Sitting of 5 December 1950

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS
Address for "Return of Experiments performed under the Act 39 and 40 Vict., c. 77, during 1949."—[Mr. de Freitas.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Cost of Living (Index)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the growing concern as to the accuracy of the index for recording the changes in the cost of living; if it is intended to bring the index up to date; or what other action is proposed.
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Labour, in view of the fact that conditions were not regarded as sufficiently stable whilst the wage and dividend freeze was in operation to carry out a family budget inquiry as the basis of a new cost-of-living index, what conditions he has laid down as requisite before such an inquiry can be made and a new and more reliable cost-of-living index be established.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): The present index is compiled in accordance with the recommendations of the Cost of Living Advisory Committee, which I appointed in August, 1946, to advise me on the revision of the old cost-of-living index. That Committee recommended the use of the results of the full-scale budget inquiry held in 1937–38 as a basis for weighting the present index, on the grounds that household expenditure for some time after the end of the war would be abnormal and therefore misleading if used as a basis for weighting
    172
    an index. I have had constantly under review the question whether conditions of spending could now be considered to be sufficiently stable to justify the holding of a new full-scale budget inquiry. I have now decided to call the Advisory Committee together again and to ask them to consider whether, in their opinion, this is now the case. An inquiry of this kind on a scale sufficiently comprehensive to provide information covering different seasons of the year cannot, of course, be completed in a short time.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: In view of that reply, does my right hon. Friend consider the time has arrived for the restoration of confidence in this standard of measurements and, if so, can he give the constitution of the Committee, the personnel and their experience in dealing with matters of this kind?
    Mr. Isaacs: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, whatever may be the rights or the wrongs of the case, it is necessary that there should be confidence in this index. With reference to the Committee, I am unable to give the names because there has been a change since 1946. Representation covers the British Employers' Confederation, the Trades Union Congress, the Co-operative Movement, the retail distributive trades, the Women's Institutes and statisticians appointed by the universities and various Departments—the Board of Trade, and so on.
    Mr. Osborne: Since the Minister has not replied to the last part of my Question, may I ask what are the conditions that have to be stable today before this new index can be made? In view of the fact that prices have been fairly stable in the last two years, when nothing has been done, and they are going to rocket in the next few months, for what extra condition has the Minister been waiting?
    Mr. Isaacs: If the hon. Member reads my answer, he will find that I tried to cover his points.
    Mr. Tom Brown: Arising out of the reply, is my right hon. Friend aware that the hocus-pocus method adopted by the Department in tabulating the cost-of-living index is creating great disquiet among working people, and particularly among old age pensioners? Will he see that an

    173
    honest approach is made to this question, which determines the destiny of so many people?
    Mr. Isaacs: An honest approach was made. The examination was made by people of very high reputation, and the result was accepted by this House. It is a little unfair for my hon. Friend to say that there is anything which is not honest about this.
    Sir Ian Fraser: What is the Minister doing about having on the Committee a representative of the British Legion or some other person who might be said to represent ex-Service men and women?
    Mr. Isaacs: I think I can say that these organisations represent ex-Service men, since pretty well everybody today is an ex-Service man. I know that the House is to discuss this matter on Friday, and we shall look carefully at any proposal made in the debate which might help us further in this matter.
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Labour what items are included in the interim cost-of-living index; what weight is given to each item; and how much these items differ from those contained in the original cost-of-living index in 1947.
    Mr. Isaacs: A list of the items included in the interim index of retail prices and of the weights assigned, are given in the published description of the index entitled "Interim Index of Retail Prices: Method of Construction and Calculation." A comparison of the items included in this index and those included in the former cost-of-living index is given in the pamphlet issued in 1947 entitled "Interim Index of Retail Prices—A Short Explanatory Note." I am sending copies of these two publications to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Osborne: Since this matter is of the greatest possible interest, will the Minister have the most important figures published in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
    Mr. Isaacs
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Minister of Labour if he will publish an expert analysis of the old cost-of-living index and the present retail price index, so that a comparative study of the two can be made.
    Mr. Isaacs: I have written to the hon. Member following his previous Question of 21st November.
    Sir I. Fraser: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the letter, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot help the House and the country in this matter by giving some guidance, because there are two to three million trade unionists and three-quarters of a million ex-Service men who have certain undertakings or promises related to the old index, and they cannot judge whether they have any rights now without some bridge being made between the old index and the new.
    Mr. Isaacs: It is rather strange that, although I have been in touch with trade unionists, I have heard nothing of that complaint on behalf of the two to three million to whom the hon. Gentleman refers. The statement which I made and the answer I gave to the first Question this afternoon is an indication that we are progressing towards removing that misunderstanding.

