There has been very great progress made on these three estates operated by Liverpool Corporation under the terms of their Act.
Nevertheless, I have always taken the view that at all events South Merseyside should be scheduled as a Development Area. As the hon. Member for West Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) and the right
1368
hon. and learned Member for East Birkenhead (Sir F. Soskice) will know, we have on South Merseyside supported this common objective irrespective of party. We have had many meetings about the matter. There has been a Conservative majority on the Birkenhead Council throughout, but all parties have cooperated. I take the view that this order so far as South Merseyside is concerned is at least two years too late, although I appreciate the difficulty of making an order to deal with South Merseyside alone.
I see that the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) is uneasy in his seat. I think the comment he was going to make was that Liverpool Corporation were opposed to the idea of a development order, and that made the difficulty. The reason Liverpool Corporation were opposed to the order was that they preferred to continue to be masters in their own house. Other authorities—Bootle and I think Wallasey—were in favour of a Development Area. Certainly on South Merseyside the matter has not been a political issue and we have taken the view that it ought to be a Development Area. The assurance which we received was that in Birkenhead, Wallasey and Bebington we should receive the same treatment as regards materials as a Development Area. The difficulty about that was that it did not include the financial arrangements possible under this order, and therefore that assurance could not be wholly satisfactory.
I agree with the hon. Member for West Birkenhead that the trouble about Birkenhead is that it has been a one-industry town. The hon. Member for Fairfield (Mr. Moody) talked about the lack of ship-repairing facilities on Merseyside. Our whole trouble on the south bank has been anxiety lest the facilities we have should not be fully employed. The hon. Member for West Birkenhead said that unemployment had at one time risen to the figure of 40 per cent., and as some of these controversial points have been made from the other side of the House, I would say that that was the position at the end of the last Labour Government's term of office. Let us have the facts on both sides of this controversy.
I was interested in what the hon. Member said about the possibility of a trade recession in the future, and that he en-

1369
visaged in two or three years the possibility of unemployment increasing in Birkenhead so far as the shipyards and docks are concerned. That would seem to indicate that, in spite of all the wonderful advantages of Socialist planning, it is still possible to have unemployment in certain circumstances.
Mr. Collick: I was then quoting on the authority of those at present in control of the shipyards, and who, it will be appreciated, are not of my political persuasion.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman does not accept that view, well, of course, the rest of his argument to some extent falls to the ground; I say that because he wanted extra factories to take up the unemployment. But we do not want Birkenhead to be a one-industry town; we want to have other forms of industry for Birkenhead, and Wallasey also. But I hope that the Minister will not, if he gets other industries, bring in to Merseyside that type of industry which will not be able to stand up to the sort of recession to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We want, not mushroom concerns, but industries capable of standing up to world conditions and maintaining themselves in changing world conditions. Mushroom concerns will merely accentuate our problems.
With regard to the position as between, for example, Ellesmere Port and Birkenhead and Wallasey, I would point out that Ellesmere Port is a place where very rapid industrial expansion is going on, particularly in the oil refining projects; but it is a place difficult to get at, and although the local authority is pushing forward with housing, there is a lack of accommodation and social amenities in that place. In Birkenhead and Wallasey there are quite highly developed social amenities, and better transport facilities.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not like to interrupt hon. Members, but I do not think they are entitled to go into all these details. The Act under which these orders are made gives certain powers, and I do not think that it is competent to talk of what action the board should take; incidental reference, yes, but not all the detail which the hon. and learned Gentleman is inclined to give.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I was referring, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to two major points
1370
of principle which I think should guide the board.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled to do that. The question before the House is whether certain areas should be included in the scope of this order. I have not interrupted hon. Members because having given latitude to the one side I always feel the other side is entitled to reply; but I do not think that one can go into details about certain portions of the area presumably within the larger area, although I am not very clear even about that.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: May I point out that there are included in the Order Birkenhead and Wallasey, and the municipal borough of Bebington, and I was urging upon the Minister that, when guiding industries to Birkenhead, Wallasey and Bebington, which, I presume, is the purpose of the order, he should have regard to the situation developing in the neighbouring district of Ellesmere Port.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It may be competent for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that, but not to go into great detail.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I will, then, conclude on this matter in about two sentences, and say that I do know of two instances of projects which have gone or are going to Ellesmere Port and which may accentuate the difficulties there; they could quite well have gone to Birkenhead or Wallasey. I am simply asking the Minister to say that these considerations will be borne in mind in order to deal with the situation where there is a hard core of unemployment, where there are better transport facilities and better amenities of one sort or another, rather than to permit the difficulties in Ellesmere Port to be magnified.
I wish, also, to ask the Minister—and I hope that in this I shall be in Order—whether the present trading estates will continue to function as they are at the present time? With regard to the constitution of the board, the President indicated that there would be a board and also a development council. Those people in the portion of the areas covered by this order which I represent have been rather troubled by certain rumours which have gone about that the nominees were

1371
to be purely political nominees and that support of this Government was to be a condition precedent to appointment to these bodies. I cannot believe that it is to be a condition, but as it has been publicly reported in a newspaper, I thought it would be as well if the Parliamentary Secretary could give a categorical denial.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think the constitution of the board can possibly come under the order. The question does not arise in the least here, but there may be other opportunities when it does.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I was simply saying that I should have thought industrial qualifications would be necessary. With regard to the development council, there the situation is different. [An HON. MEMBER: "What newspaper was it?"] It was reported in one of the local newspapers, the "Liverpool Echo," I think it was. It was in a statement of an interview with some representative of the Government.
Mr. Logan: There were about 10 mistakes in that report.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: All I am asking is that the Minister should contradict it and make clear it is not so. I should like to have some information about the development council. I hope all the constituent elements will be represented on it. The board, I take it, will be a functional body but the development council advisory. All these things are vital to us on Merseyside, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will give us further enlightenment. Subject to these qualifications, and to satisfactory answers on these points, I welcome this order.
11.28 p.m.
Mrs. Braddock: I wish, first, officially to give the best wishes of the organised trade union and Labour movements in Liverpool to this order. It has been a long time in coming. There have been rumours that this was going to be done: there have been rumours that it was not; but consistently during the past two years the organised Labour movement in the city has been pressing for a Development Area to be created, in spite of the fact that shortly after the Minister made his announcement there was a broadcast on the B.B.C. Northern News that the people of Liverpool did not want the order because
1372
it would make them undignified. I can assure the Minister that, so far as concerns those people who are in the organised trade union movement, they view with a great deal of satisfaction the fact that the Minister has at last decided, every other method having failed, to schedule Merseyside as a Development Area.
I should like to draw attention to one or two points in the speech made by the President of the Board of Trade. I welcome his suggestion that, because he feels that scheduling Merseyside will not completely meet the situation regarding unemployment and general development, the councils surrounding the Development Area as well as those in the Development Area should come together to discuss unemployment in all its phases. The Minister referred to this matter and suggested that this would be something he would welcome. It is something which I should welcome as well, because I believe, as he does, that there are other factors which have to be considered when dealing with this very hard core of unemployment in Liverpool. Every method has been tried up to now, the City Corporation, with its 1936 Act, which gave it and still gives it almost the same powers as this Development Area will give to Merseyside, has failed to break down that very bad section of unemployment.
For the past three years the figure of unemployment has remained practically the same. It has hovered between 20,000 and 30,000. Sometimes it has been a few more, sometimes a few less. The Corporation itself, in attempting to deal with the position, has had numerous conferences. If paper and reports could have cured unemployment in Liverpool, it should have been cured a dozen times over. I have here the latest report on the Liverpool area. In the considerations which led to this report, various Departments of the Government were represented. There was a lot of talk and many suggestions, every Department and every section passing on the problem to someone else, saying that it was not their own responsibility but that of another Department. Time after time this matter has been discussed, but nothing has been done.
The Minister referred to the fact that the development order will give power to

1373
the board to deal with the question of blitzed sites in relation to industry. That is a very sore point in Liverpool, because trying to deal with these sites has led to all sorts of suggestions. It has been suggested that the whole responsibility is on the War Damage Commission, that it has failed to meet the situation in relation to the payment for damage, and that the fact of the blitzed sites remaining untouched is the responsibility of the War Damage Commission. That has been looked into, but no information has been obtained. All sorts of figures have been suggested in regard to this question of the development of industry in the Liverpool area. Various figures of blitzed sites where there had been industries or houses have been suggested, some of them in the region of between 3,000 and 4,000 separate sites.
I am wondering whether the development council, when it is appointed, and with the powers which it will have, or which the board will have, will have the right to make inquiries about these sites where there may be development of industry, where demolition has taken place and where for three years damaged buildings have been left either tumbling down or boarded up, with nothing being done to them. The situation in Liverpool has reached a stage in which trying to deal with unemployment and to clear up the city, which at the moment is nothing but muddle, mess and muck—and there is more muck than anything else in the central area of Liverpool—and where there are 24,000 men unemployed—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not speak about council matters which do not come under this order.
Mrs. Braddock: The council are the people who have been objecting to the order being put into operation. Had it not been for the attitude of the City Council, this development order would have been suggested and put into operation long ago.
Mr. Speaker: We are not going into the past; we are dealing with the present at the moment.
Mrs. Braddock: I know, Mr. Speaker, that at this late hour it becomes irksome for statements to be made about the situation in Liverpool. I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I think that
1374
when this order is being suggested and is going to cover an area where there is a solid block of unemployment, I ought to ask the Minister what specialised powers are being given to him in this order to clear up the position and to deal with the situation which everyone in the central area of Liverpool knows is one that will require a tremendous amount of work and enthusiasm if it is to be cleared up.
I wanted to say many more things, but owing to the time all I will say, in conclusion, that I can assure the President that if he is able, with this order, to break the back of the unemployment problem in Liverpool, he will receive the support of the people in the city who have been waiting for this order to be put through. On the other hand, if he fails, I can assure him that he will receive the ridicule of those people who have persistently refused to agree to the making of the order and to putting it into operation. I wish the President's project well. He will get as much support as possible from the organised Labour movement in Liverpool and, with the powers he will be given, I am certain that we shall at last be able to see Liverpool solve her unemployment problem.
11.37 p.m.
Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: I hope to follow the hon. Lady in the objective approach which she has shown to this problem, and not to infuse any party element or controversial matter, because I know how near the basis of this problem is to the hearts of all my colleagues from Merseyside, whatever may be their political label. But perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to say, even if you have had rather a spate of Merseyside oratory tonight, that we all think of one who has a special interest in William Brown Street in the centre of Liverpool and who will look with kindness upon those who come from that area, even if they speak rather too much.
I think it is most important that we should have had a declaration from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that this problem for which he has suggested this solution, the problem of unemployment on Merseyside, is not easy or rapid of solution, and that he has formed the opinion that Merseyside is one of the most difficult areas to deal with in this regard. I think we must all have been struck by his attempt to

1375
break down the problem into its constituent parts and point out to us, on the one hand, the optimistic view that he took with regard to female labour, and, on the other hand, the special problem which he put to us of dealing with the unskilled labour, which he underlined so strongly in his speech.
As has been pointed out in this Debate already, the problem has undoubtedly been accentuated by the historic development of our City and port. When one remembers—and I think it is necessary, to get the problem in perspective, to remember—the vast and rapid increase of shipping on Merseyside, one can understand how that aspect of our commercial life was apt for a long time to overshadow everything else, because with that there came the great improvements in the distributive trades with which we are all familiar. But it has been seen for a long time now that we had to form a second line of defence. We had to industrialise the area, and now we are faced with the extension of that solution in trying to get variety and diversity of industries on Merseyside, which is our only hope of stable employment, and to break down these special difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman recognised the pioneer work that had been done, because I believe this solution will only be sound and satisfactory if it takes up the task where it has been left off by the local authority. I am not questioning, nor does anyone else wish to question, the right hon. Gentleman's view that this should now be dealt with as one area, but it is important to remember the progress that has been made in the northern part of the area in dealing with this special question of industrialisation. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) pointed out the three estates of Kirkby, Fazackerley, and Speke, which were developed under the Liverpool Corporation Act of 1936, and the 28,500 people who are already employed. I do not want to go over what he put before the House, but I want to emphasise the point that if more licences could be obtained we could get more factories going on these sites. This is a matter which I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will bear in mind and give the consideration it deserves.
1376
I also should like the Parliamentary Secretary to note, because I think it is essential for the solution and fits in with another point made by the hon. Lady for the Exchange Division (Mrs. Braddock), that it is not enough only to have the factories on the site. One has to look at the surrounding necessities which have had to be dealt with in these various sites. At Kirkby one has already the question of 12 miles of roads. One has already new roads being started in order to get frontages more suitable sited and one has, in addition, the problem of transport, not only from other parts of the city but internal transport in the site itself. All these matters are things that must equally receive the attention of the new authority as they have the attention of the corporation. Indeed, the new authority, the board, or the development council, must work hand in hand with the corporation in dealing with these matters.
I will mention another subject which I think is essential. So far, liaison has been well maintained by means of the committee of factory owners, and, again, that is a matter which must continue to advance with the rest of the development. If I might make one other point, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that at Speke, for example, apart from those other surrounding developments which I have mentioned, there is the fact that houses have been built, though not nearly as many as we all should like, on the adjoining housing estate, and I shall put the point to him which I put to the Minister of Labour when we were discussing manpower a short time ago, because it is most relevant to the question of the Development Area that a house which will provide someone with the means of working for an export trade is, I consider, part of the capital investment programme which directly helps our export trade. I do not want to say anything further, except that I think that is an important aspect of the matter which I am sure that those responsible for the new scheme will bear in mind. So much for the question of factory development.
I think it is most important that the Government and the board which will deal with the new area shall collaborate in the ideas of reclamation and increased amenities in the city which are already being put forward and I think generally accepted by all political parties in the

1377
city on the local authority. These are schemes—naturally I cannot go into them in detail—which, if they were dealt with from the aspect of our great needs in Liverpool, would be considerable steps forward on the path which the President of the Board of Trade outlined in his opening remarks.
May I say one word finally about the spirit of the people among whom this change is made? Hon. Gentlemen have criticised certain sections and one knows that in a political assembly such criticism is bound to take place. But I am sure that in their heart of hearts, while they realise as I do, the great difficulties of the past, they feel quite confident that the heart of Merseyside is absolutely sound, irrespective of the occupations which the people who carry this heart follow. It is sound in two ways. It is sound, first, in realising the problems and envisaging the human aspects of the problems which we all want to see assisted. But it is also sound in that it is ready to develop both the old methods and also to understand and develop new methods at the present day. I do not think that in 1949, any more than in 1849 or in 1749, is there any sleepiness or lack of awareness to the great problems which face our community, and while welcoming the course that the Government have taken, at the same time I welcome the opportunities that will be given to our own people on Merseyside to show that these old qualities can be adjusted to modern conditions and secure and maintain the prosperity of our great city and neighbourhood.
11.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Edwards): This order that we have been discussing now for some time has received quite general support and remarkably few detailed points have been put to me, although a number of interesting suggestions have been made. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) referred to the cost of the building of Government factories, and I would not dissent at all from the view that we must try to build these factories as economically as possible, but it is not easy, in distribution of industry policy in relation to the Development Area, to apply a quite simple economic test, and as long as we recognise that there is
1378
nothing more wasteful than unemployed resources, particularly unemployed men and women, we cannot possibly continue the waste indefinitely in the future.
I agree also about the need for a balance between men and women, although I thought the right hon. Gentleman's example was not a happy one. I would not accept the view that the need in South Wales was greater for women than men, as he suggested. Certainly—and I say this to my hon. Friends—we have to remember all the time that we are asking, in this order, for the powers under the Act for the purpose of dealing with a particular problem. The character and composition of the unemployed in Merseyside was explained by my right hon. Friend clearly, and that imposes pretty considerable limitations on what in fact it is desirable to do. That I would ask hon. Members to remember.
The hon. Member for West Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) asked me for certain specific figures. The ones I have for completed factories in this area show that there were some 28 with a total capacity of 400,000 square feet, of which five are in Birkenhead with a capacity of about 45,000 square feet. That, of course, is a relatively small amount, but since he asked for the figures, I thought he had better have them.
I want to correct the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) on one point of importance. He says the purpose of this order is to steer industry to Merseyside. That is not quite right. We have been trying to steer industry to Merseyside ever since the war. The purpose of this order is to give the Government powers, or to bring to the Government the powers under the Act of 1945, in respect of Merseyside, and to enable a lot of things to be done that we have not been able to do previously. It is really that we shall now have more capacity and more inducement to offer to industry to bring industry to Merseyside.
Then I want to clear up a misconception about the various boards to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Birkenhead referred. First of all, with regard to the local authorities in the area, all that my right hon. Friend said was that he thought there ought to be a big "get-together" of the authorities in the area and the adjacent authorities in order

1379
to form a body representative of the people in that area.
Mr. Collick: Who takes the initiative in that matter?
Mr. Edwards: I thought my right hon. Friend's speech tonight was an invitation to the local authorities on Merseyside to consider the matter among themselves, and I should think one or other of them could take the initiative.
The existing estates will be continued by their present authorities. It is proposed that the existing North-West Industrial Estates, Ltd., which at the present moment covers part of Lancashire, should extend its activities into some parts of the area to be added by the order, and if there is to be Government building in the added parts that that should be done under the auspices of the Industrial Estates Company, and thereafter the management of those particular factories would also be under it. As my right hon. Friend said, it is not intended that there should be direct Government building within Liverpool, because the Liverpool Corporation still have their powers, which are running concurrently with the distribution of industry powers we hope to take by this Order.
I was also asked a question about the people who are to serve on the new estate company. I do not know whether I shall be in Order in answering it, but perhaps I may be permitted to say that the persons to be appointed will be selected on account of their representative and personal capacities, and regardless of their political affiliations. But it should be understood that the fact that a person has supported the Government would not disqualify him from appointment.
Mr. Raikes: No one would suppose it.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Is this the Northwest Board, or a special and separate sub-board?
Mr. Edwards: No. The idea is that the existing estate company should have its constitution changed to take in the new Merseyside area, and that the people serving on it should also be changed to take account of the Merseyside interests. We shall appoint the people who seem the best people in all the circumstances. The hon. Member for the Exchange Division (Mrs. Braddock) and the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby
1380
(Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) were particularly interested in the problem of the derelict property and the blitzed areas. All I need say tonight is that we shall have power to deal with this when the order is effective. We had no power before. It may be a good idea—and I am sure my right hon. Friend will consider it—that my right hon. Friend might himself get together a conference of the interested local authorities, Government Departments, and other persons concerned, to consider this problem of the blitzed areas and derelict property. Certainly I should like to put it to him. I think I have dealt with all the points specifically put to me, and since the order is not a matter of controversy I need not detain the House further.
11.59 p.m.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I am sorry to intervene at this hour, but not one Member from Wales has had the opportunity of saying anything on this order, which includes an important part of South Wales. Only the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) has referred to South Wales, and his remarks were most unfortunate and showed a deplorable ignorance of conditions in South Wales. It is because of his remarks that I feel compelled to get up at this stage. He suggested that this order should be used primarily to provide employment for women in South Wales. We have received from this Government a great deal of employment for women in South Wales and we are exceedingly grateful to the Government for that, but we are terribly concerned about factory employment for men. It is essential for us to have varied employment for men in the basic industries in South Wales.
This order includes areas of Carmarthenshire. This area is part of the anthracite coalfield, in which silicosis is more rampant than perhaps in any other part of the country. The problem of dealing with men rendered unfit in the coalmining industry is exceedingly acute. In order to have prosperity in the South Wales valleys, it is essential to provide the men with employment. This order would be nothing but window-dressing if my right hon. Friend accepted the advice of the right hon. Member for Aldershot and, instead of providing the men with alternative employment, limited that employment to women only.