    Local Government Employees (Trade Unions)
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the conduct of certain local authorities, he will introduce a Bill to re-enact Section 6 of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, 1927, which was repealed in 1946 and which prohibited public authorities from requiring employees to belong to a trade union, or to refrain from so belonging.
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir.
    Sir J. Mellor: If the Government do not repent of having enabled the local authorities to impose a "closed shop," is not their rebuke to the Durham County Council sheer hypocrisy?
    Mr. Isaacs: I think the best way to handle this matter is the way that was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council yesterday.

    Wage Increases
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Labour to state, by professions and industries, the increase of wages and salaries granted since 1st January, 1950, giving the amounts and numbers of people involved.
    Mr. Isaacs: It is estimated that between 1st January and 30th October, 1950, changes in rates of wages resulted in a

    175
    net increase of nearly £670,000 in the weekly full-time wages of approximately 3½ million wage-earners. Details by industry groups were published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette for November, 1950. Similar information is not available in respect of professional and other salaried workers.
    Sir W. Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the people of this country that it is not the amount of wages which matters, but their purchasing power; and that Marshall Aid and the sellers' market are nearly at an end? What is the good of a thousand paper pounds a week if they are worthless? My other question is: will the right hon. Gentleman please read the articles in the May and November numbers of the "National Provincial Bank Review" by Mr. Hodder? They will do him a bit of good.

    Fishing Industry, Grimsby
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the rising unemployment among skippers and mates in the Grimsby fishing industry, he will arrange for a special investigation to be made into the position of these elderly men; and what steps he proposes to take to provide them with alternative employment.
    Mr. Isaacs: My Department has the employment position in Grimsby under constant review, and is making every effort to find alternative employment for persons who are unemployed as a result of the decline in the fishing industry, particularly the elderly workers to whom the hon. Member refers. As I informed the hon. Member on 17th October, we are co-operating with the Board of Trade to get additional industry into the area.
    Mr. Osborne: Will the Minister pay pay special attention to these elderly men, who find it very difficult to get a job now that their boats are laid up?
    Mr. Isaacs: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. We are constantly pressing upon employers to give elderly men a chance. As to the situation in this industry, projects have already been started employing 700 additional men and 600 additional women, and other projects are in hand for approximately a similar number. That will go a long way towards breaking the back of this problem.

    Steel Corporation (Circular)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Minister of Labour why his Appointments Board authorised the circulation of documents alleging that little information is available about the organisation of the Steel Corporation, and that it is to be run on Civil Service lines; and why the Ministry of Supply or the Steel Corporation were not asked for further information before the circular was issued.
    Mr. Isaacs: These are not entirely accurate excerpts, taken out of their context, from an administrative minute sent to appointments officers some two months ago for their guidance in filling vacancies. The reference was to the organisation of the staff of the Corporation and not to the organisation of the Corporation itself.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is it not quite clear from the statements made in the circular that this industry is to be hamstrung by a bureaucracy? Is it not almost a crime that at this time in our affairs the Corporation should be so unprepared as it appears to be?
    Mr. Isaacs: No, I do not think that the advertisement or the circular which we sent to our officers for guidance can bear that construction.