1381
The purpose of the order is to provide other means of employment for the men of South Wales who are dependent so exclusively upon mining, and to introduce a variety of industry which is not there at the present time. The right hon. Member for Aldershot rather let the Conservative cat out of the bag when he suggested that if alternative employment was provided for men, then there would no longer be the economic obligation to force them into the pits. It would be deplorable if this party were to adopt the policy of the Conservative Party and by economic means force men into particular employments. I hope the Government will completely repudiate any such suggestion. If the right hon. Member for Aldershot comes down to South Wales, he will know exactly what everybody in South Wales thinks of that kind of policy.
In South Wales we are very grateful to the President of the Board of Trade and to this Government for the amount of work they have brought into South Wales. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for West Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) that the steering powers under this Act can be very effectively used, provided the helmsman is strong enough to use them. I very much welcome this order. The part of South Wales included in the order is one of the most Welsh parts of Wales, where the miners speak Welsh to each other and conduct their meetings in Welsh. To conserve the social life of an area of this kind—and I trust that and not the object outlined by the right hon. Member for Aldershot is the object of this order—is to preserve the variety which contributes so substantially to the strength of the democratic life of this country. I am very glad indeed that my right. hon. Friend has included this area in the order.
12.4 a.m.
Mr. Kinley: I apologise for intervening at this late hour and promise to be brief, but Bootle is one of the places included in this order and on behalf of the people and council of Bootle I want to express our great pleasure that the Government have decided to take this step. I do not know whether the Liverpool representatives even yet appreciate the very great difference this order makes to Bootle, Birkenhead and other
1382
areas, as compared with Liverpool. Liverpool has had comparable powers since 1936 under a private Act. It has been alone in possessing these powers. Bootle has had its unemployment just as Liverpool has; but in Bootle we have had no powers such as Liverpool had, nor have we had their resources. So, we have remained helpless until the coming of this order.
It is true that the possession of these powers has not eased Liverpool's unemployment and there is, therefore, no proof that Bootle's unemployment will be dealt with by the coming of this new order. The great difference is that hitherto we have seen Liverpool exercising powers which we had not, and we have realised that we had no right of any kind to expect Liverpool to use those powers in such a way as to provide work for our unemployed. But now we certainly will have the right to look to the Government to do something for Bootle's unemployed under this new order.
I think it should be remembered that some hon. Members on this side of the House have been unfair in their attitude to Liverpool in relation to this order. It is quite true that Liverpool opposed the making of such an order and that other local authorities, including my own, were in favour; but during the discussions between the various local authorities on Merseyside and the Board of Trade, on at least two occasions the leader of the Liverpool City Council, Alderman Shennan, declared that, while his council did not desire this order, nevertheless if the Government decided to make Merseyside a Development Area, it would be accepted. I think it is only fair that that fact should be stated—and it is true because I heard the statement made. What remains now is for us to discover whether the powers which have failed in Liverpool so far, will succeed in the new area under the guidance of the Government, as against Liverpool City Council. That remains to be seen.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That the Distribution of Industry (Development Areas) Order, 1949, dated 4th March, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved."
12.8 a.m.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I beg to move:
"That the Distribution of Industry (Development Areas) (Scotland) Order, 1949, dated 4th March 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved."
Scotland has awaited for some considerable time the introduction of this order, and may have to wait some little time more for the full effects of what we hope to come from this order. It is introduced jointly by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and myself, and its purpose is to add to the Scottish areas in the first Schedule of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, an area in the Highlands bordering on the Firths of Cromarty and Beauly, and parts of Irvine and Linlithgow. The two parts in Irvine and Linlithgow are bringing the towns into the Development Area. The Highlands area is an entirely new Development Area, and the local authorities have, after consultation, all agreed upon the plan. Most of them would probably have liked something more to be done but they have at least agreed to what has been done.
The reasons for this order were announced in Command Paper 7540 issued in October and I need not outline them in detail. This order follows a review of the areas carried out under Section 7 of the Act and had to take place within three years of the passing of the original Act. The effect of this order is to provide that under the Act the Government will be empowered to provide facilities, first, in regard to industrial sites; secondly, in regard to the building of factories—and these can be built at Government expense for lease to firms—thirdly, financial assistance either by grant or loan towards new businesses; fourthly, assistance for the basic services such as roads, housing, water, etc.
I think I ought to make clear that the Government do not at the moment direct industry. Neither do they run private industry. The great sector of normal industry is run by private enterprise and the purpose of this order is not that the Government shall do certain things in the way of establishing new industries, but that they will have the power to provide facilities which we hope will attract new industries to develop in this area. These industries may come from two main sources—they may come from
1384
within the area itself or they may come from outside. So far as I can see the greatest hope is for industries to have some attachment to the fundamental nature of the country itself, industries which are perhaps based on timber or fishing or on agriculture, or perhaps domestic industries which might arise from deer-skins, wool, and products of that kind. I take the view that there ought to be a domestic carpet industry in the Highlands, and I am still hopeful that some such industry may develop there.
On the other hand, I am not unhopeful that some industries may come from elsewhere. There have been one or two prospects of that for some time, although they have taken a good time to get settled. We are not despairing of that even yet, and I hope one of these days one or two industries will become established in this area. In addition, the hydro-electric scheme going on in that part of the country will, by the end of this year, or perhaps later in the following year, be producing considerable quantities of power. Discussions are in progress as to the best way to use the power in the Highlands and the part that may be used for industries there, together with the possibility that some larger industries may seek to make use of electricity. Larger industries tend to produce a large amount of employment and a good deal of thought is being given to the problem of the best kind of industry in which this power can be used for the benefit of the Highlands.
Justification for making the Development Area—and here I propose to deal with its present size, and why it was not made larger or smaller—is on the ground that there may be danger—or there is danger—of considerable unemployment. The figures themselves may not suggest that, compared with Merseyside, the Highlands at the moment show a large percentage of unemployment in that sphere; but there are two important points to be borne in mind in considering unemployment in the Highlands. The first is that unemployment in this area was 18 per cent. before the war. Since the war it has gone down to about 6 per cent. Nevertheless, it is important to realise that the figures of unemployed in the Highlands were never registered in the Highlands, but were registered in the City of Glasgow. In other words,

1385
when people became unemployed in the Highlands they were driven southwards to the great cities and the central belt. Therefore, the mere percentages registered in the Highlands are no indication of the amount of distress caused in the Highlands themselves.
Secondly, there is a great deal of work in the Highlands which comes within the category of self-employment. A great deal of it is domestic industry and those engaged in it are not registered as employed persons. Therefore, these people do not appear in the Highland unemployment figures if they become unemployed. Many of these people in the past, and even in the present, suffer a good deal of distress without that being registered in the form of figures. Therefore, the question of unemployment in the Highlands is not simply one of looking at cold figures but of looking at other factors as well. The population of this area has come down by 25 per cent. in the last 80 years.
But that is not all. Taking those who migrated, the population is something like 40 per cent. down compared with what it would have been had this migration not taken place. Therefore, the depopulation of the Highlands is one of the serious reasons why something should be done to reverse the trend. The Government have decided to place the advantages of the Distribution of Industry Act, with its development orders, at the disposal of this part of the Highlands. At first the area was to be concentrated in the area which seemed most likely to be able to absorb the industries. Clearly it is not possible to take in an area without taking in complete parishes.
This proposed area extends from Glenmoriston in the South to Nairn, past Beulay Firths in the North, and goes into Cannoch towards the West, to Irvine. By doing so, it brings in an area where there is a great amount of potential unemployment. Unemployment does not exist to the extent to which it might in the Highlands because of the great hydro-electric schemes which are employing a large number of men; but carrying out these schemes occupies a large number of men, and when the building work is completed the hydro-electric schemes will employ very few men. Therefore, in a few years' time, there will be in the Highlands a large number of people set free from employment. It is necessary that we
1386
should foresee that, and make preparations to provide in the Highlands some means of retaining these people in the area.
One or two criticisms have been made of a Development Area being made in the Highlands. Some people have suggested that this will draw people from the glens and crofts into the towns which may spring up around Cromarty Firth, and thus be a further cause of depopulating the glens and the Highlands. I reject that suggestion. It is much more likely that they would be drawn from the Highlands permanently if they went into the great industrial belt from which they seldom return. If they can remain in constant touch with their parents and relatives in the crofts, they will, when the crofts become vacant, with the life of the Highlands in their veins, go back to the crofts and keep the Highlands peopled with a thriving population. Moreover, we are satisfied of this because word has come from people in Canada, New Zealand and other parts who see prosperity returning in some parts; they are writing to their relatives wondering whether they can come back to their homeland and develop some prosperity for themselves. They want to be able to live in the Highlands, but until there is security and a livelihood they cannot return.
The area, therefore, had to be limited on the practical ground that there was no point in taking in a larger area than could possibly be provided for industry. The portion that seemed most suitable was the portion round Cromarty Firth running to the Great Glen, including Inverness. That portion is being surveyed and a report will be issued shortly as a result of that economic survey. There are possibilities of industry there, and there seems to be no reason why industries should not develop, but I think it would be wrong for the people of the Highlands to wait until someone else comes in to develop industry. Highlanders have gone to other parts of the world and developed industries. They are not incapable of developing industry and if they see hope, much the best industry will be industry developed on the basis of Highland activity itself, plus whatever assistance is gathered from elsewhere.
Fortunately we have now a Board of Trade office in Inverness which is an encouragement and promise, and that office

1387
is prepared to do everything possible to assist those in that area to develop these industries. No one can pretend it is going to be easy. The people in that far-distant part of the country are handicapped by carriage and transport charges and their distance from markets, but I feel that a great deal is imported into these areas from long distances that could be produced in the districts themselves. I remember being in one part where milk was brought from Edinburgh and eggs from Cumberland. That seems pure nonsense in the Highlands. These things could be remedied by bringing agricultural production on to modern levels in the Highlands, and I am satisfied that the development of the dairy industry north of Inverness could play a great part in improving the position.
I think it will be agreed that this order will give the Government powers to help industries which are prepared to go there, and to provide factories, if we can get people prepared to use them. While generally speaking, the Distribution of Industry Order and restrictions on capital development would restrict such development, unless it were going to provide exports or save imports, in the case of the Highlands the Government would be prepared to look favourably on any undertaking which was prepared to go to this area and help revive the economic life of the Highlands and help us in our greatest problem, which is to provide an opportunity for people to live there with some sort of economic security and not to have to migrate to other parts of the land or other parts of the world.
I, therefore, move this order, not because I can promise it will bring results tomorrow, but because it brings an earnest of hope to the Highlands and will encourage them in the great activity which is taking place there. There is a revival of spirit, a feeling that something can be done and that that part of the country is not going further back, but is now taking a turn to march forward. I am informed that already the population is tending to increase and that prosperity is tending to increase, and I am sure the indefatigable spirit of the people will enable them to march on to better days.
12.26 a.m.
Mr. MacLeod: I am very pleased to be able to add my
1388
support to this order this evening and I welcome the inclusion of the parishes in the County of Ross and Cromarty which have now been added to the Scottish Development Area. The Secretary of State for Scotland well knows that on several occasions I have stated that it was useless to talk of development of industry in the Highlands without providing some other facilities to the persons of enterprise who are willing to set up their businesses within the Highlands area and unless basic services were provided to allow fair competition with other regions.
In regard to paragraph 2 of the order, I have always argued that the point of special danger of unemployment was far too narrow to be applicable to the Highland areas. After all, as the Secretary of State has just said, it has always been the unfortunate fact that owing to maldistribution of industry in Scotland, our population has been concentrated in those narrow industrial parts, and this has been a great factor in the depopulation of the Highlands. Under the 1945 Act, a large part of the industrial regions of Scotland was scheduled as a Development Area because there was a likelihood, as stated in Section 7 (2), of this special danger of unemployment; but surely one of the methods to alleviate this unhappy state of affairs should have been to try to attract the labour from the congested industrial parts to the North and I hope that this order will go a long way towards achieving this object.
In my own constituency of Ross and Cromarty, through their energetic planning consultants, they are well ahead with their county planning and have published a booklet, "Highlands County Plans." The scheduling of the Inverness-Ross Development Area means, amongst other things, that Scottish industrial estates can do important things in that area. They can build factories to rent and they can set up industrial estates. I hope that the building of factories to rent will encourage local initiative. No longer need the man in the Highlands with big ideas and little capital fear to try out his own ideas on a commercial scale.
The setting-up of industrial estates, each composed of a group of factories to rent, is perhaps of special importance to the Highlands. The Secretary of State

1389
has mentioned hydro-electric development. It is of special importance for this reason. The Highlands are very disappointed in that the price of the hydroelectric power which is produced is much higher than anything visualised by the Cooper Report. So it becomes imperative to find ways of reducing the charge. I have been informed that this would be possible if industrial estates were set up. The estates could buy power in bulk at special low rates and be able to re-sell it to the tenants of factories on the estates at prices below the standard tariff. Therefore, it is important that there should be no loss of time in setting up these industrial estates.
But where are the estates to be? Although, as the Secretary of State remarked, the local authorities approve of this order, I know that the Ross planning authority feels that the whole business of planning and development is being kept too much in Government hands. The Government have been too secretive about it. After all, the Government undertook the survey of the Great Glen, and I believe much of that material in the report which I was under the impression was already completed, has been in the hands of the various Government Departments for some time, but presumably it is upon the recommendations of this report that the new development order is based, and I hope that all information will be given to the local planning authorities.
Our own local planning authority in Ross-shire have been working on this matter for years and I hope they will be taken fully into the Government's confidence. They are asking, for instance, what the Government's intentions are about Invergordon. For long they have pointed out its unique position, with good sites for industry, close to water and electricity supplies, where a deep-water port could be constructed and maintained at low cost. In fact the late Secretary of State for Scotland said there was to be a new town there. I should like to know whether the Development Areas are to be developed along the lines of the plans of the local planning authorities or whether these local planning authorities are to be only a name.
Of course, we have the other side. The opponents of this order have asked, "Why set up this new area in the High-
1390
lands? It will encourage further depopulation of our glens." I agree with the Secretary of State that it is surely better to stop the drift on our own doorstep before it goes, as it has gone in the past, beyond our control. I certainly agree that it would be a mistake to develop the Inverness-Ross area to the detriment of the other areas in the Highlands. I hope the Minister will assure us that this will not be the case.
But the cry in the North has always been the distance from the markets and the exorbitant freight charges which the nationalising of the railways has not improved. I hope, however, that this order will help to improve this position by making these commodities within the areas and creating new markets on our doorstep. I can visualise the Black Isle being a garden in this new industrial area; the West Coast producing fish which will be processed; our Highland glens, with their wonderful summer grazing, producing sheep and cattle which may be put into deep freezing plants in the area; market gardens producing fruit and vegetables which will find a ready sale in this new area. I would like to visualise light industries being set up in new rural communities which will cooperate with the larger industries in the Invergordon area. Nobody wants to see the Highlands made into a Black Country, and I do not think this order will do anything of that kind, although it has been criticised by many people who fear that will be the case. I am hoping that the Highlands will now have a chance to play their part, and I think that, taking the long view of the benefits that will accrue, it will be shown that the Highlands have no mean part to play.
12.36 a.m.
Mr. Mathers: It was natural and justifiable that the Secretary of State, in introducing this Order, should devote the greater part of his time to discussing the main part of the order, the institution of a new Development Area in the Highlands. I am not going to encroach on the territory of others, because not only are we here very late, but we were here early in what is now yesterday morning, when we started meeting in the Scottish Grand Committee at 10.30 a.m. Now here we are in the "wee sma' 'oors ayont the twal." You will, therefore, have no need to urge me

1391
to be brief, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in the references I make to this order, which does to some extent affect my constituency.
I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State did not attempt to justify the change made in the Development Area in my constituency on the grounds set out in the Act of Parliament, that there is likely to be a special danger of unemployment in the area, and that in those circumstances the board may by order direct that the area shall be added to that scheduled. Rather do I think that the area has been changed to remove an unjustifiable blot, which must represent some result from the efforts I made in 1945, and earlier, to show the absurdity of the rigid line drawn through the centre of the county I represent, and even through the area comprising the Royal and Ancient Burgh which is the county town. That is what is being done in this order: to correct that obvious blunder in delimiting the area in the first instance.
I pointed this out, not only this item that has been corrected, but the fact that there was justification for the inclusion of the whole of the northern part of the county of West Lothian in the Development Area. When I pointed that out at the Board of Trade I was told that the area as drawn could not be defended. The history of this matter is well known. When there was an amending Act in 1945, the Election was coming along and it had to be hurried through, while the handling of the problem was left to a later time. I am sorry that the change was not made earlier. I believe that industry has been lost to West Lothian because of faulty delimitation of the Development Area in the first instance. I am glad of the partial adjustment that has now been made.
The Secretary of State referred to the fact that the registration of unemployed in the Highlands was no criterion of the unemployment which actually existed. I can say the same with regard to the registration of unemployed in my own county, which is partly a Development Area, because by far the greater number of workers in that area find work outside the Development Area—indeed, in the City of Edinburgh. Unemployment registered in West Lothian does not represent the actual unemployment in West Lothian itself, but reflects any
1392
unemployment in Edinburgh, which provides work especially for those outside the heavy industries of coal, shale and steel. I follow that point by saying that the small amount of unemployment at the present time in the northern part of the county, which should also be included within the Development Area, is no justification for denying to that part of the county the benefits and possibilities of help under the Distribution of Industry Act.
I promised to be brief, and I shall try to concentrate my remarks into one or two questions which will enable the Secretary of State to justify the new limitation of the Development Area that is included in this order and provide him also with an opportunity of meeting any criticism that may be made by those who think that the line has not been drawn with sufficient generosity to meet the need that might possibly arise, though I am glad to say at the moment the necessity does not exist. There does seem to be the possibility of considerable changes in employment in the northern part of the county which will require the extension of the provisions of the Act to that part of the county as well. Why is the amendment of the area so limited? Does this limitation mean that there is no need to fear considerable unemployment in the northern part of West Lothian still outside the scheduled area?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Member is not entitled to suggest that other parts of Scotland should be included in this area. That would have no relevance to this order, which includes certain areas.
Mr. Mathers: I have taken care not to suggest that it should be included in this area.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman was inquiring whether or not there were limitations and, if so, why were there limitations. That would clearly be a question relating to other parts of Scotland not in this order.
Mr. Mathers: The question was posed by the Secretary of State himself with regard to the Highlands area; why was it not larger or smaller, and I thought that he seemed to make it possible for me to put my point as I am putting it. But I would ask this question which, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think you will allow.

1393
If he has confidence in that the area does not need to be extended beyond what is in the order, and if that confidence proves to have been misplaced, how quickly can steps be taken to remedy the position? In the light of circumstances now prevailing, and in the light of the fact that it is contended that this extension should have been greater, I do hope that the Secretary of State will give satisfaction to public opinion on the point of why the northern part of the county is not included.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Member, but it is no argument for or against this particular order either to urge the value of, or ask questions about, some other order.
Mr. Mathers: What I am endeavouring to do is to ask the Secretary of State to say why this area is extended and if I ask why it is extended only to the extent by which it is extended I think I may ask why it is limited only to that particular extent.
12.47 a.m.
Sir David Robertson: Although the hour is late, I find the Debate is very pleasant and we seem to be a very united band of Scotsmen applauding the efforts of the Secretary of State to improve conditions in Scotland. The Minister is to be congratulated on bringing a Development Area into the Highlands, and I find myself almost in complete agreement with his speech; but I think that he under-estimated the amount of migration from Scotland. My information is that the Highlands population diminished by more than half during the last century, while the population of Britain as a whole more than doubled. The Highlands area, I think, is the most permanently depressed of all our areas in Great Britain.
Mr. Woodburn: The information which I have is that 30 years ago it was 400,000 and is now 300,000; and that gave me the 40 per cent. On that basis, if the number who migrated had remained, the total today would have been 500,000.
Sir D. Robertson: I should like to compare notes with the right hon. Gentleman; but, one thing we know is that the flow of our very splendid race has been far too great and this timely Measure will do great good.
1394
The second point is that he said that the Highlanders must be prepared to do something for themselves, irrespective of anything which the Government may do. I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will applaud that sentiment, but by concentrating Development Areas in this small part of the large Highlands area, which comprises more than half of the total area of Scotland, he is making it very difficult for other Highlanders to compete with these subsidised factories he is going to produce; the sites he is going to procure without any trouble to the industrialists who are coming in; the buildings he is going to build for them; and the favourable grants, loans and rents he is going to give. These will make it desperately hard for any Highlander in the larger area outwith the Development Area to compete. I feel sure he must have the point in mind. It is the kernel of the problem we are discussing tonight.
It was my hope, before I learned of the Ruling by Mr. Speaker, to deal, in addition to the 36 Highland parishes, with other places where conditions are infinitely worse than in these parishes and where migration is heavier. I have been in the House for 10 years and have not heard the counties of Caithness and Sutherland referred to during that time. I find it hard to stand here unable to say anything about them. It is where I come from and if my remarks cannot he directed to them, I hope hon. Members on all sides will realise that I have these counties very much in mind, but as a very obedient Member of this House, one who is most appreciative of the rules of debate, I shall strictly confine myself to the Ruling that has been given.
The Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. McLeod) referred to the many things which could be done. I entirely agree with him and I am convinced that the once great herring fishing industry could be revived, and that view is confirmed by the Herring Board itself. Quick freezing plants, low temperature cold storage, modern kippering and buckling factories would play an important part in this revival. Many more cattle and sheep could be maintained in the area. I was in Dingwall, one of the 36 parishes, when the farmers were holding an important northern pastoral club meeting. There were farmers from all over the northern area. They wanted to speak to