    Coal Industry (Foreign Workers)
    Mr. Heathcoat Amoryasked the Minister of Labour what his present policy is as regards the recruitment of foreign workers for the coalmining industry.
    Mr. Isaacs: My policy is to recruit foreign workers to the extent that the industry requires them and can make use of them.
    Mr. Amory: While realising the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties, may I ask him to do his utmost to get people to understand that the recruitment of a limited number of selected workers into the mines will not put anyone out of work, but may well improve the security of many thousands of our workers?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. We are again taking up this question with the organisation concerned to see whether we can get co-operation in the matter.
    Mr. George Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend continue to bear in mind the

    177
    necessity for co-operation with those who work in the industry whenever this question arises?
    Mr. Isaacs: That is precisely the point we have in mind.

    Displaced Persons
    Mr. Slaterasked the Minister of Labour what were the numbers of displaced persons who were found employment in the mining industry from 1947 to date; and how many have left since 1947 to take up employment outside the mining industry.
    Mr. Isaacs: Approximately 11,000 displaced persons who came into this country under official schemes were found employment in coalmining. Although these workers have not been able to leave the mines without the permission of my Department, separate records have not been kept of the numbers who have actually taken up other employment.
    Mr. Slater: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of these people have left the mining industry to take up occupations in various parts of the country, in factories and so on, and will he not agree that the money that has been involved in seeking to train these people for the mining industry has been more or less wasted?
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. I have no information to indicate anything of the kind. None of these men can leave this industry without permission, and if that permission has been given, bearing in mind the trouble taken to get the men and train them, my hon. Friend can rest assured that there would have to be good reasons before men are allowed to leave the industry.
    Mr. Eden: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any sort of idea of the percentage of the number of men who actually left after being trained for the mines?
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir, but as the right hon. Gentleman has asked that question, I will make an effort to get the information. It means that we shall have to check on every man. We shall try to get the information, as it is so important. Of the number who were trained, 10 per cent. failed to qualify at the training centre, and it may be that those who
    178
    had partial training and then failed to qualify have taken work elsewhere, and confusion may arise on that point.

    B.O.A.C. Electricians (Dispute)
    Mr. Blackburnasked the Minister of Labour what inquiry he has made into the strike of members of the Electrical Trades Union against the British Overseas Airways Corporation; what damage was caused by the strike; and what steps he has taken to bring the strike to an end and to prevent a repetition of such strikes.
    Sir Ralph Glynasked the Minister of Labour if he is in a position to make any statement regarding the dispute of certain electricians in the British Overseas Airways Corporation which is seriously affecting British trunk airlines.
    Mr. Bellasked the Minister of Labour whether he has any information concerning the situation at London Airport arising out of the dispute between between the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the engineers employed there; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Isaacs: Arising out of the refusal by two electricians employed at the London Airport to become members of the Electrical Trades Union, the electricians employed with them ceased work without permission on 22nd November last to hold a meeting. For this they were suspended for the rest of the day. On the following day when asked to work overtime in accordance with the terms of their contracts of service, 25 electricians refused to do so and were suspended; 125 other electricians stopped work and three days later another 25. The suspension of the 25 men who refused to work overtime was lifted on 28th November but, so far, there has been no resumption of work. Representatives of the management and the union met officers of my Department for joint discussions on 24th November and the position is being kept under close review.
    The severe dislocation of service is causing serious inconvenience to the public and heavy financial loss to the B.O.A.C., the extent of which cannot yet be accurately gauged. The B.O.A.C. have made it clear that they cannot com-