1395
me about the 2,800,000 idle acres of deer forest. They told me that a large stock of cattle and sheep could be carried there, and they produced account books to prove this had been done a century ago. There were Highland cattle, which are only now seen in oil paintings, though in the past they existed in large numbers. These men are skilled and expert.
They are most anxious to stock the deer forest in the national interest and they can breed stock to the 1,500 ft. level, the highest to which they can be carried in this country. All they ask the Government to do is to build shelter belts and give them security of tenure which is no more than any agriculturists could ask. They also ask that the Government should bear part of the insurance against winter storms. Hon. Members will recollect the great loss that was sustained some years ago in these 36 parishes, as was also sustained in other parts of the country, and these farmers suggest that they should bear 2s. 6d. per cent. and the Government should bear the same amount of the premium. This is a matter which I hope will be granted. Large areas of secondary hill land can be brought to cultivation by the use of prairie busters, mechanical drainage appliances, and by seeding with the right grasses and clovers on lines advocated by Sir George Stapledon.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is really not entitled to go into the detailed matters. The simple proposal of the order is that certain areas shall be included in the schedule. There is nothing in the order which entitles hon. Members to go into great detail or into matters which may or may not hereafter be decided by the Board.
Sir D. Robertson: I should be the last person to challenge any Ruling of yours, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but this order is designed to bring prosperity to the Highlands. Before you took the Chair, the Secretary of State for Scotland instanced in his speech some of the things which could be done and which he hoped would be done, but he made it clear that it would be a formidable task. No one realises that more than I do, and I am only attempting to do what I am sure the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to do, and as his colleagues on the Front Bench
1396
would doubtless wish me to do, namely, to deal with matters within my experience which will contribute towards making the scheme successful.
This is a very interesting point which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have raised, because in his speech the right hon. Gentleman talked about this Development Area being dependent for its success upon the introduction of business and commercial undertakings which were complementary to the ancient and primary industries of agriculture, fishing and forestry. I am dealing with the most important ones first, and if I may, I shall come to the newer and lighter industries second. I should like to make the point clear that the labour which will come into these factories must come from the children of farmers, fishermen and foresters, who do not wish to follow the occupations of their fathers even if there is room for them. That has happened all over this country, in the Dominions, in fact throughout the world. Every farmer's boy does not want to be a farmer. Every farmer's girl does not want to be a dairymaid.
The area has been kept agrarian, or a sporting paradise, or both. I should like to meet the selfish people referred to by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty who refuse to permit any industry to come into this area, even for the purpose of ensuring that people born into that beautiful land will not be compelled to leave it for economic reasons. I feel deeply about this because, as I have said, I come from this part. My father was one of the exiles; so am I. Thousands and thousands have been scattered all over the face of the earth. There are far more Highlanders in Canada than there are in Scotland. There are far more Highlanders in North and South America than there are in Scotland. That is why I am taking part in this Debate tonight, although I have the honour to represent Streatham. Smallholders and crofters can make a great contribution to our timber resources, but industry is required if full employment is to be achieved.
Reference has been made to the Hydro-Electric Board, which is already increasing its generating and distributing facilities. It is interesting to me, because I was one of two hon. Members in a previous Parliament chosen by the Grampian Electric Company to plead their cause in this House. Although we

1397
lost the day, it was a glorious defeat. We were striving then to bring hydroelectric power to the Highlands. We should have preferred it to be through the medium of that company.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is getting very far from the order. I hope he will confine himself to the order which is before the House.
Sir D. Robertson: I shall; and I apologise for my lapse from grace. I welcomed the Hydro-Electric Board and I believe the schemes for harnessing the waters of the Highlands is a contribution towards the solution of the problems of the Highlands.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have already indicated that the hon. Member is not entitled to indulge in a catalogue of projects which may or may not be appropriate to a Development Area. As I understand him, he indicated that the Secretary of State had given a general indication as to the desirability of introducing industries supplementary to agrarian occupation. That was no doubt in Order, but it is not in Order to go further into details of complementary industries. A general statement is one thing and a detailed catalogue is another.
Sir D. Robertson: I certainly shall obey your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but with very great reluctance. There is much more I should like to say, but I shall only point out in conclusion that there is an abundance of work waiting to be done. This order is a step in the right direction and the Distribution of Industry Act created and passed by the Coalition Government is putting the means and the requisite legal power in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure it will be used in future. If that is done, I am convinced that the country will reap a rich benefit in maintaining a splendid race of people in the land of their birth, and that the compulsory emigration to which I have referred will come to an end.
1.2 a.m.
Mr. William Ross: I am sure the welcome given to this order by everyone who has spoken so far must considerably gratify the Secretary of State, for he has had from this side and from the other side of the House an unsolicited testimonial to the success that has attended the major Act and the
1398
efforts of himself and the Board of Trade in bringing a proper balance of industry to parts of Scotland which have been long, long neglected.
Commander Galbraith: I think the hon. Member said "The success that has attended." Surely it is the success for which we hope.
Mr. Ross: We have hoped for many things in Scotland and have hoped in vain. When the right hon. Gentleman's party was in power, the hopes of the people were hopes deferred and made hearts sick. The heart of Scotland was sick for a very long time. But let us leave that.
I am interested in this order in connection with the benefits which I hope it will confer on the County of Ayr. In paragraph 1 of the order,
"that part of the Royal Burgh of Irvine within the parish of Dundonald and within the County of Ayr"
is brought within the Development Area. I represent all that portion of the parish of Dundonald, except the part which comes within the Royal Burgh of Irvine. Many of my constituents live in villages and scattered areas and get their livelihood from lie town of Irvine. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore), who I regret is not here, will not mind my making this intervention regarding this development of Irvine.
It was regrettable that Irvine under the Act was split in two. One part of the town was taken within the Development Area and the portions south and west, nearer Ayr, were completely left out. In rectifying this absurd anomaly the Secretary of State need fear no objections from Ayrshire or Irvine. Irvine is suffering today from the danger of unemployment and that gives considerable justification for what is being done. Only three weeks ago I had a letter from the town council of Irvine who, for some reason or other, decided to write to me. It is a matter of concern that the prosperity of Irvine during the last war was dependent almost entirely on war production—the I.C.I., Ardeer and Stevenson, and the Royal Ordnance factory.
The Royal Ordnance factory since the end of the war has gradually been whittling away staff until now there are

1399
barely 600 people employed there. By this autumn, another three hundred will be declared redundant and will become unemployed. This factory is to be retained as war potential, but it is no good retaining a factory unless you have available the labour supply, and the labour supply will go unless new industries are brought into Irvine. This is why this order is a timely intervention. The part of Irvine, where the Royal Ordnance factory is situated, is outwith the Development Area and the part of Irvine, where there is scope for industrial development, has hitherto been left out and is now included in the Development Area.
This is the second time that Irvine has been left in this way. It was the same thing after the last war and anyone who has travelled into Irvine from Ayr can remember the crumbling ruins of wartime factories left after the 1914–18 War and the state that Irvine fell into thereafter. I do not need to remind the people who know that part of the country how the town and the townspeople suffered. I welcome the fact that changes are being made this time and that the people will be able to have the hope of new industries being brought into that town. I have always been very angry that Irvine is by no means the loveliest town in Ayrshire. It could have been. It is a town with a beautiful river flowing through it, where a fine harbour exists, but it has been so planned that it shuts out the north-eastern portion altogether from the public. It has been so developed that the whole foreshore has been ruined. The building and the industrial development which could have taken place in Irvine somehow or other has been by-passed.
Irvine has been built with a fine road and fine rail transport. It could have been the industrial capital of Ayrshire. I welcome the opportunity the Government have created for new industries to flow in there, and I can assure anyone who is looking for a site for an industry that they could not find a better place or a finer reservoir of fine labour than in the Royal and Ancient Burgh of Irvine. I applaud the sentiments of the hon. Gentleman who spoke about the Highlands. It was a fine and typically Highland vision and one which I hope this time is going to be realised. I also hope to see the same measure of
1400
prosperity given to the hitherto excluded portion of Ayrshire.
1.10 a.m.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I hope that in sounding a warning note it will not be thought I am in any way opposing or decrying this order and what it proposes to do. What I want to be sure about—and I am only going to deal with the Highland areas concerned, although in a similar way it refers to the other two as well—is the use of agricultural land. The ever-receding area of agricultural land in this island is a matter which ought to engage the serious attention of every Member of this House. Every year it gets less and less, and here we are dealing with areas north and south of the Firth containing some of the best farming land in Scotland, and certainly some of the best farmers. I do hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will give his undivided attention to this point. I hope from what he has said that that is the case, namely that the industry it is proposed to instal and encourage in these Highland areas will be suitable for the main industries which are already there, of which farming is the greatest.
Forestry, fishing and agriculture provide the salvation of the Highlands and everything else will be ancillary. It should never be' allowed that industries of a different type should eat further into the invaluable farming land of Scotland. We have had an appalling example of irreparable devastation right over the country by opencast coalmining, which means that land will never be fit in our lifetime for agriculture on any high scale at all.
Mr. Woodburn: Nonsense.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I say it again.
Mr. Ross: It is still nonsense.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Although the hon. Member for Kilmarnock says it is still nonsense, Nature thinks otherwise and is proving it otherwise, but I think that if, like my brother clansman, the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson) I continue on this line, I shall be in trouble with the Chair.
I want to emphasise this point once again. These areas are covered with fertile and magnificent farms producing

1401
what is needed more than anything else—milk and food for the people—and it would be a pity if in introducing other industries, a square yard of good agricultural land should be taken where a less valuable one can be found. So often we find that the ground is not chosen because it will do the least damage to agriculture but chosen because it is the most convenient place to build. That should not be the primary interest and when people propose to introduce industry into these areas, agricultural land first and foremost should be safeguarded, and other industries welcomed on less valuable land.
The industries to be introduced into this part of the world, as hon. Members have said, should come primarily from Highlanders themselves and by their efforts. While we welcome industries coming in we should never get into that state of mind, as in the past, of saying, "Someone else will come in and help, so we need not bother." I hope the encouragement from the Secretary of State for Scotland shall always be such that local people will as far as possible put themselves on their feet in setting up industries. When this order goes through, as we all hope, I want to say once again, "Do not let us waste one square yard of precious agriculture land in Scotland" because it will be too late eventually, and we shall find we have not got the food to eat, and all the industries in the world will not help if we get to that stage. I am sure the Secretary of State will agree to that.
1.15 a.m.
Mr. McAllister: I agree entirely with the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Secretary of State, that the industries which are introduced to the Highlands should be allied to the indigenous industries. This order is the fulfilment in some degree of the recommendations of the Scottish Committee. Through the Development of Industry Act the Government have largely fulfilled the recommendations of the Barlow Committee, and in the Town and Country Planning Act those of the Uthwatt Committee. But this is one of the most material signs we have had that the policy of bringing industry to rural life is to be implemented. We are glad that the first area chosen for implementing the recommendations of that report should be the Highlands of Scotland.
1402
It is a remarkable thing that, while Scotsmen had to complain before the war of the southward trend of industry and population, since the war we have been able to arrest that drift and start the tide flowing in the opposite direction. We are glad of that. There is a precisely similar problem in the south around London in the pull of population from the rural and more sparsely populated areas to the great centre of population. This order will, I hope, help materially to return population to the Highlands. We want to see the Highlands with more population and more thriving villages, and a more generally thriving countryside, and this order will help that enormously.
I was interested in what the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. McLeod) said, because he related this order to town planning. Town planning comes very much into this question, and if I have any criticism of the administration of the Development Areas it is that, while magnificent Work has been done, too often there has been failure to have regard to the proper co-ordination of housing and industry. I hope when this order is applied to the Highlands we shall see that co-ordination. New factories involve town building. I was interested when the Secretary of State used the words "new towns which may spring up round the Cromarty Firth." I am glad he is thinking in terms of new towns. I hope he will also think in terms of new villages. Small communities of 2,000 or less are as important as new towns. But they must have an integrated life, and I believe that such an integrated social and industrial life will keep the population in the Highlands, and even in the glens. People do not mind travelling a small distance to work, and we have found in other new town development, that not only was there a creation of new employment, but also a great help to the agricultural hinterland of the new town, which was a benefit to the whole countryside.
When the hon. Member for Streatham was speaking I could not help thinking that his heart was in the Highlands and not in Streatham. His speech, with a great deal of which I agreed, was addressed primarily to the electorate of Caithness.
Sir D. Robertson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he is entirely wrong. My interest in Caithness and Sutherland has been forced upon me, as the Secretary of State is well aware. I intended to retire from this honourable House at the next General Election, but—and I say this in all modesty, though I am compelled to say it in reply to the hon. Member—I believe I may be of some service to the people. If they choose otherwise, I shall be quite happy.
Mr. McAllister: I realised that the hon. Gentleman was speaking as a Highlander and as a Highlander whose ancestors had suffered exile from their native heath, which has been the lot of so many Highlanders through so many generations. I think it is a tribute to Scotland that at this hour, so many Scottish members can be found in this House passionately anxious to forward the development and progress of the Highlands.
1.22 a.m.
Mr. Rankin: My interest in this order largely arises from the fact that in my Division there is a considerable Highland population. They are there for the reason given by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister); they were driven from the Highlands through lack of work and through loss of their land and they and their forbears have come to live in the city of Glasgow. They have been good and useful citizens and Glasgow's gain has been the Highlands' loss. Therefore I am glad that my right hon. Friend in this order proposes to try to stop that drift to the south, to stabilise the population in the Highlands and ultimately, as we all hope, to increase it. He proposes to do so by the creation of factories and the provision of facilities for employment. Why stop at the building of factories? If we are in earnest in seeing that the Highlands are rehabilitated, why should we not take control of these factories, and not merely provide facilities and wait until some private enterpriser comes along to promote an industry within the walls of these factories? Why should we not ourselves become the timber manufacturers and fish processers?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The suggestion the hon. Gentleman is making is not within this order.
Mr. Rankin: I am sorry, but I was interested to observe the lesson the members of the Scottish Grand Committee received earlier in the Debate from the Chairman of that Committee, when he tried to show the House how one chairman could get round another. I am afraid I have learned my lesson somewhat badly. I shall need to try it out on my teacher first before I go any further. The only point I was trying to make was that in this order we are taking a partial step in the creation of industry and not the complete step we should take. Having made that point, I want to ask my right hon. Friend this question. We all know that a Highland advisory panel has been appointed to go into problems of this nature, and I should like to know how far this order fits in with the deliberations and decisions which may have been made by the panel.
The third point I want to refer to is one deriving from the subject which I raised on an Adjournment Debate in this House a little over two years ago. It recurred to me tonight. In that Debate I looked forward to the day when we should be required to do some of the things laid down in this order; as a consequence of doing these things, we shall be in need of technicians, teachers, doctors, and people who are skilled in the higher branches of commerce and engineering. As a direct result of these requirements which will be created by this order, my right hon. Friend has reinforced the appeal I made over two years ago for the creation of a fifth university in Inverness. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) referred to the fact that we have our visions for the Highlands. It may be that this order brings one of my visions a little nearer to reality.
1.25 a.m.
Commander Galbraith: It seems to me that the order before us rectifies, in regard to Linlithgow and Irvine, mistakes probably made at an earlier date, and that the really important part of the order concerns those parts of the Highlands now included in the Development Areas. It also seems to me that an order of this nature, when it concerns such a large new area as that with which we are concerned, may introduce conflicting sentiments or a feeling of despondency because the area which

1405
has been scheduled thinks of unemployment as being likely to arise there. I think that the Minister has dispelled any need for us to harbour any despondency. He looks on this problem much more as a question of developing the area than as a future area of unemployment.
The other sentiment of high hope is the one which must be uppermost in our minds in considering this order, but I do hope that we shall be warned not to have too many visions. If we want to destroy altogether the benefit of this order it will be by thinking in the clouds and not with our feet on the ground. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman warned us very clearly on that matter. When I interrupted the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) it was merely because I thought he had suggested, I hope wrongly, that something had already occurred whereas we are living in hope that something may come.
Mr. Ross: I thought I had made it clear when I spoke that I was referring in my welcome to the success and justification of the Act.
Commander Galbraith: I understand and agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Secretary of State recited to us, as has been mentioned by other hon. Members, the various facilities which will be put at the disposal of the area. He omitted one which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson), that of derelict land which could be brought into use under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945. That, perhaps, might be one of the most important of the things which could be done under this order in some of the districts mentioned in the order, and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has that matter in his mind.
A great deal of emphasis has been laid on the fact that the people of the Highlands should try to do something on their own account. No doubt they will take the opportunity to use the facilities which are being offered to them and we only hope they will make good use of them. I differ from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan). I should welcome anyone from outside who cared to come into the Highlands. The Highlands have given fully of their best to other parts of the country, and, indeed, to other parts of the world.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: May I interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend a moment to correct a wrong impression? I am not trying to discourage people coming in from outside, but I hope that encouragement will not be given to them so as to prevent those inside from doing their stuff. We do not want them to come in at the expense of our people.
Commander Galbraith: I entirely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend, but he enabled me to make a point which I felt was of some little value. We have had a very peaceful and quiet Debate—an extraordinarily peaceful and quiet Debate for a subject connected with Scotland. That is indeed a tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his introduction of this order. We are all, for once, in complete agreement. We look forward to the hopes of things that may happen, becoming actualities, which can be used for maintaining the population and helping their prosperity to increase. If this measure is successful, I hope there may be other orders dealing with the Highland counties.
1.35 a.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): The hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that we have had an extremely quiet and peaceful Debate and that it is unusual to have such a peaceful discussion on Scottish matters. It is not often that we have a peaceful discussion on matters pertaining to the Highlands of Scotland. I do not think there is much I need say in reply to the discussion. It would be mean of me not to acknowledge the tributes paid to my right hon. Friend and, indeed, to the Government for bringing forward this order tonight. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. McLeod) said he hoped the Government would not attempt to do too much on their own. Of course, the Government will seek to take the local councils with them in all that they attempt to achieve under the powers of the order. As the Secretary of State said in his opening speech, we have done so up to this point. Indeed, as he said, this order gives the Government power to do certain things; but it does not empower the Government to go so far as to ensure employment or prosperity in the Highlands or in the other areas contained within this order.
The Government will, through the agency of the Scottish Industrial Estates

1407
Company, no doubt, in the course of time—though I cannot say how soon—provide some facilities within those areas, and particularly in the Highland area scheduled under this Order. They will build some factories in the course of time, but how soon that will be done I do not know. None of us can tell. We must exercise considerable caution at present in the expenditure of our resources upon the building of factories. We have to be sure that the factories are going to be employed. As the Secretary of State said, it is desirable that they should be employed in the manufacture of goods for export, or of goods which will save imports.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Government would look with some considerable favour upon enterprises which it was proposed to establish in the Highlands because of the certainty of such enterprises creating a stability in the Highlands which would otherwise be absent. They would also favour these enterprises because of the fact, which the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson) stressed, that there are many people born in the Highlands and who live there, who are not suited to employment in the indigenous occupations of the Highlands and who, in the absence of a factory and the employment it provides in the Highland area, would go forth in search of employment, and so depopulation would go on.
Perhaps I should make this point regarding employment in the Highlands. Despite the considerable employment in the hydro-electric schemes it is the fact that in some parts of the Highlands, in the area which is being scheduled, although there is far less unemployment than there was, the figure of employment has also gone down. That is not so in any other area of heavy unemployment in the country. So we hope that what will be done under the order will make possible a considerable increase in the course of time in the number of persons employed in the area.
I have been asked whether this order is the result of discussions we have had with the Highlands and Islands Advisory Panel. We have discussed this matter with the panel, and the whole question has been discussed with the Scottish Council for Development and Industry
1408
as well. Both bodies have been most co-operative. They have assisted the Secretary of State for Scotland considerably in getting the good will of everyone in the area. We look forward to their assisting considerably in attracting the new enterprises to this area without which this order will not meet with the result which every hon. Member who has addressed the House wishes.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked why we had de-limited the area within his constituency in the way we had. The hon. Member would agree that there is not and ought not to be any danger of considerable unemployment in the part of his constituency to which he referred which abuts the area contained in this order. There are new developments going on nearby and we are hoping these developments will in their own way deal with any danger of unemployment in that area. If it should be necessary to look again at that area, or any other area, the power is given in the Act of 1945 to the Secretary of State and the President of the Board of Trade to amend the Schedule, but we must exercise considerable caution in scheduling new areas.
We do not wish to mislead anyone or the people in any part of the country, and we hope that as a result of our passing this order tonight the people in the areas now included in the Schedule will not expect that new opportunities of employment are going to open up next week or next month. It will take time. It has taken time to deal with the areas included in the Schedule of the 1945 Act, but results have been achieved and it is only as we are able to ease up on what we are doing in those areas already within the Schedule that we can spread ourselves and do some kind of work in other parts of the country. I resume my seat by repeating the acknowledgment and thanks of the Government for the tributes that have been paid tonight and the general welcome which has been given to this order.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That the Distribution of Industry (Development Areas) (Scotland) Order, 1949, dated 4th March, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved."

ARMED FORCES (DESERTERS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Hannan.]
1.43 a.m.
Mr. Shurmer: I very much regret keeping the House at this late hour but I feel that the matter of an amnesty for deserters which I have the privilege of raising is of vital importance to the nation. It concerns not only the lives of a great number of men, but the welfare of thousands of wives, many thousands of children, and many mothers and fathers—all of whom are anxiously waiting for the day when those from whom they are parted and in whom they still have faith shall be once more free to live a normal life. I refer to men who deserted between 1939 and V.J. Day, 1945. If there was time, I think I could prove that many of these men were not cowards but that all sorts of different circumstances were the cause of the unfortunate step they took. None of us can know the state of their minds at that time and know the bitterness in their hearts as the result of the many difficulties and domestic problems that face them.
If I am not boring anyone I would refer to one or two of the letters I have received which present the position of these men. One has written:
"If only I could have another chance to be able to start afresh after the wasted years of self-inflicted torture and to know that this horrible nightmare is over"
Another writes as follows:
"For myself, I do not smoke, drink, gamble or go dancing. I would like to get married when I am free. That's all I want to do, to settle down to a normal married life."
Another letter is from a man who volunteered at the outbreak of war, and three months afterwards his wife went completely to pieces. His mother was seriously ill and this drove him to desert. He only intended to stay at home a few days to try to put things right, but his nerve failed him and he never returned. His wife has gone grey and looks 20 years older than her age. The Government terms for surrender are too much for him and he is still on the run.
A woman writes to say that her little girl, seven-and-a-half years old, has only seen her daddy three times. She writes:
1410
"He is living miles away under an assumed name. My husband's wrong is being inflicted on two innocent victims. I am frequently followed and questioned concerning my husband."
She signs herself "a distressed wife." Another man writes:
"Don't treat me as a coward. I served in the Fire Service from 1939—"
he was 36 years old then—
"—until 1943 when I was discharged on medical grounds, and in June, 1944, was conscripted, hated the thought of that, and, being called up in the Army, deserted."
This man had two sons who served in the Army during the war and he has now lost his business, home and family, and he dared not go to his daughter's wedding or to his son's wedding. He says:
"I thank God I've not become a thief but have struggled along and made a poor but honest living."
Here is the case of a boy aged 16 who joined the Navy at the outbreak of war, served on a Russian convoy, at the sinking of the Scharnhorst, and at the D-Day landings. When his father became ill, and was dying with cancer, he was refused compassionate leave and was posted to the Far East. He cleared out and is still on the run because he thought he might never see his father alive again.
These men are not criminals. In fact, the Home Secretary recently said, in answer to a Question, that the amount of crime due to deserters was not anything like as high as it was alleged. So on 22nd January, 1947, the Minister of Defence told us there were something like 20,000 deserters, that they had no civilian status and were dependent for food and clothing on charity or on breaches of the law relating to rationing or controls, and that in many cases they were leading an underground existence. He said it would be an advantage to these men, and to the nation, if they surrendered and were able to resume their normal lives as free citizens. He said they would be given to 31st March, 1947, to surrender under certain conditions. That is what has kept the men on the run at the present time; that is the reason why they have not surrendered. By 2nd April, about 1,615 men had surrendered, and 968 of them were serving sentences of detention.
I am sure it must have been plain to the Government at that time that the inducement would not be very helpful,

1411
especially when some who surrendered were receiving anything from six months to two years detention under conditions that were not very satisfactory. It is all very well, Mr. Speaker, to talk about the prisons at the present time, and to say that the detention camps are different from those of a few years ago. It is like everything else. Men still have suspicions in their minds if you try to tell them the treatment meted out today for the few months or weeks they are in detention is far different from what it was formerly. They realise that once they get there, whatever may be the conditions, they are not able to get out again.
It is surprising to read a letter I have had from a man who has served a term of detention. He write:
"I was one who surrendered on March 19th, 1947. The Government said that you would get your court-martial in between 10 to 14 days, but I waited for six to seven weeks without a court-martial. During that time my wife and children, of whom I have four, never received one single penny allowance…I absented myself for seven months. I went to work and got my wife out of the debt she got in…I surrendered myself again…I was sentenced to 12 months' detention and my family allowances were not being paid for some time."
Another who surrendered was a man in the building trade who for the first four years of the war had done wonderful work in housing something like 28,000 people during the terrible bombing of London. This man joined the Army and owing to difficult conditions at home, not being able to get a manager to run his business, deserted and surrendered himself at the request of the Minister of Defence, and was given a good character and yet got two years' imprisonment. He escaped on 13th December, 1947, and says:
"Today I still carry the scars of the barbed wire through which I climbed."
Another man who was sentenced to 12 months' detention was A.1 physically. He was discharged from detention after six months, and two months afterwards was discharged from a military hospital Grade D, a physical wreck with no pension. Then there is the case of the R.A.F. man whose wife, suspected of tuberculosis, was expecting a baby, and was living in the East End of London during the bombing. He deserted to come home to look after his wife during her
1412
confinement. He was afraid to go back to his unit and surrender. He went back to his old job, suggesting that he had been finally discharged. He joined the Home Guard and rose to the rank of captain. When he surrendered he got 21 months. Some of these cases are really frightening men from surrendering.
The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the terms of sentence. Has he any information after what period these sentences were suspended?
Mr. Shurmer: I have got the fact that some of them were reduced, but the fact that these men are having their sentences reduced makes no case when the men who surrender do not know what the terms of imprisonment will be, or by how much their sentences will be reduced.
It is estimated that there are 8,000 out of the 21,000 deserters still residing in this country. It was said that about 10,000 were men enlisted from other countries, such as Eire. They have gone back to Eire and are living a free and full life. Why cannot we give these others a chance to return to normal life with their wives and families and pull their weight in industry? It is obvious' they are not pulling their weight, because the majority have a fear that at any moment someone may put his hand on their shoulder any day or night, and they may be arrested.
We are behind in this country on the question of an amnesty, and I want to refer to the action taken by the Dominions. In Australia on 14th June, 1946, Mr. Forde, Australian Minister of Defence, stated:
"Army authorities have given consideration to action to be taken in relation to 7,879 members of the Forces declared to be illegal absentees during 1939 to 1945. The Army authorities decided to discharge them in absentia immediately. The records of such members will be endorsed to the effect that their discharges were made on account of misconduct during service. Discharge under these conditions automatically precludes them from eligibility for war gratuity, war medals, rehabilitation benefits and war service homes."
Mr. Forde pointed out that the decision to treat deserters in this way was exactly similar to the decision made and the action taken after the 1914–18 War. He went further and said that any pay due to the soldier during his honourable ser-

1413
vice ought to be paid to him on his discharge.
In Canada on 14th Aug. 1946, the Governor-General in Council made the following Order:
"Whereas there are at present approximately 14,100 persons who are absent without leave or in a state of desertion from the naval, military and air forces of Canada, of whom approximately 8,100 were called out for service under the provisions of The National Resources Mobilisation Act, 1940, and 6,000 are General Service personnel;…
"now therefore, His Excellency the Governor-General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of National Defence…is pleased to make and doth hereby make the following Order:
"All members of the Naval, Military and Air Forces of Canada and persons called out for compulsory military service under the provisions of The National Resources Mobilisation Act, 1940, who absented themselves without leave or deserted prior to the 1st day of January, 1946, and who have not since that date either surrendered themselves into Naval, Military or Air Force custody or control or who have not been apprehended…shall, for all purposes, be deemed never to have been enlisted or enrolled or appointed to or to have served with the Naval, Military, or Air Forces of Canada.…"
In South Africa, on 25th November, 1945, Proclamation No. 257, amending the Regulations of the Coast Garrison and Active Citizen Forces, said:
"Provided that a soldier who has been absent without leave from his duty for a period of not less than 90 consecutive days, may, in the discretion of the Adjutant General, be discharged with effect from the date on which such absence commenced."
On 15th December, 1945, Proclamation No. 3 was made referring to the same matter. Queen Victoria marked the Jubilee year of her reign in 1887 by offering a free pardon to all deserters from the Army and Navy. The one condition was that they came forward between specified dates and made a declaration of their offence. I cannot say the number who came forward.
In conclusion, I ask the Government to take the right step, and to grant an amnesty to these men as the Dominion Governments have done, and in this way to bring happiness to thousands of homes and to young children who have never seen their fathers. Do not let these men continue on the run, living these underground lives. We shall never get them back. I do not think the Government need think of saving face. I do not think the public will mind. With all the pub-
1414
licity which has been given to this, I have never yet received one letter denouncing my action on behalf of these men.
I served in the 1914–18 war, and I served during the heavy bombing in Birmingham, and was never prepared to give any quarter to a man not prepared to do his job. But one reaches the stage when one realises that it is impossible to understand what was in the minds of these men. At one period I brought up the question of two missing men. There are thousands of missing men in this country. Their wives, mothers and fathers do not know where they are. The authorities say these men are on the run. I believe that one of those to whom I referred is dead. This action I suggest would bring to light whether these men are alive or dead. I plead with the Minister to think this matter over, to consider the matter from a humanitarian point of view, and to give these men a chance to get back into their free life, a life which I feel confident would bring them into the service of the country if it was again involved in war.
2.0 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): The question which my hon. Friend has raised in such moving terms tonight is one that affects all three Services and it is a matter of regret that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence could not be here personally to answer my hon. Friend. I am in a sense standing in his place. Although some of the examples I shall quote relate more particularly to the Army, what I have to say on the general question applies to the Services as a whole. I trust I shall carry my hon. Friend and indeed the whole House with me on this point, that desertion is a serious offence. It is not to be regarded as some technical matter which can be brushed aside now that the war is over.
I understand that my hon. Friend was pleading particularly the case of war-time deserters. If this offence is committed in war-time, it means in every case that the man who deserts adds materially to the danger to his comrades who stand by their duty. If it is committed in time of peace, in a country which has compulsory National Service, it threatens the whole basis of that National Service. If we were to accede to the suggestion of my hon. Friend and grant an amnesty for

1415
war-time deserters, we should be subjected immediately to pressure to extend that amnesty to those who have subsequently deserted.
What are we to reply to those men who might say to us, "I had grave personal anxiety, but while the war was on and my country was in danger I remained at my duty. I deserted, but I waited until the danger was over and hostilities had ceased." Could we grant an amnesty to war-time deserters and refuse it to men who advanced that argument? I believe that for what my hon. Friend is asking could not remain within the limits he put forward.
Mr. Shurmer: How have the Dominions done it?
Mr. Stewart: Because in the Dominions which my hon. Friend quoted they have not the problem of having to maintain National Service in time of peace. What are we asking of our young men? We are asking them to render a period of National Service. The great majority do that readily because they know there is no arbitrary picking of this man or that, but a general obligation, the exceptions to which are only such as have been decided by Parliament after very careful consideration. If they felt that those who have at any time dodged their obligations can have that set aside and be given an amnesty, we attack the whole basis on which we ask young men to undertake the obligation of National Service in time of peace.
My hon. Friend did not quote, as well he might have done, the examples of the Dominion of New Zealand and the United States. Their practice in this matter is almost identical with that of the United Kingdom. Of all the countries mentioned, the United States is the only one which has, as we have, National Service in time of peace. Even among the Dominions which my hon. Friend mentioned, there are a number of obstacles put in the way of an amnestied deserter. For example, in Canada, he finds certain penalties and restrictions apply to him when he tries to fit himself into civilian life, and Australia makes a distinction in the way in which it treats deserters. The moral we draw from this is that we cannot argue conclusively from the practice in other countries. We must judge this matter in the light of the needs and prac-
1416
tice of the United Kingdom at the present time, in the light of the immense and terrible danger which this country suffered in time of war and its decision to have National Service in time of peace.
In referring to the general justice in this matter, I might mention the lenient treatment accorded to those who surrendered, or were apprehended, on or before 31st March, 1947, in response to the appeal by my right hon. Friend. Those not completely forgiven will have served the comparatvely brief sentences awarded them; but if we adopted the suggestion of my hon. Friend, these men could say, "Why did we not wait until a bit later, and then we could have got away with it altogether?" A plea for an amnesty for deserters in the face of the seriousness of the offence can only be advanced if there is some special, over-riding argument put forward. My hon. Friend has tried to find such an argument, partly in the treatment afforded to deserters who have been apprehended or who surrendered.
Mr. Shurmer: I also suggested that there is a suspicion in the minds of some of the men; we know the treatment in the "glasshouses" and it is no use saying the "glasshouses" are not there; if a man gets there, he knows he may not be able to get away.
Mr. Stewart: During the war, there were a number of serious abuses, but I should regret it if this House ignored the enormous improvements in "glasshouses" since the war.
On this question of the reasons for desertion, I agree that not all these men deserted for reasons of cowardice, and it does not become us, sitting in the safety of this House, to pass moral judgment on the motives of men who deserted in time of war; but, always, it was a compassionate or personal motive. It was that the man put his private obligations before loyalty to his comrades. During the war, as hon. Members know, most careful attempts were made to meet individual problems of this kind. There was compassionate release, or leave, for indefinite or fixed periods, and a man serving abroad might be posted to the Home Establishment. Every overseas command had a board, consisting of all ranks, to consider the cases, and no member of the board knew the rank of the applicant. By reason of urgent personal circumstances, a man could submit the facts—

1417
as did the great majority—to the fair and equable judgment of his peers. But the man who deserted said, in effect, "I will be the judge of how urgent are my needs; I will not submit them to an impartial tribunal." The private convenience and judgment of a deserter was more important than his obligations to his fellows.
As to the treatment of those who have surrendered, or been apprehended. First, let us take the case of those who surrendered on or before 31st March, 1947, in answer to the appeal by my right hon. Friend. It is true that because of the considerable number of surrenders that occurred at that time there was some delay in bringing some of them to trial. That was largely mitigated by the fact that they were in open and not close arrest. Further, when their cases came up every conceivable relevant factor was taken into consideration, including length of honourable service they had before the offence was committed, any compassionate reasons and their previous record. After the sentence was passed the general practice was to say that about two-thirds of that sentence would be suspended, and if there was some special compassionate reason there was a further suspension.
My hon. Friend has mentioned sentences he believes to be heavy. Here are some examples of sentences, and what happened to them: Sentence of 21 months detention—suspended after four months had been served; Sentence of two years detention—suspended after six months; Sentence of one years detention—suspended after three months. It was rare indeed for anyone who surrendered to the offer of my right hon. Friend to serve more than six months. With regard to those who surrender or are apprehended outside the terms of that offer, not only can they earn the one-third remission for good conduct, but their sentences are subject to review every six months and account is taken of any factor overlooked before the courts. Many of the cases are dealt with by the commanding officers
1418
within the limited power of punishment they possess.
Mr. Blackburn: May I interrupt my hon. Friend?
Mr. Stewart: No. I cannot give way as I have only a moment or two left. Am I, in what I am saying, giving my hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) a flat negative? Not entirely. I say that if ever it can be brought to our notice that any particular case, having regard to all the facts, has been treated with undue harshness, we shall be very ready—and I speak here for my Service colleagues as well—to look into it.
Mr. Shurmer: What is the position of the man who surrenders now?
Mr. Stewart: We shall endeavour to try the man who surrenders now with justice and humanity. As I was saying, if any case is brought to my notice or that of my Service colleagues where it is felt that justice has not been done, we shall do our utmost to review the matter. We cannot accept that the deserter should say once again, "I am to be the judge. The compassionate circumstances in my case are such that I should receive no penalty." If he really feels that, and is anxious to come back, will he not submit his case to those authorities who have shown they are prepared to weigh his claims with justice? Mr. George Bernard Shaw has said in some context:
"Anger is a bad counsel: cast out anger. Pity is sometimes a worse: cast out pity; But do not cast out mercy. Remember only that justice comes first."
It is in that spirit that we approach this problem.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Thirteen Minutes past Two o'Clock.

COLONIAL EMPIRE
  Livestock Production
  Livestock Production
  Leprosy (Africa)
  Leprosy (Africa)
NIGERIA
  Venereal Disease and Tuberculosis
  Venereal Disease and Tuberculosis
  Officials (Local Leave)
  Officials (Local Leave)
  MALAYA (FINANCIAL AID)
  MALAYA (FINANCIAL AID)
ROYAL NAVY
  Eglinton Air Station
  Eglinton Air Station
  Pilots and Observers
  Pilots and Observers
  Civilian Drivers, Lee-on-Solent
  Civilian Drivers, Lee-on-Solent
  Prize Money (Distribution)
  Prize Money (Distribution)
  Stoker Mechanics (Promotion)
  Stoker Mechanics (Promotion)
POST OFFICE
  Services, Kuwait
  Services, Kuwait
  Telephone Application, Headington
  Telephone Application, Headington
  Malaya (Mails)
  Malaya (Mails)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Australian Fruit Cake (Price)
  Australian Fruit Cake (Price)
  Pigs
  Pigs
  Local Offices
  Local Offices
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (DISCHARGES AND RESIGNATIONS)
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (DISCHARGES AND RESIGNATIONS)
  YORK AIRCRAFT (DISPOSAL)
  YORK AIRCRAFT (DISPOSAL)
  EMBASSIES (PRIVILEGES)
  EMBASSIES (PRIVILEGES)
  DACE TRIAL (EXPENDITURE)
  DACE TRIAL (EXPENDITURE)
  NORTH ATLANTIC PACT
  NORTH ATLANTIC PACT
  PASTORS, BULGARIA (TRIAL)
  PASTORS, BULGARIA (TRIAL)
  GERMAN PRISONERS (U.K.-U.S.S.R. NOTES)
  GERMAN PRISONERS (U.K.-U.S.S.R. NOTES)
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (WELFARE SERVICE)
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (WELFARE SERVICE)
  UNITED STATES CITIZENS (VISAS)
  UNITED STATES CITIZENS (VISAS)
  IRISH PEERAGES
  IRISH PEERAGES
  BRITISH ARMY (PALESTINE AND MALAYA)
  BRITISH ARMY (PALESTINE AND MALAYA)
  FEATURE FILM QUOTA
  FEATURE FILM QUOTA
  BUNKER COAL AND OIL (PRICES)
  BUNKER COAL AND OIL (PRICES)
ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES
  Mains (G.P.O. Lines)
  Mains (G.P.O. Lines)
  Local Authority Undertakings
  Local Authority Undertakings
  TRENT VALLEY (FLOOD PREVENTION)
  TRENT VALLEY (FLOOD PREVENTION)
  PURCHASE TAX (PILFERED GOODS)
  PURCHASE TAX (PILFERED GOODS)
  FACTORY INSPECTORS
  FACTORY INSPECTORS
  COUNTY COUNCILS (GRANTS)
  COUNTY COUNCILS (GRANTS)
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Medical and Dental Referees
  Medical and Dental Referees
  ROAD MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURE
  ROAD MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURE
  Streptomycin Treatment, Leeds
  Streptomycin Treatment, Leeds
NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Contributions Arrears
  Contributions Arrears
  Benefits (Laundry Workers)
  Benefits (Laundry Workers)
  AFsRICAN COLONIES (FREIGHT CARS)
  AFsRICAN COLONIES (FREIGHT CARS)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

  LAND AND WATER RESOURCES
  THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR rose to ask His Majesty's Government what is their policy with regard to the land and water resources of the country, with special reference to the need for maximum food production; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the question of the proper use of the limited area of land that there is in this country is one which has been of great and growing importance in recent years, particularly in the light of our experience during and since the late war. One hopes, of course, that the lesson of two World Wars has taught the country the vital need of a prosperous, a strong and a productive agriculture—I use the word "hope" advisedly, because past experience makes one wonder whether one's hopes will be fulfilled even in the remote future. But even if that lesson has not been learnt to-day, we have what amounts to a world shortage of food. We have also a shortage of dollars, and the two together must have brought home the need for more food to every family in this country. Therefore, the use of our land for agricultural production becomes of vital interest to every man, woman and child. Evidence of that is to be found in the fact that increased agricultural production has been given a prominent part in the economic recovery programme, and one appreciates that, to that extent at least, His Majesty's Government do realise the value of agriculture.
  I think it may be said that our farmers are doing their best, and it is not a bad
  844
  best. On the other hand, they frequently become seriously discouraged when they see good, productive agricultural land taken out of agricultural production and used for various other purposes. It makes them wonder whether there is in truth great need for a tremendous effort by them when they see land which could be used in that effort taken away and, in many cases, taken away in needlessly large quantities for purposes other than agricultural production. And remember, when it is so taken away, it is usually lost to agriculture for ever; it never comes back. One must also remember that the area of the country is not expanding, and land so lost to agriculture means that permanently there will be a smaller area available for food production.
  In considering this problem, I think one needs to remember one or two important factors which all the time affect the problem. The first of these is that, so far as I can find out, England and Wales are by far the most densely populated country in the whole world. I do not mention Scotland because Scottish figures are not included in the figures which I have seen and, although Scotland is not quite so densely populated, one must remember that the majority of the population and the bulk of the good land are concentrated in a comparatively small proportion of Scotland, in the South and the East. We ought also to remember that we have probably as high a standard of living as any other country in the world. I do not say that is necessarily so in regard to food at the present moment, but in other directions our standard is high, and we want to maintain and, if possible, improve that standard. Another factor which needs to be taken most seriously into consideration is that in recent years powers of compulsory acquisition for various purposes have increased to a very great extent. Therefore there is no opportunity for the land owners—or the "owners of land" as I would prefer to call them, because there are very few "land owners" in the sense in which the word was used, say, thirty years ago—to resist the demands which are made upon their land under these powers of compulsory acquisition at a price which is outside the control of the man upon whom the imposition is laid.
  My Lords, taking that a little further I think that there are something like nine land-spending Departments in the Government of this country. I will run through them quickly, and some of your Lordships may be able to think of some which I have not mentioned. We have the Board of Trade who can take land for industry; the Ministry of Health for housing; the Ministry of Transport for road and communications generally; the Minister of Education for new schools. Then the Ministry of Fuel and Power have done some desperate things to mine open-cast coal; there are the three Services—nobody knows quite what they intend to do—and, last but not least, there are the Ministry of Town and Country Planning themselves, who take land for new towns in large slices. As I say, there may be others who have those powers, but I think that is enough to go on with. On the other side of the picture we have one land-using Department—namely, the Ministry of Agriculture. Nine to one is rather severe odds anywhere, and in this case sometimes seems a little too severe, and the unfortunate Minister of Agriculture succumbs to the efforts of the nine.
  As I understand it, under the procedure adopted any one of these Departments desiring land for their own particular purpose select that land and submit the requisition to the Minister of Agriculture for his approval or otherwise. I will come back to that process in a moment, because before that stage is reached there is an earlier stage where a good deal of the difficulty occurs. Various standards are laid down for the many purposes for which land is required—one thinks more particularly of density of housing; the size of recreation grounds per head of the population or per one hundred of the population; the size of school playgrounds, and so on. Once those standards are approved and fixed, the area required for any particular purpose—I do not mean the area in position, but the area in acres—is settled, and I am inclined to think that, generally speaking, we have set our standards a good deal too high for the requirements of the situation as it is to-day. We are being rather idealistic as to what is required for the comfort of the population, for their housing and so on, and I feel that one ought to ask the question (it will not
  846
  be the last time that I ask it in the course of my speech): Can we afford to pursue these ideals to the extent that we are pursuing them to-day?
  I would like to take as a particular instance one of the new towns—namely, Harlow in Essex. My attention was drawn to this case some time ago, when a certain individual whom I know on the staff of the new town rang me up to ask whether I could give him any help about equipment for grass drying. He explained the reason for this request by saying, "We shall have within the confines of Harlow 2,000 acres of grassland which we shall have to cut, and we think that grass drying would be not a bad way of dealing with it." I have to some extent pursued that question, and I find that in 1944 there were certain standards generally accepted by the Government Departments of the day. Harlow is designed to be a town ultimately of 60,000 inhabitants. In 1944 a town of 60,000 inhabitants would, normally speaking, on the then standards, have occupied 1,900 acres, or at the outside 2,900 acres if the whole town was developed on what is known as "open development." Under the recommendations of the New Towns Committee, the standard size for a town of 60,000 people would be 5,000 acres—nearly double the maximum possible in 1944.
  With regard to Harlow, the figure that was given me was 3,600 acres. Even that is well above the maximum figure of 1944. But I have had an opportunity of seeing the master plan for the new town of Harlow. It is interesting but not very helpful, because it does not give me figures in a form in which I could use them in your Lordships' House or, in fact, in a form which I can fully understand. But I have been able to ascertain the fact that, in addition to the 3,600 acres, there are within the confines of the town 550 acres of woodland and, over and above that, 2,100 acres of agricultural land. Where the master plan is extraordinarily helpful is that it has a lot of those pretty features on which the planners so much enjoy working: either they colour the plans or they hatch them and cross-hatch them, and put in dots of varying sizes. This happened to be a plan with dots. I have looked at it carefully but even at the first glance it is clear that rather less than half of the