    179
    promise on this issue and that there must be a return to work before any discussions can take place. The men on strike are in breach of their contracts of service. They must recognise their duty to the public and should return to work at once.
    Mr. Blackburn: While congratulating the Minister upon the firm tone of the remarks he has made, may I ask him whether he is aware that the general secretary of the Electrical Trades Union, Mr. Walter Stevens, is a declared and open member of the Communist Party, that this strike has already caused a great blow to our prestige and very great anxiety throughout the world? May I therefore ask him whether he will consider informing those who are responsible for this wanton breach of peace in industry that he will consider at least using the same powers as he used in the gas strike?
    Mr. Isaacs: I have to bear in mind the underlying facts of the matter, and while I have no comment to make upon the statement about the political opinions of the general secretary of this union, I can say that we are keeping in day-to-day touch with the matter. We have now brought it to a point where there is direct communication between the secretary of the union and the Corporation, from which I hope—although it does not seem very clear at the moment—we may find a basis for settlement.
    Sir R. Glyn: As the Ministry of Labour have not been able to intervene before, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this is because they have no power to intervene in a dispute of this character? In such circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman consider taking powers to enable him to protect a public service like the B.A.O.C., so that it is not interfered with through Communist influence?
    Mr. Isaacs: These are very important supplementary questions and I apologise if the answers are rather long. The point is that we have not just intervened; we intervened right at the beginning, using our powers of persuasion for conciliation. The point which arises is that we cannot refer this to the Tribunal because the Tribunal cannot and does not deal with questions relating to employ-
    180
    ment of non-unionists, so we are left without an authority which can give binding decisions on the matter. We have been able to persuade the local joint advisory council to consider it and to have it re-referred to the National Joint Advisory Council who, having considered it, say that it is a matter for settlement between the firm and the union concerned. Thus, we are back where we started. We are still dealing with the matter, however, and we have to establish contact between the two parties concerned.
    Sir R. Glyn: Can the Minister say whether it will not be necessary for him to come to the House for further powers so that arbitration can function?
    Mr. Isaacs: I should like to consider that in a calmer atmosphere and to examine the whole question of what powers we have and whether others should be taken.
    Mr. McCorquodale: Can the Minister say whether the Electrical Trades Union are supporting the strike and, if so, does he not realise that they are supporting an illegal act?
    Mr. Isaacs: Again, we get on to legal questions, and I may find myself saying something and apologising for it a couple of days afterwards. The point is that the strike would be illegal only if I had referred the dispute to the Tribunal, but I cannot refer to the Tribunal a matter with which the Tribunal has no power to deal. We have, therefore, a complicated question of legality or otherwise. Please do not ask me to try to answer it.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking special steps to secure that at least the services carrying mail and other urgent matter to our troops in Korea are operated?
    Mr. Isaacs: It is not a question of any steps that I am taking, but I can assure the House that the Corporation are doing all they can—and I think successfully—intrying to overcome these special difficulties.
    Earl Winterton: As the right hon. Gentleman has said that he is not in a position to make any statement on the legal aspect of the question, can be explain to the House what he means by the statement "breach of contract"? I was always given to understand that "breach of contract" means that an

    181
    offence has been committed. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by that statement?
    Mr. Isaacs: Already I find that I have walked into something. The point with which I was dealing was a question of criminal breach. This is a common law breach which was not in my mind when I answered the supplementary question. The rights of action are with the employer and not with the Ministry.

    Socialised Industries (Disputes)
    Mr. Braineasked the Minister of Labour what percentage of all industrial disputes in the first nine months of this year have occurred in publicly-owned industries; and what percentage of the total labour force of the country is employed in those industries.
    Mr. Isaacs: I am having the available information extracted and will write to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Braine: Is that not a continued evasion, since the answer I extracted from the right hon. Gentleman last week showed that the majority of workers in nationalised industries are dissatisfied with their working conditions?
    Hon. Members: Rubbish.
    Mr. Isaacs: How can it be an evasion when I have promised to obtain the information and send it to the hon. Member?