  847
  area which is to be the town will be covered with houses. Even that part will presumably have front gardens and possibly back gardens as well.
  Over and above that there are 2,100 acres of agricultural land, which is denoted on the plan by wavy lines. There are very few wavy lines, but there are a number of areas covered with dots of different sizes. These dotted areas—I almost said dotty areas!—are marked as "park ways," "town park" or "recreation," according to the size of the dots. So this 2,100 acres of agricultural land is to be largely parkland, and it is a euphemism to call it "agricultural land." I am not at all certain that in those circumstances London might not mark down Hyde Park as agricultural land—I have seen sheep there. So the 3,600 acres for 60,000 people is probably a false figure. I should say that at least 6,000 acres will be occupied by the town, not to mention the 550 acres of woodland, which surely will not be very productive woodland if it is to have a lot of people continually walking over it.
  Having looked at that plan, I am tempted to quote from a letter which appeared in The Times on the 19th of this month from Mr. Lionel Brett, in which he says that the planners, themselves,
  "are often guilty of a kind of loose planning which looks pretty on paper with its swathes of green space and blobs of umbrageous trees, but which ignores our desperate land-shortage and the cost of maintaining non-productive acres."
  I must confess that those remarks seemed to me singularly appropriate when I looked at this plan of the new town of Harlow. I might also quote two extracts from the Report accompanying the master plan on Harlow, because I think they give a good idea of the curious world in which our planners live to-day. It so happens that both these passages deal with the question of the layout of the schools. The first quotation is this:
  "The secondary schools, by their placing in the major wedges, can have great architectonic significance."
  I do not know whether any of your Lordships frequently uses the adjective "architectonic". I have never used it, and I did not know what it meant. I confess
  848
  that I thought it was one of those horrible words invented by the planners. It was without much hope that I looked for it in the dictionary, and I was very much surprised to find it there. I am not going to bother your Lordships with the dictionary definition, but my first guess was not far short of the truth. That guess was that "architectonic" means a tonic for architects. And "architectonic significance." I think, must mean the planners' idea of Heaven!
  The other phrase to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention is that:
  "The primary schools are to be approached by landscaped ways."
  They are not to be ordinary roads, your Lordships will note, nor even streets, but "landscaped ways." What a "landscaped way" is I do not know, except that it gives me a vision that through the middle of the town there will be a wide road, with a lot of open ground on either side being wasted, so that children can play on the way to school and fail to get there in time. I think these two quotations give one some idea of the kind of visionary life which the planners live. Their feet are not on the earth. I almost said they are hardly human! However, I do not wish to stress the case of Harlow too much, because I do not wish to put too great emphasis on the new towns. Much has been said in the past about the new towns, but they are not the only direction in which land is being used for purposes other than agriculture. The process is going on all over the country in a larger or smaller way. Round the circumference of existing and expanding towns the Ministry of Transport are proposing to construct great new trunk roads, of incredible width, which will be ready at just about the time when no one will ever be able to afford to buy a motor car again.
  We do not know what the Services' demands are, and I do not believe that any noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite can tell me. They have never been disclosed, and I do not think noble Lords opposite are themselves aware of them. Then, again, in almost every little village a few cottages are going up. The process is going on all over the country but, so far as one can see, it is going on piecemeal without any genuine control. I know there is every intention that there should be control, but there seems to me to be no genuine control over

  849
  either area or position of new developments. I think the figures are in themselves almost sufficient for your Lordships. The Scott Report, which was published in 1942, drew attention to the fact that in the twelve years up to 1938 the loss of land to agriculture was about 60,000 acres a year. Dr. Dudley Stamp, in an extremely interesting letter published in The Times not long ago, estimated that the loss in the nine years ending June, 1947, was roughly 50,000 acres a year, making all allowance for land which has been returned by the Services and also for 500,000 acres reclaimed—mainly marginal land, a poor exchange for good farmland.
  I think that in putting that figure on paper, Dr. Dudley Stamp was perhaps unwittingly leading people a little astray, because of the nine years he is quoting six were war years, when the kind of difficulties that we have now were not present. Moreover, in quoting that figure he has made due allowance for what the Services have taken and for the land brought into agriculture which was not agricultural land before. However, he says that the details are confidential and therefore one cannot criticise. Why these details should be confidential is something which I think the ordinary man might find difficult to understand, and I would specifically ask whether we cannot have an annual return of the land taken for purposes other than agriculture.
  So far I have dealt almost entirely with the question of the area of land; but the quality of the land taken is equally important. I think it is not untrue to say that most of the development which has taken place has been on good agricultural land—that is, land which is well drained, is fairly level, has decent communications and all those factors which tempt planners to come along and say, "That will be a good piece for development. We can let ourselves go and have the plan we like. There is no need to conform to contours or any nonsense of that sort. This is just what we are after." That is what is happening all along. The greater the area which is taken, the more important it is that the poorer land, rather than the better, should be taken. Of course, the quality of land is a difficult thing with which to deal when it comes to the extension of existing towns. Generally
  850
  speaking, land on the outskirts of towns is the most highly developed agricultural land in the country. On the other hand, there was a clear recommendation in the Scott Report that there should be a survey round the periphery of any expanding community, so that expansion should be confined so far as possible to land of lesser agricultural value. It was also a recommendation of the Scott Committee that good agricultural land should not normally be taken for any new development.
  Once again I repeat the question I asked just, now: Can we afford to let this good land go? If we go on long enough, we shall very materially reduce the volume of agricultural production in this country. Once again I shall quote Dr. Dudley Stamp, and I make no excuse for quoting from his letter, because Dr. Stamp knows more about the land use of this country than any other man I know. He has made a great study of it. Dr. Stamp points out that 1,000 acres represents the share which 1,790 persons have in farm land in this country. He also says that at the present time we obtain about one half of our food from home production, so that for every 1,000 acres which are taken away from agricultural production, we are taking away the rations of something like 900 people. If we go on building new towns and adding to our existing towns, we shall be building new towns for people to starve in. That is about what it comes to.
  In my Motion I mention the question of the proper use of our water resources. I mention that solely because of the importance of water to good agricultural land. I give your Lordships a few figures because they have great bearing on this point. At the present time, the average consumption of water per day in London and other large cities is 52 gallons per head of the population. In the United Kingdom, including the rural areas, the average is 35 gallons per head. So far as the new towns are concerned, the Ministry of Town and Country Planning estimate that when they are fully developed consumption will be at the rate of 60 gallons per head. I very much doubt whether it will stop at that. I do not want it to stop at that. I am inclined to think that the consumption of water is one of the indications that tell us whether standards in the home are improving.

  851
  Not long ago, we had in this House a debate upon the Enborne Valley, which it was proposed to flood. I am not certain of the acreage involved, though I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Teviot will be able to tell the House if he wishes. Since then I have heard of two more cases, both in Essex. One is the reservoir at Hanningfield, to cover 1,500 acres, to supply East Essex and Southend, and the other is the reservoir which is to supply water for Chelmsford, involving 1,300 acres. These two proposals, therefore, affect 2,500 acres in the County of Essex, which is a highly farmed county.
  Water is an intractable material. It cannot be stored on top of a hill, as it has a habit of running down. In this country the best land is generally at the bottom of the hill, and here it is proposed to put under water land which is presumably at the bottom, or not very far from the bottom, of the hill, and to deprive agriculture permanently of 2,500 acres of good land. It may provide cheaper water for the area concerned; but is it cheaper from the country's point of view? Once again I ask: Can we afford to let good land go in order to cover it with water? Would it not be cheaper, possibly, to go as far away as the Welsh Hills or Dartmoor to get water, to areas where reservoirs can be constructed without destruction of valuable farm land? I am also attracted by a suggestion which my noble friend Lord Perth made to me in conversation the other day. He asked why water could not be pumped up from the mouth of rivers. That water would only run away to sea, unused.
  It is only for this purpose that I bring the question of water into this debate. I think water is a subject which deserves an entirely separate debate, because the problem of water supplies is becoming acute. From my researches I have been unable to discover figures to show whether or not we are near the position where we are either using or allowing to run away more water than falls on us from heaven. I see the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack is shaking his head vigorously. However, I start from the point that on the average twenty inches of rain is evaporated from our soil every year. That is a considerable amount, and in my part of the world it represents two-thirds of the rainfall.
  That is the general picture that I want to present to your Lordships. Before sitting down, I should like to put forward one or two suggestions, to which I hope I may have a reply from His Majesty's Government. I think they must agree that land is being taken away from agriculture at an alarming rate. I feel fairly certain—I do not know—that so far as the Ministry of Agriculture are concerned I am pushing at an open door. I know they agree that the rate is rather alarming, and I hope that other members of His Majesty's Government will agree. They, of course, reply that there is a public demand for a standard of living which involves taking land at this high rate. I think there is. The people have been educated up to it, and in different circumstances one would be only too glad to see that standard maintained and improved. If anything is to be done to lower that standard, I feel it should be done by agreement between all Parties in the State. I am fairly certain—although I have not consulted my noble friends—that there would be little opposition from noble Lords on this side of the House to anything which ensured, within reason, anyhow, that good land was kept in agriculture.
  That leads me to suggest that there should be a reconsideration of the standards applying to all the various activities which require land. We should not aim at an idealistic, or even an optimum, standard, which takes the most land, but should so lower the standard as to keep the demands for land at least within bounds. That is the first step which will have to be taken, because, as I said just now, that fixes the total area that must be taken. In that same connection, of course, there ought to be a serious review of the whole water policy, not with a view to lowering the amount of water consumed but to ensure that we can obtain all the water we require without sinking good agricultural land. Another thing which I feel ought to be an absolute rule is this. It ought to be laid down definitely that land which is in the general category of good agricultural land should not be considered for any form of development unless a first-class case can be made out for it. The first thing that a Department requiring land in any particular area should do is to study what category the land is in, and all land which is classed as good agricultural land should be

  853
  avoided. And, according to the Land Utilisation Survey, about 48 per cent. of the land of this country is in that category. The Minister of Agriculture must have many battles to fight, and if he knew that his opponents were not on very sure ground in trying to take good agricultural land he might find his task a little easier.
  The other thing for which I would press is that we should have an annual return of the land taken from agriculture for other purposes and, if possible, some indication of where it is taken, and the quality of the land. I can see no reason why that should be kept confidential, as is suggested in Dr. Dudley Stamp's letter. Indeed, the land of this country is, so to speak, the estate of the nation, and the nation have the right to know what is happening to their estate. There is one other thing I would like to say. The Minister of Agriculture is deservedly a popular and good Minister of Agriculture. Whether it be true or not, there is a growing feeling amongst agriculturists that he suffers from the faults of his virtues and is not fighting his nine opponents as hard as he might. We would like to see some justification or otherwise of that statement. We would like to see the Minister of Agriculture stand up to his colleagues and win a battle or two. Those battles which come out into the open always seem to be lost battles. We would like to see him win occasionally, if only once in nine times. I do not think I need say more. This subject is one which is of great importance to the nation. I have endeavoured to paint the picture in fairly broad outline. I hope, and I have little doubt, that noble Lords who are to speak after me will fill in the details from their own much wider experience. I hope, too, that we may have a positive and valuable reply from His Majesty's Government. I beg to move for Papers.
  3.19 p.m.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I am sure that we all, wherever we sit in this House, feel deeply grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, for raising this debate. It is concerned with a great and permanent national problem, and one that I believe is giving concern to everyone who really knows and understands the facts of the situation. There may be a certain amount of disagreement as to
  854
  the reasons why this country is short of food. Some will say that it is because of the general world shortage; others will say that it is because of our own dollar position. But there is certainly complete agreement that we are short of food.
  So far as I can see, where other countries are concerned, it seems to be very much a matter of "Heads they win, and tails we lose." If there is a bumper crop of grain in the Western Hemisphere, apparently we are still unable to purchase it. If we look at the meat position to-day—well, that speaks for itself. Yet at the present moment we have to admit that during the last twenty years we have lost from agriculture no less than 50,000 acres per year, a total of 1,000,000 acres. As the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, pointed out, if it had not been for 500,000 acres which were reclaimed during the war, that figure would have been very much larger than it is. It would, in fact, have been 1,500,000 acres. To take one single instance, when we look at the consumption of meat, we realise that in 1937 we were eating an average of 141 lb. of meat per year per head, and to-day the annual ration is only 26 lb. And yet we are allowing that loss to continue and, if anything, very slightly to increase.
  The noble Earl referred to figures which have been given by Dr. Dudley Stamp in The Times. We are all of us very indebted to Dr. Stamp for those figures, because there is undoubtedly no other authority in this country who can speak with comparable force or knowledge of this subject. The noble Earl made certain calculations of the annual rations that are being lost at the present moment. I think he said that for every 1,000 acres which we were losing the rations of 9,000 people in this country, obtained from home grown food—
  THE EARL OF RADNOR: I said 900 rations for every 1,000 acres.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I am afraid I quoted the noble Earl wrongly. I have made some rather different calculations of my own, also taken from figures given by Dr. Stamp. Of course, we all know that land is never devoted solely to the production of one crop or one commodity, but it does sometimes help us to obtain a picture of the size of the problem with which we are faced if we can

  855
  have definite illustrations. Taking Dr. Stamp's figures that fifteen cows can be kept on fifty acres—and I do not think that any of us would dispute that figure—it means that on 50,000 acres (which is our annual loss) we are yearly destroying a productive capacity for 900,000 people's milk rations year by year; or, taking that land as being used solely for beef, meat rations for no fewer than 1,000,000 people. I do not want to overstate the case, because we all know that life does not work on such a strictly mathematical basis as that, and it may well be that in practice there may be certain modifications. But there are the figures.
  As the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said, we have to ask ourselves: Can we really afford at the present moment losses of this kind? We all know that many of the uses to which this land that is being taken away is being put are most estimable. We have to have our new towns, and we certainly welcome the fact that more space is allotted to them than on the old basis of planning; but when it is a question of food or space for new towns, can we really say that, whereas in the old days a town of, I think, 60,000 inhabitants would have been allotted 1,900 acres, we can afford to allot up to 5,000 acres to-day? We all of us want to see more recreation grounds and more playgrounds in the country. We want to see larger playgrounds attached to schools. So far as I can remember, when I was connected with the Board of Education I was myself responsible for enlarging the size of playgrounds which were to be attached to all new schools. I am quite sure that as a departmental Minister I was right, but that does not mean to say that there should not be a super-Governmental authority who should survey the needs of each one of the Departments and say whether, as a whole, the nation can afford these demands on it.
  We have not finished with the picture when we talk about the quantity of land which has been taken. I am not thinking particularly of the point which has been so admirably made—and, therefore, need not be repeated—by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, when he pointed out that undoubtedly in these developments the temptation is always to take the better land. That point has been made, and I do not desire to repeat it. But what is
  856
  not always realised, particularly by those who do not live in the country, is that frequently by taking a small block of land it is possible virtually to immobilise the rest of the farm. It is quite easy, by taking fifty acres out of a 200-acre farm, to make that farm cease to be an economic or workable unit. I have received a letter during the past few days from a pedigree breeder who has a 100-acre farm. It is an attested farm, and so good are his cattle that although they are a small type of cattle they average just on 1,000 gallons a year. The local authority now desire to put a sewage farm of ten acres in the middle of his farm, just near his cowshed. You may say, "That is only ten acres," but nevertheless it will drive him out of a 100-acre farm. That is what is happening again and again. Therefore, the loss of 50,000 acres a year is a minimum, rather than a maximum, figure of the loss to agriculture.
  I should like also to stress the point already made by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, about the discouragement which these repeated inroads give to the whole agricultural community. Land owners, farmers and workers have been appealed to again and again by the Government to put their best foot forward, and to give of their best to help to feed their fellow countrymen. But how can the agricultural community believe that this is important when Government Departments themselves, one by one, descend on the farming land and take it away for other purposes? We must remember that, after all, these inroads into our farming land to-day are not made because of the greed of the rapacious land owner; the days when the private land owner could make free use of his land belong to those times which we now speak of as the "bad old days of Tory misrule." To-day it is the Government Departments (they were listed by the noble Earl) who are taking the land—and in every case with the full consent and approval of the Minister of Town and Country Planning. This is not "chaotic free enterprise"; it is the "blessings of Socialism." We therefore look more than ever for protection to the Ministers responsible.
  The noble Earl mentioned the Minister of Agriculture. Most of us who know the Minister of Agriculture are pretty sure that he has been doing his best. Of course, in conformity with the doctrine of

  857
  Cabinet responsibility, every Minister must take full responsibility for what his Government as a whole do; but if I were looking for someone who is more than anyone else to blame, I think I should light on the Minister of Food. After all, this is not primarily a problem of agriculture; it is primarily a problem of the consumer. If Government Departments like to come on to farmers, deprive them of their land and pay adequate compensation—well, it is just too bad, but that is that; the farmer can take it. But the person who is going to lose most, the person who is losing to-day and who is paying in shortage of rations for every acre of this land that is being taken away at the present moment is the British housewife. The Minister of Food is pouring out millions of pounds on various schemes in Africa, but I should like to ask him what he is doing at the present moment to try to save these thousands of acres of land, already highly developed, from being taken away from its main purpose of the production of food. I would say to him that if he is unable, for good or bad reasons, to purchase food, especially meat front abroad, then at least let him join the Minister of Agriculture in seeing that his colleagues no longer hinder, or indeed actively destroy, our own productive capacity in this country.
  No one in his senses would say for a moment, even to-day, that no land must be taken from food production for any social or industrial purpose. We all know perfectly well that certain developments are vital, and must be carried on. But the prodigal waste envisaged is appalling. Perhaps I may be allowed to give one instance; and there is probably no noble Lord here who could not think of some instance. I refer to the new town at Bracknell, and I take it as an example because we all know that no fewer than six alternative sites, of less value for food production, have been submitted to the authorities by the agricultural community. We are told that this is bad land, but I can tell your Lordships what is happening on four of those farms. In one instance (I will not mention names) the man is keeping a pedigree attested herd of Ayrshires with high records; he won first prize at the Royal Show last year, and a great number of other reserve championships. Another breeder of pedigree stock won three first
  858
  prizes and the special prize for the best animal of her breed at the Dairy Show. Another is engaged heavily in the export trade in pedigree cattle with very high milk averages; whilst yet another was a successful market gardener. Already, a few years ago he had been turned out of Middlesex because land was wanted there—I think for the purposes of a reservoir. In 1947 he won, for the fourth year, the cup for the best holding, awarded by the Middlesex County Council Small Holdings Committee.
  A survey has been made of this land and 36 farms are to be taken over. So far, the survey has covered only 22 farms—about two-thirds. On that land there was produced last year 1,000,000 pints of milk, 100,000 eggs, 1,000 poultry, 1,500 pigs, 3,200 lb. of meat, 1,000,000 lb. of potatoes, 3,000,000 lb. of vegetables and 1,500 tons of cattle food. That is the food that has been produced for the last twelve months. Moreover, many hundreds of thousands of pounds of capital invested in farm houses, buildings and cottages will of necessity be diverted from their purpose of food production. And yet there are six alternative sites that have been submitted. I realise that not one of them is necessarily ideal, but surely, with the country in its present position as regards food and supplies of dollars, these alternative sites ought to receive more favourable consideration.
  What is the remedy for this situation? It seems to me that one stands out above all others, and that is the education of Government Departments in the reality of the food and dollar position in this country. Secondly, if we are to have planning—and we all agree that in the use of land particularly there must be a plan, and indeed this whole debate is really a plea initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, for planning the use of land—let us have real planning. Let us know what we can afford to allocate to new developments. Let us look again at the demands made by all of the land-spending Departments. Let us ask ourselves whether the new towns need be quite so large, whether they need always be built on the best and easiest and cheapest land for building and whether our new roads need have such immense verges and centre pieces. Let us, as the noble Earl said, before we embark on water developments, have a real national

  859
  water survey and see what is really needed. As a matter of fact, this is a battle which the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, has fought in the past as well as anyone.
  I say, therefore, let us see to it that, if we have planning, we have real planning. Finally I make a small suggestion, but I think not an unimportant one. I suggest that when there are disputes as to whether land should be taken over and there is a public inquiry, the adjudicator who takes that inquiry should be independent of the Department which is in fact taking over the land. Not only is there a case for this on its merits, but it would immensely increase confidence in those inquiries. Those are just a few suggestions that I make. But I come back to the point that the real problem is to educate both public opinion and Government Departments. Once again, therefore, I would venture to thank the noble Lord for putting down this Motion and making this discussion possible, for a debate of this character in your Lordships' House is likely to prove a real contribution to this end.
  3.42 p.m.
  LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I am sure we have all listened with great pleasure to the two speeches that have just been made. Some of you are aware that I have spoken before in your Lordships' House, not only on the subject of land but also on the subject of water. I hope to-day I shall not unduly repeat what I have said then, although, so far as I remember them, the arguments that I put forward should still be maintained. Without referring too much to what has been said by my two noble friends who preceded me, I want to face up to the realities of the world food and agricultural position. There is one question upon which neither noble Lord touched in his references to the food production here which is going to suffer, and that is the horticultural side of agriculture, if I may so call it. As we know, there is a tendency towards a considerable development of market gardening and horticultural production. If the land is to be taken as it has been taken in the last few years, then those sources of the production of valuable vegetables will suffer equally with agriculture. Apart from the various suggestions that I hope to give your Lordships presently for dealing
  860
  with the situation, is not this tendency I have mentioned the best reason we could have for preparing to face up to the time when Marshall Aid will cease? In addition to the destruction of agricultural and horticultural land many other things are incidentally destroyed—for instance, houses, shops, garages, churches, cemeteries, roads, telegraphs, telephones and the electrical "grid" system, and there is the displacement of thousands of people in all walks of life, which brings about great tragedies in many families. Considerable financial loss is involved for all of them.
  I want now to say a word in regard to compensation. There are all sorts of ideas as to how people who are displaced should be compensated. Suggestions are made that compensation should be paid on the 1939 values, but is it not dishonest arbitrarily to fix a sum? Surely the question should be approached in this way: What is the fair value to the occupant of the property that is going to be destroyed? Surely that is the right way to get at it. Consideration of the original purchase price is not much good, because in nearly every case modernisation and improvements have been made since ownership began. What of the future? We have heard what has been taking place in the last twenty years, and what is going on all the time. I feel that we have to consider this problem as one of the most important before us, because if we do not we shall be faced with three choices: to get rid of 20,000,000 people from this country; to do what I am going in a moment to suggest, I hope constructively—namely, grow and produce a great deal more food in this country. Otherwise, in the end, we shall come very near to starvation.
  As I understand it—and I have obtained my figures from very good sources; your Lordships will readily understand that they may not be accurate to the acre, but they are very nearly so—roughly speaking, we have in this country 31,000,000 acres of crops and grass land. We have also, roughly speaking, 17,000,000 acres of rough grazing. I would term as "rough grazing," land which is not by any means fully used. This marginal land in a great many cases has nothing on it at all. I have taken pains to see what we could do with that marginal land. I am sure that on 1,000,000 acres 250,000 head of store

  861
  cattle, of roughly six to seven hundredweight live weight, could be carried. Those figures come from an eminent statistician on this question. As your Lordships will readily appreciate, in a great many parts of this country the land of which I am speaking has in the past been used a great deal. There is evidence of it in derelict buildings, signs of old fencing and broken-down walls.
  When one looks back a little, say to 1870, one sees that the sheep population of this country was then 29,500,000. In 1946, however, it was only 5,250,000. How has this happened? I am going to be a little controversial perhaps. So far as I can see, it has happened for this reason. Death duties were the cause of landlords, and incidentally farmers, withdrawing from the poor or marginal land to the richer lands and the lower areas which were referred to by my noble friend Lord Radnor. That is just my idea about it. The money that has accrued from these duties or taxes has had the effect of purchasing the fertility of millions of acres in the North American Continent, and in other places in the world, at such low prices that our marginal lands and the projects become uneconomic. That is evident, as I will show your Lordships later, when I give some interesting figures of what has happened and is happening in the world.
  We are now seeing that, because of erosion and the modern idea of bulk buying (which in my view affects this very considerably), the supplies we used to obtain from these countries are not available. For instance, we know that in the Argentine bulk buying has produced bulk selling, with the result that the Argentine Government gave the farmers a very poor price for their products, which they sold to us—though in the last case they have not been delivered to us—at a very much higher price; and now the Argentine Government want still more. I maintain that if the old system had been in existence that situation would never have arisen. What can we do about this? Surely, if we had used the money that has been sunk in the ground-nuts scheme in Africa to develop our marginal lands we should have had meat, fats and hides. Why should we not spend this money in building up what we have here, instead of spending it on marginal land in a country, where it is a pure "toss-up" as to whether or not it will be a success?
  862
  My Lords, here are some quite alarming figures which I have obtained from a reliable source. There are 282,000,000 acres in the world which have already gone, eroded one might say, and there are some 775,000,000 acres in North America and elsewhere where erosion is now taking place. We must do everything we can to see that the world turns to self-sustained yielding of crops and not to the continual robbing of the soil. Eminent men who have travelled in the world and studied this question have given us serious warning in regard to what is going on. The facts are that many of our past sources of supply are no longer there, and they will be even further reduced if the present system of erosion and alterations in local conditions continue. Some of these countries that used to be entirely agricultural have now, owing to the war, become partially industrialised, and they demand a higher standard of living. The result is that the food is wanted in their own countries and they are not prepared to export it as they did in the past.
  As I think my noble friend Lord Radnor said, this is not a political question. This is something which is very serious for us all, and I am sure that the Government must be extremely worried over the situation that is facing us. I hope the noble Earl who is to reply will give us some indication as to what should be done. I feel that there should be thoroughly well-thought-out schemes, administered by the best brains—though certainly not by the Brains Trust. What can we do to avoid the continuous struggle that we are having in order to find enough food for our people? I say that we can do it to a great extent by using our own land, by bringing back into production land that is now more or less derelict. We have 56,500,000 acres in this country, less about 10,000,000 acres occupied by towns, villages, works and so on.
  There are of course, areas that are quite unsuitable to produce anything. As my noble friend Lord De La Warr said, why not build on them? He has instanced Bracknell, about which the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, made such an admirable speech the other day. Why not build there? There are entirely non-productive areas where we could build these vast reservoirs which are

  863
  necessary, and which will be still more necessary for supplying water to our people. In this respect, I entirely agree with the two noble Lords who have spoken, that we cannot to-day afford to lose a single acre of food-producing land in this country. I thought Lord De La Warr was perfectly right when he said that this was really a consumers' question more than anything else. I think consumers all over the country are extremely worried. Those who think and read of what is going on, both in this country and elsewhere in the world, are very distressed at the outlook. On the question of building, let me deal for a moment with Bracknell. In parts of the country, particularly in my country in the North, they do not build houses of one storey or two storeys; they build up, and have tenements and flats. Surely that could be done at Bracknell. It is something which I think we should try to do, in order to conserve land.
  I come to the question which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Radnor in regard to the Enborne Valley, in which, unfortunately, I live. I noticed the other day that in the programme which the Socialist Party have put down, and presumably agreed to, if they are returned to power after the next Election one of the things they propose to nationalise is water. I for one entirely agree with that idea. I believe that it will be necessary. That is not so much this Government's "cup of tea" as that of every Government I have known over a period of years; all Governments have stressed the fact that they would do everything they could to give an adequate water supply to every household or building in the country where people live. But if we are to have a nation-wide, comprehensive water supply scheme, it cannot be achieved without having the whole question of water supply and its sources co-ordinated all over the country.
  Noble Lords in this House will know that there are places—I know one or two near where I live—where small water schemes have been drawn up in villages, perhaps miles away from another place, and suddenly some unfortunate person finds that his water supply has gone. This means that someone has tapped it miles away. To my mind, that indicates that we must get together and have a very serious investigation concerning
  864
  the sources and the supply of water in this country. I cannot see that that can be done unless a nation-wide scheme is drawn up—a nation-wide scheme which would involve nationalisation. I am dead against nationalisation of industries, but, in my view, this is not an industry at all.
  I make this strong appeal to the noble Earl who is to reply on behalf of the Government. It is now almost a year that we in the Enborne Valley have been in suspense. We hear all sorts of different statements from men working on the scheme. One says: "We are into quicksands." Everyone says: "That is splendid." Then another man says "Oh, no—there is no quicksand at all." First it was planned to have one reservoir, but I heard only last week that now three different reservoirs are proposed. I do not wish to repeat what I said in the last debate, but this subject involves a number of questions, to which the noble Earl referred, with regard to the nine Ministries which are concerned in these matters. I begged that they should all be consulted first, before there was any question of utilising this area which comprises nine square miles and the best part of 6,000 acres of good agricultural land. According to census figures which arc, no doubt, fairly accurate, nearly 6,000 people will be displaced. I hope that the noble Earl will press on the Metropolitan Water Board the urgency of deciding whether they are going to carry out this project or are going to ask for something to be done in a direction which I believe has been indicated. I think it is unwise to believe that this is going to be a successful scheme, for it must be dependent on the weather. It is entirely a question of the weather as to whether you will get a reservoir filled, and whether, it having been emptied, it will be filled again in time to meet the needs of the section of the population whom it is designed to serve. I hope that the noble Earl will endeavour to do something to hurry on this decision, and I trust that the decision will be given one way or the other as soon as possible.
  I understand that we are consuming in this country to-day about 2,030,000 tons of beef, pork, mutton and hams. In pre-war days the consumption was 2,800,000 tons. Just think what it would mean if we could get 700,000 tons more of beef, mutton and hams to-day! If the

  865
  marginal lands of which I have spoken this afternoon were put into production it would be quite easy to do that—and even to do more than that. Ten million acres of rough grazing would produce 500,000 tons of beef and mutton. That figure comes from one of the highest authorities on this subject in the land. I have nearly finished my remarks but I wish to say a few words in regard to questions raised in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Greater London Water Supplies. The Report was made to the Ministry of Health in 1948, so it is quite up to date. This is what is said in that Report:
  "The Metropolitan Water Board's storage capacity in reservoirs in the Lee Valley is 4,607,000,000 gallons A further reservoir of 3,400,000,000 gallons capacity is under construction at Chingford."
  That makes altogether approximately 8,000,000,000 gallons storage. The Report continues:
  "It should be noted that on more than one occasion the flow has not been sufficient during a winter following a dry summer to enable the existing reservoirs to be replenished."
  If with a scheme for 8,000,000,000 gallons a situation like that can arise, I ask your Lordships what earthly chance there is of making the Enborne Valley scheme—which aims at 55,000,000,000 gallons—a real success and something which can be relied upon.
  The scheme in Wales is quite different and outside weather influences altogether. The rainfall in the area from which the water there can be drawn is 68 inches per annum, whereas in most other places round about my home, and I suppose in the Thames Valley generally, it is about 30 to 40 inches. I will again read from the Report. This is how it continues:
  "Against the potential water resources of the area it is necessary to weigh the estimated demand. This is a matter of some difficulty because the essential factors are uncertain:

  (a) It is not known by how much the demands of industry and agriculture in the area may increase.

  (b) It is not known precisely what changes in the distribution of population and industry in the area will be effected by the planning proposals for Greater London.

  (c) It is not known what increases there will be in the consumption as represented in gallons per head per day."

  Surely, before we begin to embark on the expenditure of these enormous sums—and, as I have said, it is problematical
  866
  whether there will be a successful outcome to that expenditure, in view of the dependence on the weather—these three factors to which the Report refers in the passage which I have just read should be definitely ascertained. Next, I come to the question of boundaries and this again is most amusing. Once more I quote:
  "It remains now for us to recommend what should be the boundaries of the area of the new authority. It would be impossible to adhere simply to the hydro-geological limits of the London basin, for this would take us too far afield—to Didcot, Marlborough and Basingstoke in the West, almost to Dover in the South, and would embrace most of Essex; and these areas are obviously not part of Greater London."
  To that last sentence I would add—nor is Enborne.
  There is just one more Report—this time it is that of a Royal Commission—to which I would like to draw your Lordships' attention. This goes back much further than the Report from which I have just been reading. That was issued last year, but this Royal Commission was appointed in 1899. It was appointed to examine the scheme submitted by the engineer of the London County Council and a report thereon by Sir Benjamin Baker and Mr. Deacon. This scheme envisaged a series of reservoirs in the upper waters of the Usk and Wye capable of supplying 597,000,000 gallons per day to London. Water was to be conveyed by an aqueduct for 117 miles and by pipes for 45 miles, the distance right into London. Of course it would be materially less if the water were run into the Thames in its higher reaches when wanted, as suggested by the Enborne scheme. The estimated cost of the scheme at that time was somewhere between £10,000,000 and £20,000,000. To-day, the cost would be £50,000,000, or even more; but I maintain that it would be a cheaper scheme, for these reasons. We would have a certainty of having water; we would displace no one; we would have to buy out very few people; we would eliminate pumping, because the water would come down from about 800 feet; and there would be the possibility of developing a hydro-electric scheme which would utilise water and save coal in the production of power. I should like to call attention to paragraph 123 of the Commission's Report which says:
  "After 1941 the sources of the Thames will be most severely tried."

  867
  Does that not convey to us that we must look away from the Thames Valley to find the new water required for Greater London? We cannot get away from the fact that the Enborne Valley scheme will draw water from the sources of the Thames. In their wisdom, and on the advice of all the eminent engineers of the day, the Royal Commission voiced that serious warning.
  I believe that this matter which the noble Earl has raised to-day should be looked upon as the most important subject before the country. It is not a political question. If we do not pay attention to it, and to the evidence that we have in regard to the production in other parts of the world of food that used to be available to us, but is not available now and is not likely to be available to the same extent in the future, then we deserve to suffer and to have to tighten our belts a great deal more than we are doing. I beg the noble Earl who is to reply to set up immediately a new Royal Commission, composed of the most eminent men on the subjects of agricultural land, water supply and the use of marginal land. Let us have their Report as soon as possible, so that we may see what we can do to lift the clouds hanging over this very difficult subject.
  4.15 p.m.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this is not a land owners' debate and it is not a farmers' debate. It concerns every man, woman and child in this country. It concerns our children's children. As such it is a subject very fit to be debated in your Lordships' House, for your Lordships' House, as I sometimes maintain on the public platform, is the final guardian of the long-term interests of the people. I am surprised to find to-day that there are no speakers from the Back Benches opposite. Why? I am surprised also to find no speakers from my right. Why? The Liberal Party destroyed British agriculture in the past. Have they no deathbed repentance?—I apologise. I understand that their speakers have been laid low by influenza.
  I do not propose to speculate whether the world is marching to a hungry doom, but there are at least two factors which vitally affect this situation, and which are not always appreciated by the people of
  868
  this country. We have passed through the era of free trade, never to return. We have passed through the era of less free trade, possibly never to return. We are now in the era of import licensing. Under that system the manufacturing interests in foreign countries can make it impossible for us to exchange our goods for the agricultural products of that country. That applies no matter how cheap and how good our manufactured goods are. Today the world wants capital goods. Tomorrow it may not, and the springs of capital may dry up in the overseas countries. Will the demand for capital goods continue? Will manufacturing interests in those countries so abate their import licensing system that the goods which compete with their own uneconomic industries will be allowed to enter? That is unknown. Another factor is the new trend of trade relations. When Mrs. John Bull visits her overseas butcher, grocer and baker to-day, if she wants to indulge in the luxury of a slanging match, would it not be advisable to see that her back garden is in good trim, lest those long-suffering tradesmen may decide that her tantrums are not worth her custom.
  Before the war there was no price discentive for the development of agricultural land. Owners of agricultural land received for it not the existing use price but the potential use price. That potential use price was much the same whether the land was good or bad. Today, in practice, virtually the same principle applies, although the owner receives the existing use value, and therefore there is a difference between good and bad agricultural land. Yet the difference between the good and the bad is not a sufficient incentive to foster the development of the bad rather than the good. To-day the only safeguard we have for agricultural land is the Minister of Town and Country Planning, who is charged with this duty. I always believe the Minister came into existence largely because of the keen interest shown in this subject by my noble friend, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and I wonder sometimes whether the Minister is living up to the hopes my noble friend obviously had of him. The trouble really is, as my noble friend, Lord Radnor pointed out, that for all purposes the same type of land is best—flat, level and well drained land. The difference between

  869
  hilly, scrubby land and flat, level land makes a very considerable difference to the final cost of a building scheme.
  That means that if the Minister is going to save agricultural land he must take decisions which will involve people in expense. For that reason he is bound to be unpopular. Developers will always be able to put up an excellent case for using the easiest land to develop, because it will be the cheapest and will save somebody a good deal of money in the long, run. But so many of the developers are other Government Departments. Everybody knows that the status of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning in practice is not equal to that of some of the older Departments. It is quite Utopian to think that the Minister of Town and Country Planning can stand up, for instance, to the Service Ministries and get his own way; he has not got a hope. When it comes to developing in which his own Ministry has the final say—that is, the new towns—I think he is showing that even if he could stand up to his Service colleagues the inclination would not be there, because when the decision lies in his own hands he seems equally remiss. The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has mentioned Harlow; Bracknell has been mentioned, and precisely the same things have been happening at Crawley.
  It seems to me that, unless we can endow the Ministry of Town and Country Planning with a status which will take it many years to attain in Whitehall, or put in charge of that Ministry a superman whom none of his colleagues dare cross, we shall have to introduce some other measure to reinforce that Ministry. The only way I can see is to try to bring in the money mechanism to reinforce this planning authority. I introduce this subject now because I am told that to introduce a thing in England takes twenty years. I put it to the noble Earl opposite that he may spend the first day of the twenty years, at any rate, in passing it on to his colleague for examination by the experts.
  We have not very much really good land in this country; we have more medium land, and a lot of had land; but, by a lot of sweat, toil and money, bad land can be turned into much better land. It always seems to me justice and
  870
  common sense that if a man wishes to filch some of our agricultural land for another purpose, he should be required, in effect, to replace it in our national heritage. That could be done if it were possible to levy on the use of agricultural land a sum sufficient to bring an equal area of our worse land up to the level of the land that has been taken. If it were possible to do that, it would mean, in effect, a levy en the development of agricultural land which was the greater for the better and the lesser for the worse—the ideal carrot and stick, in fact. I do not want to go into details, such as into how many grades the land would have to be graded; whether it could be done under the Town and Country Planning Act, or whether special legislation would be necessary; whether the development charge under the Town and Country Planning Act would have to be lowered in some way all round to prevent the cost of development being prohibitive, or who or what agency should have charge of the spending of this levy on the development of agricultural land in order to reclaim the worst land.
  I am aware of very considerable difficulties, but I know of no difficulty that is insuperable. With such a system I am convinced that developers nowadays, with earth-moving equipment, would soon find their direction turning towards the land which they could acquire cheapest—at the lowest levy, shall I say?—and we should find the hilly, scrubby sites taken up. After all, why should these towns all be built on level ground? We go to Lancashire and Yorkshire and find half the mill towns are built on the side of hills; some of the most beautiful towns in England have very steep streets. It is only because the flat land is the cheapest that towns are now gravitating all to the flat.
  We cannot see a complete stoppage of the development of agricultural land—it would be quite impossible. But under the system I have outlined the developer would have the natural incentive to turn to development which would do the least harm to the heritage of this country. My method provides the incentive to use land of the least possible agricultural value, and provides a fund from which to improve land to replace that agricultural land which inevitably has to be developed.
  4.27 p.m.
  VISCOUNT BRUCE OF MELBOURNE: My Lords, this Motion is directed towards the land and water resources of this country, and to their full utilisation. I do not propose to deal with the question of what these resources in fact are, or the manner in which they could be developed. I want to direct your Lordships' attention to the absolute necessity of making the maximum use of the resources which we have, and particularly in the connection which is specifically referred to in the Motion—namely, with regard to our food supplies. We have always derived our food supplies partly from our own home production and partly from imports from overseas. If those imports from overseas are to be diminished, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, then we shall be in a very precarious situation, and we shall have to look increasingly to our own powers of production in this country.
  I do not propose on this occasion to deal with the general food situation in the world, save to say that I think we must all recognise, taking the world as a whole, that there is unquestionably a serious food shortage—a food shortage which goes to the point that there are millions of people in the world who cannot get enough food to maintain a reasonable state of health and efficiency. I desire to look at the matter from the much more limited view—the view which I think a lot of people are inclined to take of this problem—namely, the position of the countries which in pre-war days had reasonable supplies of food. Even if the standard of all their people was not satisfactory, they did, broadly speaking, obtain enough food. There is rather a tendency to-day for many people to say: "Well, the position is now all right; things are much better than they were, and there are abundant food supplies." What I think such people are completely overlooking is this: that while last year's harvest was of quite outstanding merit and greatly eased the situation, and while we all hope that this year's harvest will be the same, and that the position will remain satisfactory, at present the rather more comfortable food situation is absolutely dependent upon the weather.
  If, for example, there were a really bad season in the North American Continent
  872
  —and, after all, they have enjoyed an almost unlimited run of good seasons, and in the ordinary course it is to be expected that they will have a bad season—the position with regard to wheat would immediately become worse, probably, than it was even during the war. The situation is completely precarious, and entirely dependent upon the weather. We can only hope that the weather will continue to bless us as it has during recent years. That is all I want to say about the general food situation. I want merely to underline the fact that, even with regard to what may be described as the more specialised, the more developed and the more advanced countries, the food situation is precarious beyond words.
  With regard to the world as a whole, there is an unquestioned deplorable shortage of food. Efforts are to be made over the years to improve that situation. Those efforts will mean that as standards are improved, unless there is a tremendous increase in production the task of Britain in maintaining her supplies from abroad will be increasingly difficult.
  That is all I want to say on the broad question. I want, however, to take a specific instance of the dangers facing us with regard to food, which shows the need to take some action to ensure that our requirements will be met. At the moment the position is present in our minds because of the recent cut in the meat ration. I think anxiety has been further increased by the fact that the representatives of the Government have not felt able to guarantee that even the present meagre ration will be maintained. The present position has unquestionably arisen from the fact that the Argentine were 100,000 tons short in deliveries in 1948 under the Andes Agreement. On that subject, I want to say one or two words. The Government, I understand, are at the present time negotiating with the Argentine. I would beseech the Government—and let me say, in preface, that I recognise that all the statements which the Government have made have been in this direction—not to let the Argentine hold us to ransom. I am perfectly certain that the people of this country would rather go on a vegetarian diet for six months than pay this iniquitous price which, because of the position in which we find ourselves, the Argentine are proposing to charge. But it is a little