  SCOTLAND

    Electricity Cuts
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has already received from the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), and what reply he has sent to the approach indicating grave concern made to him by the Council on 29th November on the danger to life and the curtailment of production resulting from the recent cuts in electricity power and light in industrial establishments in Scotland.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNeil): I understand that the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) are examining this question in consultation
    182
    with the Scottish Board for Industry, but they have not as yet made any representations to the Government on the subject.
    Mr. Stewart: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the serious speech made by Lord Bilsland at the meeting of the Council on 29th November, when he described the matter as grave, and is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that by allowing these unheralded cuts to continue he is playing with potential tragedy in many firms?
    Mr. McNeil: I have three things to say in reply to that. First, I have seen the report of the speech and, as it was made by such a responsible person, I naturally viewed it with concern. Secondly, questions upon this operation plainly should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power. Thirdly, I was asked whether any representations had been made, and I said that the answer is "No."
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Emrys Hughes.
    Mr. Stewart: On a point of order. May I put this point to you, Mr. Speaker? The right hon. Gentleman says we should address questions on this matter to the Minister of Fuel and Power. Is he aware that we are not allowed to put down Questions of this nature? Am I not entitled to put to the Secretary of State for Scotland a Question on a matter affecting the health and life of the Scottish people?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order as far as I am concerned, and I know nothing about it.
    Mr. Stewart: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply and the great importance of this question, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Building Costs, Ayrshire
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what have been the latest costs of building three- and four-apartment houses by the Ayrshire County Council and by the burghs of Cumnock and Girvan, respectively.
    Mr. McNeil: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister tell us whether the figures for Girvan are very much higher than those for the county and other burghs, and whether he will take any steps to reduce those figures?
    Mr. McNeil: As my hon. Friend will see, in some cases the figures are higher but, as I have already explained to my hon. Friend, there are bound to be variations in the tenders coming from one area compared with another area. The causes of these differences in figures are fairly hard to assess, and therefore it is very difficult to take any action upon them.
    Mr. McInnes: When the Secretary of States gives the answer, will he give relative figures as between traditional houses and non-traditional houses?
    Mr. McNeil: I have, of course, prepared the answer for circulation tomorrow. It would take some considerable time to provide the information, but if my hon. Friend puts down a Question I will endeavour to answer it.
    Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Ayr County Council have obtained a substantial saving in building costs because of their labour department, and is he further aware that it would be very advantageous to Scottish local authorities if he would publicise the savings which have been obtained in this way?
    Following is the statement:
    The latest tender prices approved for houses of three and four apartments in these areas are are follows:

    Local Authority

    Dates of tenders

    Tender price for one four apartment house

    Tender price for one three apartment house

    Ayr County Council.

    September, 1950

    £1,286 to £1,323

    £971 to £1,040

    Cumnock

    October, 1950

    £1,187

    £1,071

    Girvan

    September, 1950

    £1,647

    £1,402 to £1,437

    Crofting Land (Improvement)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he intends to take to improve the use of crofting land.
    Mr. McNeil: The hon. Member, I know, is no doubt aware of the various forms of assistance which are available to crofters. I know, too, that there are difficulties in the way of the improvement of crofting lands which cannot be met by financial means alone. If the hon. Member has any suggestions to make as to new methods of approach to overcome these difficulties, I shall be very happy to consider them.
    Mr. Grimond: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his attitude to this matter but, in view of the demand for larger crofts and new crofts in some places, will he also look at some of the recommendations made by various committees in recent years and see whether any of them can be implemented?
    Mr. McNeil: I have great sympathy with the point made by the hon. Gentleman and I have been worrying about it. There are recommendations coming from other organisations currently, and I shall hope to deal with them.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that full use is not being made of certain crofts and that some are being used only for summer residences? Will he also bear in mind that a reduction in transport costs and the provision of better roads would do more than anything else to help?
    Mr. McNeil: We have discussed the second point. As far as the first point is concerned, I am very well aware of the position and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will use his influence to deal with any under-employment and with misapplication of property, even when the misapplication is by his constituents.

    Hospital Board Meetings (Publicity)
    Mr. Carmichaelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to permit representatives of the Press to be in attendance at the regional hospital boards in Scotland and have the minutes of these boards available in the libraries of the appropriate regional board areas with a view to keeping the public better informed on the general administration and management of the hospitals under the National Health Service.
    Mr. McNeil: Representatives of the Press do regularly attend the meetings of regional hospital boards, and the boards, I know, are most grateful for the help and co-operation they receive from the Press. As to placing the regional board minutes in the public libraries, this is a subject within the discretion of the boards, who take the view—which I must confess I share—that this is not the best way of securing publicity. They are adopting other means, and I am encouraging them to use these to the full.
    Mr. Carmichael: May I ask my right hon. Friend what alternative he has to submitting minutes to the public libraries, bearing in mind that the public libraries always had minutes when the hospitals were under the jurisdiction of the local authorities?
    Mr. McNeil: I am not quite certain that these minutes will cover just exactly the same ground as that covered by the minutes of the local authorities. I think that in some cases they deal, for example, with matters affecting patients, which I should not think should be given publicity by being placed in the public libraries.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's first answer that all regional boards invite the Press to all their proper meetings, or is it only some regional boards which do that?
    Mr. McNeil: My understanding of the position is that the Press have access to these meetings.