  873
  difficult for the public generally fully to understand this question.
  I have been asked: "What is this price which the Argentine are asking? Is it such an outrage? "Unhappily, nobody quite knows what the position is. So far as I can make out—and since the Government are not going to disclose the price, I do not suppose the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong—under the Andes Agreement the price for sides was about 6d. to 6½d. a lb. But involved with that interesting Agreement there was this payment of £10,000,000. Some part of that £10,000,000 has gone into satisfying the price for the meat, and again my information is that that probably raises it to about 8½d. a lb. Compared with Australia's price, which is about 5d., that figure is, from the point of view of the Argentine, a pretty satisfactory one. But now, I understand, the Argentine are asking for a 100 per cent. increase on that figure. If that is the position, it is one of the most iniquitous suggestions made by any country, on a par with the toll that the Argentine have taken of the wretched world for a number of other products where she could hold the world to ransom. I would beseech the Government not to allow this country to be held to ransom; and I am perfectly certain that if we stand firm the Argentine will soon come to her senses.
  It is upon the subject of meat that I want to weary your Lordships for a few moments, because the position in that regard seems to me very serious. I am afraid that I must inflict upon your Lordships a good number of facts. The actual position is that, in 1938. Britain consumed 2,794,000 tons of meat. That meat was supplied as to 1,250,000 tons
  874
  from home production and as to 1,544,000 tons from imports. I hope the noble Earl will try to remember these figures because, in view of the importance of the subject. I wish to ask leave of the House to insert a table giving the whole of these figures, which will make it perfectly simple for anyone interested in the subject to understand the significance of the figures and the present trends, both with regard to production and the sources from which we obtain our supplies. In 1947 the consumption was 2,183,000 tons. This was a fall from 2,794,000 tons before the war, although the population had probably increased by something over 2,000,000 in the interval. The 1947 total was supplied as to 780,000 tons from home produetion—as against the 1,250,000 tons before the war—and 1,403,000 tons from imports. In 1948, the consumption was 1,877,000 tons, a further drop of about 300,000 tons. This was supplied as to 750,000 tons from home production and 1,127,000 tons from imports.
  These figures show that our total consumption has fallen from 2,794,000 tons in 1938, to 1,877,000 tons in 1948. When we remember that the population has increased by 2,000,000, the significance of those figures with regard to the health of our people must be brought home to all of us. Those figures show also that, with regard to our sources of supply, home production has fallen from 1,250,000 tons in 1938 to 750,000 tons in 1948, while our imports have fallen from 1,544,000 tons in 1938 to 1,127,000 tons in 1948. As I say, with the permission of the House I will put in a table which gives all those figures, and I will also put in a summary of the figures dealing with the sources from which we have drawn our supplies.
  The table and summary referred to are as follows:

  BRITAIN'S MEAT SUPPLIES

  (in tons).

  —

  1938

  1947

  1948

  HOME PRODUCTION

  1,250,000

  780,000

  750,000

  Eire

  40,440

  16,770

  17,890

  Australia

  240,430

  211,750

  190,940

  New Zealand

  274,440

  348,710

  365,170

  Canada

  80,340

  125,780

  121,890

  Other British

  7,030

  5,090

  10,610

  —

  642,680

  708,100

  706,500

  Sweden

  12,760

  910

  2,150

  Iceland

  1,760

  410

  660

  Denmark

  173,810

  55,590

  36,560

  Poland

  27,810

  500

  13,460

  Netherlands

  27,690

  980

  7,070

  Hungary

  9,440

  5,100

  7,040

  Yugoslavia

  2,820

  180

  —

  —

  256,090

  63,670

  66,940

  United States of America

  36,490

  57,660

  350

  Chile

  10,130

  10,380

  10,470

  Brazil

  36,200

  9,320

  3,240

  Uruguay

  56,130

  32,850

  21,740

  Argentina

  482,230

  500,850

  309,660

  Paraguay

  1,500

  7,290

  4,840

  586,190

  560,690

  349,950

  Other Foreign

  22,710

  13,010

  3,640

  TOTAL IMPORTS

  1,544,160

  1,403,130

  1,127,380

  TOTAL CONSUMPTION

  2,794,160

  2,183,130

  1,877,380

  EARL DE LA WARR: Do the noble Viscount's figures refer to all meats, or are they figures for beef?
  VISCOUNT BRUCE OF MELBOURNE: It is all meat; everything you can think of, except fowls—pig meat, beef, mutton, lamb, canned meat; everything except fowls. These tables show a somewhat alarming decrease in our imports, and when you come to look at them you will see that the only source from which we derived more meat than in 1939 was from the countries of the Commonwealth. Imports from all the other Continents have been reduced. In 1938 we imported 586,000 tons from
  876
  South America; in 1947, 560,000 tons; and in 1948, 349,000. But, with regard to the drop to 349,000 tons, we must take into account the shortfall of 100,000 tons in respect of the Andes Agreement. That shortfall of 100,000 tons in 1948 is a very significant figure, because it shows the increasing consumption in the Argentine itself, and is evidence that probably we must regard something like 400,000 tons as the maximum supply that will flow from South America. We must not gaily restore the estimate to the 560,000 tons of 1947, because I do not believe the facts will for one second support such a belief. Imports from Europe have fallen from 256,000 to 66,000 tons.

  877
  Actually, in view of the fall in home production and imports, the consumption of meat in this country to-day is only 67 per cent. of what it was in 1938.
  That situation the Government, from their published Statement, are clearly out to remedy. In a Memorandum of December, 1948, which was presented by His Majesty's Government to O.E.E.C., the anticipated annual consumption of meat in Britain in 1952–53—some years hence—is stated at 3,003,000 tons—an increase over 1948 of something like 1,100,000 tons. The expectation does not seem to finish there, for the Ministry of Food have raised that total to 3,200,000 tons; so that by 1952–53 we have got to find another 1,100,000 or 1,200,000 tons over our 1948 total. It is hoped that by 1953 home production will have been restored to its pre-war figure; at present it is 750,000 tons, and it should be up to 1,250,000 by 1953. That is a fairly large increase in the time. I am sure we all sincerely hope that it will be achieved, and I suggest that every effort must be made to ensure that it is. But, so far as I know, nobody as yet has visualised that we can go far beyond that point. Personally, I have grave doubts about our ability to go much further. But that is a matter about which many noble Lords are much better able to speak than I am. So far as the Government and the policy of the day are concerned, that is quite specifically the maximum target.
  Sir Henry Turner has said:
  "We do not expect in Britain to be able to do more than restore our own production."
  If that is so, on my figures of 1,100,000 or 1,200,000, there is a gap of 700,000 to 800,000 tons somehow to be filled. When we talk about a consumption of 3,200,000 we need to have some fairly clear idea where we are to obtain the supplies. I propose to take the different sources and see what the position appears to be. I think we may say quite definitely that supplies from Europe are likely to increase, but the question of how greatly they will increase is another matter. France undoubtedly will send us a certain amount of meat, but I personally cannot accept some of the fantastic figures I have heard, of hundreds of thousands of tons that are apparently going to flow from France. I do not believe for one second that it can be done. Bearing in mind the situation that
  878
  exists to-day in Eastern Europe, I think that if we put the figure down as 100,000 tons over and above the pre-war figures from Europe we shall be very optimistic.
  So far as the United States and Canada are concerned, the position is that Canada has very substantially increased her exports to this country over the period of the war years. I have considerable doubts whether Canada will be able to go much further than she has already gone in the supply of meat to this country. The United Slates before the war were very small suppliers, and supplies have now fallen to an almost negligible figure. The present extraordinarily low figures are largely due to the high standard of living in America, with its greatly increased consumption of meat, and I do not think we can look for any great supplies from there. In fact, I think we must assume that the position we have now achieved, in which Canada alone is sending to this country more than Canada and America between them did before the war, is as high as we are likely to go. We should be deluding ourselves if we hoped for more.
  Then we come to New Zealand. New Zealand has made the most heroic efforts on behalf of this country, and has tremendously increased her exports to Great Britain, which in 1948 rose to 365,000 tons as against 274,000 tons in 1938. I think that that is an incredibly good performance. I believe that New Zealand will go further. But we have to remember that New Zealand is a relatively small place, with a relatively limited amount of land, and that it has not a vast population. I think that another 50,000 tons over the quantity she has sent hitherto is the most we can hope for.
  With regard to South America, the position is that between 1938 and 1948 the imports from the South American countries have fallen from 586,000 tons to 566,900 tons in 1947 and 349,950 tons in 1948. Sir Henry Turner has said:
  "Owing to industrial developments, there is little likelihood that South America will be able to supply anything like the quantities they used to supply before the war. They are eating locally a bigger proportion than they did."
  Those words of Sir Henry Turner appear to be substantally supported by what is going on in the Argentine to-day. In 1939 the population of Argentina was

  879
  13,132,000; in 1947 it was 16,108,000. With immigration at the rate of 100,000 a year, the population by 1960 should be about 20,000,000. But the 16,000,000 they have already are consuming beef to this extent: in 1938 the amount per head was 176 lb.; in 1947 it was 193 lb. per head; and by 1960, unless they strike a bad patch, it will unquestionably be 200 lb., because at the moment intense industrialisation is going on in the Argentine. Almost a new régime has come into existence. Whether you like its methods or not, it has unquestionably assured a greatly increased purchasing power for the low income group of people in that country.
  There is ample evidence to show, as Sir Henry Turner said, that by 1960 it is doubtful whether, owing to this development we shall get anything like the same amount of meat by way of imports from South America as we received in 1938. But I am not going to that extreme point. I am quite prepared to leave it on the basis that we will continue to receive as much, without subscribing to the possibility of our getting any more. I would add that events in South America may certainly change the present trends there. They may have economic troubles inside their country. They may have serious political difficulties, which are not unknown in those countries, and the present great swing towards industrialisation may be reversed. I do not, however, believe that any one of those events will bring about that which is vital to us—namely, an increase in production in those countries and the assurance to us of not merely a fractional increase, but a substantial increase in the amount of beef, which is the main commodity they can ship to us.
  Another matter I would like to stress is that we must bear in mind a point that emerges from the instances of the Argentine which I have given your Lordships. We can get imports into this country only as a result of people exporting from their countries the surplus over and above the consumption of their own people. I think the trend everywhere—and the trend is going to be worse the more prosperous the world becomes—is towards a greater internal consumption. In most countries policies on big levels are being initiated, with the object of bringing up the standard of the people.
  880
  That is another way of saying that their purchasing power is increasing, which means that more and more production will be consumed in their own country. Consequently, it seems to me that there remains the problem of how we are to fill the gap, which is still a vast one. Let us start at 700,000 tons, which is the lower of the figures which have been suggested. Europe may send us 100,000 tons more, and New Zealand may send us 50,000 tons; but there seems no hope of any more from any other source. I shall deal with Australia separately in a moment. The result is that we have a gap of 550,000 tons. If we take an optimistic view and say that we shall get the odd 50,000 tons from somewhere, we are still left with a gap of 500,000 tons.
  I suggest that what must be done is the bringing about of a great expansion scheme. There is beef production in Australia, and there will be incidental production, such as pig production. I hope people will not run away with the idea that the pig is a prolific animal which breeds very rapidly, and that we can solve all our problems merely by breeding pigs. It cannot be done like that. Pigs need food; there are problems of their feeding stuffs. One great scheme in the world of pig breeding is in Queensland where the fodder is provided for the animal and it is reared, and yet the maximum result anticipated from that vast scheme is 40,000 tons. Breeding of pigs is not quite so easy as it appears, but it will be necessary everywhere. It affords a tremendous contribution and a tremendous help. But we have to do more than that.
  I apologise for talking at such length, but I attach the greatest importance to this question from the point of view of this country, because the meat ration is vital to us. I suggest that Australia is the place where we might do something. At the present time Australia's meat production is 1,000,000 tons. Of that amount, the people in Australia are consuming 750,000 tons, and 250,000 tons is being exported. Last year the exports were rather less—190,000 tons. The figure that we hope for as Australia's export is 250,000 tons, but Australia is increasing her population by migration and by natural means fairly rapidly. It is estimated that the present population of 7,500,000 will have risen by 1960 to 10,000,000. If that position came about,

  881
  Australia would be consuming the whole of her present meat production.
  There are people who say that that state of affairs is inevitable; that Australia will not expand greatly as a cattle country; that she will consume all her own meat and there will be nothing available for export. Personally, I do not take that view. I believe that the present export will probably be maintained as the population increases. I believe that there will be developments in the already opened up and recognised cattle areas of Australia that will take account of the increased population, and that Australia will be able to maintain exports at something like the present figure. But from Britain's point of view, that is not good enough. There must be an expansion of production, and more exports from Australia. There is a great undeveloped cattle country in Australia, probably as good as any in the world. What has to be done is to set about developing that country. It is a vast project which involves many difficulties, but it is a project about which we have information. Without being offensive, I would point out that it is unlike some schemes which have been launched where information has not been available. Here, information is available. There have been innumerable reports, and those reports show that, if we get down to the job, the beef cattle population in Northern Australia which to-day is about 6,500,000, can probably be increased to 16,000,000 in a relatively short period of years. That would mean that the production of beef in Northern Australia could be increased to 700,000 tons from the present figure of 250,000 tons, thus enabling greatly increased export to be brought about. That would go a considerable way towards filling the gap and, so far as I can see, it is the only real suggestion that has been made as to how this gap is to be filled.
  The Australian Government are perfectly prepared to go ahead with that development. On January 22 of this year, Mr. Chifley, the Prime Minister of Australia, said that the Australian Government were prepared to undertake heavy capital expenditure in the development of the northern cattle industry. He mentioned a figure of £50,000,000, but the offer was conditioned. He is reported to have said:
  882
  "If Britain gives Australia a reasonable market for a reasonable period, we will get on with the job. Anything less than ten years will not do: I think it should be larger. We do not want to spend big sums developing the area to find that in a few years we are going to be cut out by Argentina and other countries."
  I desire to ask His Majesty's Government: What is the present position with regard to that scheme? I can see all the problems which face His Majesty's Government in making e long-term commitment of this character. I can also see the apprehension of Mr. Chifley when he visualises that they may spend all this money, they may get into production, and then they may be undersold by somebody. But I think both Governments are being a little too hesitant about this project.
  So far as I can see, on the analysis I have given, the danger is that the British Government might commit themselves to acquire Australia's beef production at a reasonable price and then subsequently find another source that would supply the meat mare cheaply. I do not think it would be good tactics for the British Government to want to buy more cheaply from somebody else. The British Government could safeguard themselves as to price revision as the years go by, basing their prices on those obtaining in the world. I should have thought it possible for the British Government to take ample precaution against anything unsatisfactory happening from their point of view. At the same time they would see a source from which they might begin to meet the requirements of this country. Looking to the future, the whole picture seems to show that there is no source from which the Government could obtain supplies to satisfy their own estimate of what our consumption might be.
  So far as Mr. Chifley is concerned, I think he need not be too apprehensive. I think he ought to be prepared to go into negotiations with a fairly open mind. I think this danger that he refers to, of Australia being cut out by somebody else when she gets into production, is a rather remote possibility; there will be no alternative source that could cut him out. When those are the facts of such a vitally important question to the United Kingdom Government, when the United Kingdom Government know that Australia is prepared to play, and that

  883
  Australia will go to the tune of £50,000,000 (no inconsiderable sum), then I should have thought, if sensible men sat down together, that it would be possible to come to a satisfactory arrangement beneficial to both countries. I would urge upon His Majesty's Government that something must be done in this matter, but I would also stress the even more important point, that speed is the essence of the contract.
  5.3 p.m.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, when I saw this Motion on the Order Paper it seemed to me that one of its objects was to put the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture in the extremely embarrassing position of having to defend the loss of agricultural land—rather like a master of foxhounds being asked to defend a Bill against blood sports. However, on hearing the speeches of noble Lords I think a greater measure of agreement between the Government and noble Lords on all sides of the House is now apparent—much more than can be judged from the actual Motion.
  I think we are all agreed on the very pressing problem of the shortage of land in this country. I agree that the density of population has grown. I will not join forces with Lord Radnor in saying that we are the most densely populated country in the world; I do not know how we compare with parts of China and India. But at the same time, the amount of land per person in this country is extremely small when we have to think of feeding ourselves. In fact, I think it works out approximately to something like one acre per head of the total area of Great Britain, or about half an acre per head of food-producing land. There is little margin if you try to feed a person out of half an acre of land. Actually, the population has increased by something like 2,000,000 since the beginning of the war, though in the near future there may be a trend downwards.
  In regard to schemes such as mass immigration (which has been proposed by one speaker this afternoon), or of education in birth control to limit the population, I must say that it would
  884
  be some time before any such schemes could have a lasting effect. In the meantime the position in regard to food would be critical indeed if we had to try to feed ourselves entirely from our own land and resources.
  The other great fact that stands out is the amount of food we have to bring into the country from outside. Before the war, in terms of calories—again I quote approximate figures—we produced something like 31 per cent. of our own food. Now we are producing something like 37 per cent., and we hope that when the agricultural expansion programme has finally flowered into ultimate achievement, we shall produce something like 50 per cent. But even that leaves an enormous amount of food which we must try to secure from the foreign resources which Lord Bruce has so clearly pointed out to us. The other difficulty is of course that the terms of trade are against us, and the Economic Survey issued recently quoted the fact that our total exports and re-exports though standing last year at a record level paid for only 90 per cent. of our imports. Therefore, I think we can all agree that we need maximum production in this country. There is no doubt about that, and it is obvious that we must try to save all the best possible agricultural land for this purpose.
  But the real question which arises is that of balancing needs. Any Government, of whatever complexion, must look at the various needs of our land. As has been pointed out by several speakers, there are other needs which are extremely important. The small area of land in relation to our population has to support not only food production but also houses, schools, amenities and factories—the factories which have to produce the materials to pay for the other 50 per cent. of our food. Therefore, I would suggest to your Lordships that the two really important questions which we should examine are, first, have we given up too much agricultural land to these other needs, and, secondly, in the cases where it was necessary to release land from agriculture, have we given good land where it was possible to give bad? The indictment would be against the Government if either of those propositions could be sustained.
  It has been suggested that in spite of planning under the various Planning Acts