    Electricity Generation
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give, for any convenient date in 1951, the amount of electricity which it is estimated will be generated by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board; and the proportion which will be generated by water power.
    Mr. McNeil: The Hydro-Electric Board expect to generate about 444,000 kilowatts towards the end of 1951. Of that total, 324,000 will be from water power, 90,000 from steam, and 30,000 from diesel engines.
    Mr. Grimond: Will the Secretary of State reaffirm that it is the intention that
    186
    the first claim on the electricity generated by the Board, and most especially on that from the smaller schemes, and from those not powered by water, should lie with the Highland area itself?
    Mr. McNeil: That is the intention and the practice.
    Sir William Darling: Will the Secretary of State say how the figure he has given compares with that of last year's generation?
    Mr. McNeil: Not without notice.
    Commander Galbraith: What proportion of the power generated will be retained in the north of Scotland, and what proportion will be exported?
    Mr. McNeil: I think that that is a question to which it would be risky to give an answer. There is a violent controversy going on amongst experts on the subject, in which I have no intention of interfering if I can avoid doing so.

    Municipal Elections (Motor Cars)
    Mr. Gilzeanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to ensure that motor cars, used in municipal elections, are subject to the same regulations and limitations as obtain in Parliamentary elections.
    Mr. McNeil: This matter was fully considered in connection with the Representation of the People Act, 1948, and I see no prospect of legislation to alter the decision then reached.
    Mr. Gilzean: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the case of the large cities, the polling places are always the same and the voting register is the same? Is there any logic in allowing the use of cars to be limited in the case of Parliamentary elections and not in the case of municipal elections? Furthermore, is my right hon. Friend aware that in the municipal elections in large cities there is a high concentration of cars in working class areas and in the closing hours of the voting?
    Mr. McNeil: I greatly dislike having to disagree with my hon. Friend, but this subject was very fully argued out during the Committee stage of the Measure, and I think that the reasons then given for not proceeding with a certain Amendment are still valid.
    Mr. Gilzean: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter again.

    Housing, Halkirk
    Sir David Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take in view of the fact that Section 47 (2) of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935, was broken by Caithness County Council when they recently allocated a council house in Halkirk to a single man instead of to one of the other 16 applicants, all of whom have families, and who are occupying insanitary and overcrowded houses.
    Mr. McNeil: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member about this case on 19th September.
    Sir D. Robertson: Does that mean that the law of Scotland is no longer upheld by the Secretary of State or by the Lord Advocate to whom I addressed this question? Does the Secretary of State suggest that the poor victims of this council should take action to enforce the law?
    Mr. McNeil: The hon. Gentleman is making a mistake, of course, in assuming that the law has been broken. It is an assumption which is unwarranted. As to the redress that remains to his constituents who are offended by this action, there are other means than that of prosecution.
    Mr. Marlowe: In view of the fact that this Question contains an allegation of a breach of the Statute by the local authority, will the right hon. Gentleman submit the facts to the Lord Advocate for an opinion as to what proceedings, if any, should be taken against the local authority?
    Mr. McNeil: I naturally carry the Law Officers with me in such a subject as this. The facts have been current for a long time. The essential fact is that the hon. Gentleman opposite has got himself into a mess with his local authority and that he is trying to engage us to pull him out.
    Sir D. Robertson: On a point of order. In view of the neglect of responsibility and of his duty by the Secretary of State for Scotland, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Building and Repair Work
    Mr. Yatesasked the Secretary of State for War how many persons in the Army are at present employed on building and repair work in Great Britain and overseas.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): Approximately 240 in Great Britain. Figures for overseas Commands are not readily available.
    Mr. Yates: Will my right hon. Friend say what proportion of civilians are employed for this purpose, in view of the recent statement which appeared in the official organ of the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives that it would not be possible to build more houses because of the re-armament programme? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there are sufficient labour and material in the Forces, and that every possible economy is being effected in the use of them?
    Mr. Strachey: Of course, many more civilians are employed on Army building, but many of those are employed in house building—in building married quarters, for example.