  885
  and planning administration, a large amount of good agricultural land has been lost unnecessarily. A letter has been quoted from Dr. Stamp, whom we acknowledge as an eminent authority on this subject, following that argument, and figures have been quoted from the Scott Report giving the area lost to agriculture before the wars—a total, from 1927 to 1939, of 572,000 acres. That covers building and other construction, and if we add on to that the amount lost for military requirements and other incidental uses the grand total goes up to 794,800 acres. That is, of course, a vast amount of land. It has been suggested on the basis of Dr. Stamp's letter that we are now losing an average of something like 50,000 acres a year. I think that was the amount mentioned as the average over the nine years, 1939 to 1947. But I would suggest, without casting any doubt on those figures, that the comparison is not altogether fair. The period from 1939 to 1947 was an extremely abnormal period. It included the period of the war when the military made huge demands on our land. I would suggest that a much fairer comparison would be one based on the three years, 1946 to 1948, when the yearly average was a loss of 30,000 acres. Even so, this last figure means, of course, that a vast amount of land is going which we do not like to lose from agriculture and which we do not want to lose if we can possibly help it.
  I think the first question that arises in our minds is whether we have the procedure, the machinery, by which to guard against this land being taken. If the Government think it right and desirable to take steps to preserve agricultural land, have they adequate machinery for doing so? I suggest to your Lordships that under the Town and Country Planning Act, the Agriculture Act, 1947, and various other Acts, we have that machinery. Throughout the country there are planning authorities, county councils and county borough councils, which have drawn up and are still drawing up development schemes, and although it is true that any farmer or owner can sell his land, no one who buys it can develop it in any way without the consent of the planning authority. I suggest that that provides a very close check on the loss of agricultural land.
  886
  Furthermore, there is the development charge. Anyone who buys land and gets permission to develop it has to pay the difference between the present use value of the land and the ultimate development value. That, I suggest, is a strong disincentive—if your Lordships will forgive my using such an unpleasant word—against people buying agricultural land as a speculation and using it for purposes other than agriculture.
  LORD HAWKE: May I interrupt the noble Earl for one moment? I do not believe that he is correct in his statement, because if a man buys agricultural land and then pays development charge on it, the two amounts together will be the same as the price and development charge for another piece of land at present more fully developed. Thus if the present value is low, the development charge will be high, and vice versa, so the result is the same in the end. The development charge, therefore, provides no disincentive.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I submit that a much more important safeguard is the fact that the land cannot be developed at all without the consent of the planning authority, so, whatever the intention of the purchaser may be, the planning authority can prevent any development.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I do not quite understand the contention of the noble Earl. He seems to be arguing that these 30,000 or 40,000 acres of land are being sold for private purposes, while the whole point behind this debate is that we know that over 90 per cent. of the land is in fact going to Government Departments, with the full consent of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. Therefore, what the noble Earl is now saying is totally irrelevant.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I am afraid I cannot agree with the noble Earl, and if he will follow my argument later I think he will see why. The important thing, I suggest, is that we have powers to preserve agricultural land.
  EARL DE LA WARR: It is no good having them if you do not use them.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I am coming to the question of their use shortly, and I shall also deal with the intentions of the Government. I would

  887
  point out that if the Government had not the power to safeguard this land there would be no point in exploring the subject further. Having said that they hold the necessary powers, I now come to examine the question of how those powers have been used. That, I gather, is the matter which greatly concerns the noble Earl and his friends. I think that the best way in which I can draw my argument on this subject is to take the four main "rivals" of agriculture, if I may so call them, and examine to some extent what has been done with regard to them. I think that by far the most important of these "rivals" is housing. In housing I include the building of houses, schools, factories, and other buildings, new towns and so on.
  I hope that I shall have the agreement of your Lordships when I say that there is indeed a great need for tremendous additions to our existing buildings. The housing position in this country before the war was deplorable. During the war all development was held up. Now we urgently need a comprehensive housing programme, and I think the Government have been very successful in carrying out such a programme up to the present time. By the end of February and since the end of the war we have put up over 600,000 new houses in England, Wales and Scotland. Of that total, 459,272 are permanent houses and 156,232 are temporary. That, I think, is a very creditable achievement. Now all these houses need land. Whether existing towns are extended to provide space for them, or whether they are put up in new areas, a considerable amount of land must be taken in order to erect them. I cannot give your Lordships the actual acreage, but admittedly in various parts of the country large areas of land have had to be taken for these houses. But I do not think anyone would argue against the necessity for that.
  The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, gave us some figures about new towns, and he seemed to question the standards that are being laid down. In that connection, I think that the standards which are being laid down for the new towns are at least equivalent to the standard of his own town of Folkestone, which is extremely well planned and laid out. Our whole object—and the Government has worked
  888
  on this for some time—is to try to raise housing and living conditions in order to provide better facilities generally for our people. If you are going to give better conditions you must have more amenities, more parks, more playing grounds and so on, all of which require land. That is the problem which we have been up against. On the whole, we are proud of what we have done to promote better conditions generally in our town planning. An important point—and I do not easily see how we can get over it—is that in any project for a new town the preliminary discussions must be confidential. They are carried on between the Departments and interests concerned. They cannot be held in public or paraded in the Press. Consequently, the public does not know of the victories won in the interests of agriculture, of the amount of land that we have saved from different projects. That has happened, as it were, behind a curtain.
  I cannot unfortunately lift that curtain, but perhaps I may draw up just one corner of it in order to give your Lordships an idea of some of the savings which have been achieved. For instance, at White Waltham, in Berkshire, there was a project for a new town and we managed on agricultural grounds to get it completely withdrawn, thus saving 2,800 acres. At Meopham, in Kent, we saved 1,280 acres, and at Whixley, near Leeds, we saved nearly 4,000 acres by getting the project withdrawn. Even when the plans for new towns have been accepted, we have been able to whittle down the area of agricultural land taken over. For instance, at Crawley we saved 275 acres, at Hemel Hempstead 335, and at Harlow 119. Noble Lords may say that these are small areas, but they represent victories on behalf of agriculture and the preservation of arable land.
  LORD HAWKE: This is a very important principle. The noble Earl says that his Department have saved these acres. My impression was that the Minister of Town and Country Planning was to plan the better use of land. Has the Minister of Agriculture to go and save land from the man who is supposed to be planning the better use of it?
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Obviously, each Department have to point out their own need for land. The Minister of Fuel and Power has to say whether

  889
  land is needed to give facilities for coal mining, and the Minister of Agriculture has to point out the merits of agricultural land. In any new scheme submitted by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, it is the Minister of Agriculture's duty, when good arable land is involved, to point out the implications of the proposal and the effect that it will have upon food production. The whole case must be carefully balanced and the claims of agriculture weighed against the claims of other users. Let me proceed with the record of savings on behalf of agriculture. In spite of the recommendations of the Clement Davies Committee, approval was refused to further extensions at Aveley and Ockenden, in East Essex, and most of an extension at Grays and East Tilbury was curtailed, saving 1,650 acres. I submit that these figures show the activity of my own Department, and I think, answer the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, when he suggested that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture was not active enough on behalf of agricultural interests.
  LORD BLACKFORD: Before the noble Earl leaves that point, would be say whether the Enborne Valley is to be saved from the Metropolitan Water Board?
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: If the noble Lord will allow me, I would rather come to that under the heading of water.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I take it that when the noble Earl says "we" he is thinking of the very intimate relationship now enjoyed between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food. Does he receive great assistance from the Ministry of Food?
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: The Government always stand together. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, raised the question of White Waltham. That is a good example of what has been happening. Originally, a site was proposed at White Waltham. The Ministry made strong representations on agricultural grounds, and secured the rejection of this site. However, it seems that tit is necessary to have a town somewhere in this district to take the overflow from London, and a site at Bracknell was suggested. This, as we know, has provoked a good deal of opposition. Several other sites were suggested. As a result, there has
  890
  been a public inquiry, and before any decision is made all the objections and the other suggested sites are to be considered by the Minister of Town and Country Planning. I think that gives a clear picture of the procedure and the way in which it works.
  I should like to endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, about building upwards. It is true that by building upwards we can save an enormous amount of space, hut, unfortunately, there is a strong prejudice in this country against living in flats. I think some of the prejudice comes from the early apartment houses, many of which were badly planned, had inadequate space and poor insulation. The builders seemed to have the idea of making the maximum profit by giving people the minimum of comfort. This is a question which should be carefully examined. The French architect, Corbusier, once made a model of the city of Paris, in which he housed the whole of the existing population in the same area by building large blocks of flats, but did it in such a way that he gave them more living space and still left 90 per cent. of the area for parks and gardens. Perhaps that is an extreme example, but it is the case that by building upwards we can save the spreading of houses over valuable land.
  I now come to the question of water, in which many noble Lords are interested. The trouble is that already, without any new developments, water is badly needed. When we think of the new towns being built, and the extension and development of old towns that is going on, including the expansion of industry, there can be no doubt that we have to add considerably to our water supplies. It has been estimated that in the large industrial areas, with industry working to full capacity and with the increase in education and standard of life, there is an increase in the consumption of water of about 20 per cent. above the prewar average. Yet in many areas the water supply is still deplorable. We find cases where ten people live in a house with only one bathroom and one water closet. We find others where all the water comes from a cold tap at the back of the house. We want to do away with all that. But a proper hot and cold water supply system will use three times as much water as the cold tap in the

  891
  back porch. We are therefore faced with this large and increasing demand for water.
  The Minister of Health has set up a working party of engineers to investigate what savings can be made in the use of water. Perhaps in industry water can be recirculated and used again. Perhaps impure water can be used for certain industries. Squads of men are sent to spot leakages and faulty mains to prevent water being wasted. But I think the greatest saving could be made if the ordinary consumer would see that his taps were in order, and that he used only the amount of water he needed. There is also a large demand for water on our farms. At the present time, agricultural water schemes are being approved at the rate of about 5,000 a year, and when we obtain more steel piping we hope that that figure will be considerably increased. Rural water undertakings are promoting schemes in rural areas, all of which are extremely necessary and all of which we support. We therefore come to the position that somewhere we have to find land for additional water supplies.
  The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and other noble Lords, raised the question of the Enborne Valley. I am afraid that I cannot say very much about that. The present position is that the Metropolitan Water Board have been investigating the question, and are to make a report; but this report has not yet been received. Doubtless, however, there will be a public inquiry if the scheme goes on. Finally, the Minister of Health acting in a judicial capacity will have to examine the merits of the scheme. All opposition to it will be carefully considered, and the ultimate course, if it goes forward, will be either a Private Bill, which would come before Parliament, or procedure by an Order which would be subject to Parliamentary approval.
  EARL DE LA WARR: Could the noble Earl indicate some sort of timetable? If he cannot do that now, can be undertake to ascertain from the Metropolitan Water Board when they will reach a decision? This scheme is causing increasing anxiety to many people in the district.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I realise that. But the noble Earl will appreciate that a project of this magnitude, which affects so many people, possibly adversely, is one that has to be thoroughly examined. I imagine that the Metropolitan Water Board are taking a great deal of care in going into this matter before they put any project to the Minister. However, I will try to speed up the matter as much as possible, because I appreciate the great anxiety which is felt.
  LORD TEVIOT: Has the noble Earl's Ministry any information with regard to past investigations into this scheme? There ought to be an enormous amount of data which would assist any present investigation. Living in the Valley, as I do, it seems to me that there is a lot of unnecessary investigation going on. I would remind the noble Earl that no development of any sort is going on in the Valley, and farmers are now saying: "Ought I to sow winter wheat?" The situation gets worse there as it continues. I hope the noble Earl will endeavour to induce the Government to say to the Metropolitan Water Board: "Look here! You have had long enough on this. What do you want to do?"
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I appreciate the noble Lord's plea. It must be very disturbing to anybody connected with the Valley. I will certainly try to hasten the decision of the Metropolitan Water Board. However, they are an independent body, and it is difficult to give an assurance on the point.
  To leave the question of water, there are two other big rivals to agricultural use of land. One is the matter of Service requirements, which give the community no economic or amenity advantage. The only way, I suggest, in which we can look upon it is as an insurance from the security point of view. I would assure noble Lords, however, that there is very full consultation between the Service Ministries, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning in fact, no land is taken by Service Departments before it is thoroughly examined from the agricultural and other points of view.
  Certain figures have come out which are perhaps not so discouraging as might have been thought. Out of the 700,000

  893
  acres which are the ultimate requirements of the Services, we find that only 14 per cent. is arable land; the total loss to agriculture would be 8 per cent., and of this 8 per cent. only one-quarter is really first-class land. In other words, of the total of 700,000 acres only 2 per cent. is really first-class tillage arable land. We are taking all other measures that we can on behalf of agriculture. Aerodromes, even in use, are being cultivated; surplus aerodrornes are being farmed as much as possible; large sections of land have been cleared and are being cleared and are being handed back to the farming community; financial aid is being given to owners, under the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945, to help them to raise productivity to what it was before the land was taken over.
  The last of the big rivals is mining—a matter which has been discussed fairly often, particularly in regard to the opencast coal and ironstone working. It is a sad picture, from an agriculturist's point of view, if one goes to any place where this work is carried out. It is a very controversial subject. But here again, we are faced with the situation that we have to balance our needs of coal for industry to make the goods which we can sell in order to buy the remaining quantity of food we need. I would like noble Lords for a moment to look at the economics of this. I can give only an approximate figure, because obviously land varies enormously, both in productivity, from the agricultural point of view, and in the minerals underneath it. But if we take the case of an acre of agricultural land which might produce £20 worth of grain, this same acre of land would produce something like £3,000 worth of coal—in other words, 150 times the annual value of the crops produced.
  LORD TEVIOT: But, surely, it would produce that £3,000 only once, while the £20 would continue.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I take the noble Lord's point. But one also has to bear in mind that it would take that land 150 years of annual crops to produce the same sum which would be produced by mining in as many days. However, even though it is difficult to argue against those economic facts, one might still hesitate. But we do restore
  894
  the land. The first efforts at restoration were not so successful as one might have hoped, but now we have made great progress with it. We try to put back first the subsoil and then the top soil. Usually the land is then farmed by the local agricultural executive committee until it is worked into better production, and finally it is handed back to the owner, with compensation for damage done. It is extremely regrettable that any land has to be taken from agriculture, but when one thinks of the enormous economic gain, in the situation in which this country is at present, I do not think one can argue very strongly against it.
  There I leave the question of mining and, in fact, the general question of land being taken for other purposes. What is vitally important is that what land we have left should be used to the best possible advantage. I do not for one moment want to give the impression that His Majesty's Government are complacent about the situation, or that they view it with anything but the deepest anxiety. In fact the whole matter is now being carefully and specially considered, because we realise the danger. The danger is that each particular project, while excellent in itself, is yet whittling away more of our agricultural land. As I have said, the matter is being weighed very carefully at the moment, and I would like to assure noble Lords that all the suggestions put forward in this debate will be carefully considered by the different Departments.
  LORD TEVIOT: The noble Earl has not mentioned my point about bringing into production the marginal land, of which there is a very large quantity. I do not know whether that matter has been discussed.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Certainly that is a very valuable suggestion, and it will be examined. We have already given grants for production on marginal land; but the matter will be examined further, because there is considerable marginal land which has not been exploited to the extent that it should be. I think we all agree that we must produce the maximum amount of food. The noble Viscount, Lord Bruce, gave some extremely interesting figures, and asked the Government particularly about buying more beef from Australia. He gave a

  895
  good account of the potentialities of the areas in North Australia, and expressed his interest in how far the discussions had gone with the Australian Government on that point. Actually these proposals, which would mean a very large capital expenditure by the Government of Australia, were discussed in great detail with the officials of the United Kingdom when they recently went to Australia. They had discussions with the Commonwealth Government in Canberra, and with the officials of the Australian Meat Board. Subsequently, when Mr. Chifley came to England in July last, the Minister of Food impressed upon him the great importance to us of this project. Australian officers discussed the matter in greater detail with the officials in the United Kingdom, and they went back to Australia last November with a promise to arrange that definite proposals would be forwarded as soon as possible. These proposals have not yet come to hand.
  The present position in Australia is that whereas before the war they used to send us 200,000 tons of meat, partly due to droughts and other difficulties the quantity has latterly dropped to 150,000 tons. We recognise that the possibility of increase is enormous, but a great deal of capital would have to be sunk in railways and port facilities and the Australian Government will require from us long-term assurances for unrestricted markets at fair prices before embarking on that expenditure. We certainly can give assurances on those points but the actual details are still under discussion, and, I hope, will soon come to a fruitful end.
  We are all agreed that maximum production at home is essential, and, indeed, the whole policy of the Government has been devoted to this end. The Agriculture Act of 1947 was framed with this end in view. We can afford no waste, nor can we tolerate inefficiency. I would remind your Lordships that under the Act we have powers to eject the inefficient owner for bad estate management or the inefficient farmer for bad husbandry. On the other side we have created the National Agricultural Advisory Service, to try to help farmers and owners to increase production. Finally, the Minister has power to take over land, in the event of it being beyond private means to develop. At the present moment, the
  896
  Agricultural Land Commission have in hand surveys of Romney Marsh, and Lakenheath Fen, in Suffolk, to see whether those particular areas ought not to come under the Commission rather than remain in private ownership. We are taking every step we can to promote and increase production.
  Finally, I should like to pay a tribute to the agricultural industry in this country—to the farmworkers and all who are employed in agriculture—for the extremely successful efforts they have made to pursue the present expansion programme in order to raise the level of production generally and to provide the food which we badly need, both for ourselves and the coming generation.
  THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, we have had a very interesting and valuable debate, and I am most grateful to noble Lords who have spoken. As is rather a habit in your Lordships' House, we have spread a little wider than the terms of the Motion, but I do not think that has in any way detracted from the value of what has been said. I rather regret that the noble Earl's reply does not reflect the alarm I expressed at the loss of good agricultural land, which alarm has been much increased by what I have heard said in this House to-day. Your Lordships would not expect me at this stage to say a great deal about what has been said. I think we all need to think a lot and to study the full report.
  There are, however, one or two comments which I would like to make. I would like to thank the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, for pointing out that the agriculturist is not the person primarily concerned. It is the consumer who is primarily concerned. He is the person for whom on the one hand these very spacious amenities are being planned, while on the other hand the food which should fill his stomach is being taken away. The noble Earl referred to the sad sight of land left behind open cast mining. It is a sad sight for the agriculturist, and an even sadder sight for the housewife when she goes to her store-cupboard and finds very little there. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, made certain remarks about bringing marginal land back into production. I agree entirely with him but, of course, that point bears no relation at all to our main argument. In any country situated as we are any marginal land

  897
  which can be brought into useful production ought to be brought into production, regardless of other circumstances. But that does not affect the loss which is going on through other activities, and in any case to substitute marginal land for good farm land is, as I have already said, a poor exchange.
  The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, thought consumers were worried. The noble Viscount, Lord Bruce, on the other hand, thought they were not worried. I am inclined to believe the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce, rather than my noble friend Lord Teviot. I know that the consumers are worried about what is not inside their store-cupboards and what is not coming out from their butchers' shops, but they are not unduly worried about the loss of land in this country, because they have not connected the cause and effect to the degree which the loss of agricultural land affects their rations to-day.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Bruce, gave us a most valuable speech covering a very wide scope. I know he will forgive me for not making much comment upon it. I am still reeling under the impact of the figures, and I should like to study them with some care at leisure when I see them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Everything the noble Viscount said underlines my argument with even greater emphasis than anything I could possibly have said. He has pointed out that the world is short of meat and is going to continue so, and meat is the commodity which is now in shortest supply. That means that in this country we must use every piece of land we can for food production and not waste it on pleasant but not necessary amenities. We shall all be grateful for the suggestion that Australia might fill the gap which he envisages in the meat supplies of this country. Even so, that does not mean that we must relax our efforts here. He himself said that we are dependent upon the weather. I do not know that the weather in Australia is any more reliable than anywhere else in the world.
  VISCOUNT BRUCE OF MELBOURNE: Considerably less.
  THE EARL OF RADNOR: But you must plan, although the weather may upset your plans. I am afraid the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, must have felt rather like a confirmed fox-hunter facing
  898
  a number of anti-blood sport enthusiasts and trying to defend his position, for he was interrupted somewhat. I will not comment at great length on what he said, but he made the point that it is a question of balancing the needs for land in this country. I agree with the noble Earl there; but the point I want to make is that the balance should be tipped more heavily in favour of agriculture. It is all very well to say that housing is important; of course it is important. No one on either side of your Lordships' House will deny that it is necessary that our people should be housed adequately—though that does not necessarily mean spaciously.
  I am very glad indeed to hear the noble Earl say that he favours the idea of building upwards rather than sideways. I wish he could impress upon the Government Departments which are responsible for building that that is a desirable development in the interests of the agricultural production of this country. It is true, as many people have found even in London, that it is possible to house on the same area of land, with greater open space about it, three times the number of people—or perhaps even more—if you build upwards rather than outwards.
  The noble Earl also said that it was not fair to take the figure of 50,000 acres a year as the loss up to 1947, as Dr. Dudley Stamp had done. The noble Earl gave us a figure of 30,000 acres a year; but he took the three years during which the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and other Ministries have been getting into their stride, and during which the Service Departments were returning land to agriculture as fast as they could. But I am not going to quarrel with the noble Earl's figures. All I would say is that if only we could have an annual return showing what has been taken, and where, there need be no quarrel about figures. We ought to know exactly where we stand and what is happening to the country's land. I hope the noble Earl will pass that view on to his colleagues in the land-spending Departments.
  The noble Earl also told us of some of the battles that he had won. I am glad to hear that he has won some battles—but those battles ought never to have taken place, because the land-spending Departments ought never to have cast

  899
  "sheep's eyes" at the land which the Minister of Agriculture wanted to keep. One of the arguments that I used was that the saving of land starts before the spending Departments get their fingers on it at all. Half these battles the Minister of Agriculture ought never to have to fight. There will be a number of cases in which development must be within a definitely limited area; but in the case of new towns, surely it could be made clear that good agricultural land must not in any circumstances be taken. I hope the noble Earl will impress on his colleagues the importance that we on this side of the House attach to the use of land in this country. I hope that this debate may possibly awaken people in the country as a whole to the need for considering this question in the light more particularly of the food situation, and still more particularly in the light of the figures which the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce, has given us. I do not propose to press my Motion and I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  TWICKENHAM CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the five Lords appointed a
  900
  Select Committee on the Rochdale Canal Bill [H.L.] and the Manchester Ship Canal Bill [H.L.] do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill: Read and agreed to.

  GRIMSBY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.

  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (QUOTAS) AMENDMENT ORDER, 1949
  Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House; That in their opinion the Order raises important questions of policy and principle; That the Order is founded on precedent; That in the opinion of the Committee the Order cannot be passed by the House without special attention, but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Order: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at five minutes before six o'clock.