    Home Guard
    Mr. Bossomasked the Secretary of State for War if he will give an assurance that arms and ammunition for the Home Guard will be ready for the members when enrolled.
    Mr. Strachey: The eventual strength of the Home Guard has not yet been decided. It is not, therefore, possible at this stage to say what proportion of the full requirement of equipment can be made available on the outbreak of war. Our stocks of rifles and small arms ammunition are substantial.
    Mr. Bossom: In view of the announcement that the Home Guard is not to be enrolled until after trouble has developed, is not this an ambiguous way of handling a very serious situation? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us some more information that will be of use to us?
    Mr. Strachey: I cannot give the hon. Member exact information of our stocks of rifles and small arms ammunition.
    Mr. Eden: Could not the right hon. Gentleman give this assurance? We all know, without betraying any figures, that there were large stocks of rifles at the end of the war, and surely there must be enough to cover the enlistment of the Home Guard?
    Mr. Strachey: It depends on the size of the enlistment. If we had the whole manpower of this Island in the Home Guard or the Regular Forces—
    Mr. Eden: But we should not.
    Mr. Strachey: I do not think we should. I think it highly improbable. Therefore, until the size of the Home Guard is determined, I could not give such an assurance.
    Mr. Eden: Would it not be more comforting to the nation if the Government said, first, what will be the size of the Home Guard, and, secondly, how they will arm them?
    Mr. Strachey: I really cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's imputation at all. The size of the Home Guard will depend on circumstances which develop at the time and on the size of the Regular and Territorial Forces. Our stocks of rifles and small arms ammunition are very substantial indeed.

    Records Staff (Pay)
    Mr. A. R. W. Lowasked the Secretary of State for War whether civil servants employed in Record Offices who are paid on a weekly basis are paid in arrears or advance; and what arrangements are made when there is a change in the system of payment.
    Mr. Strachey: Civil servants employed in Record Offices and paid on a weekly basis are normally paid in arrear, in accordance with general Civil Service practice. Any arrangements necessitated by a change in this system would be agreed with the employees' representatives.
    Mr. Low: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the Infantry Record Office in Perth a change has recently been made, and that civilians employed there, in order to get their pay on to an arrear basis instead of in advance, have had a substantial amount of money deducted each week? Has that been brought to his notice? Is he satisfied that it is a fair arrangement?
    Mr. Strachey: Perhaps the hon. Member will let me have particulars of that case.

    D.C.M. (Non-European Holders)
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for War why the rate of additional pension payable to West Indian holders of the Distinguished Conduct Medal is 3d. per day as compared with 6d. per day payable to European holders of the medal; and whether he will cause the same additional daily payment to be given to all holders of the Distinguished Conduct Medal whether European or non-European.
    Mr. Strachey: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for pointing out this anomaly. I am taking steps to secure an amendment to the Pay Warrant to allow 6d. a day to non-European holders of the medal under War Office jurisdiction.

    Bramshott Common
    Sir G. Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for War why his Department is now proposing to build military houses on the north-eastern portion of Bramshott Common; and whether, in view of the fact that in the past this area has always been kept free of buildings and available for public recreation, he has ascertained the views of the local authorities as regards such building.
    Mr. Strachey: The War Department is not proposing to build houses on Bramshott Common.

    Operations, Malaya
    Mr. Lowasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a full statement on the recent activities of the British and Gurkha troops in Malaya.
    Mr. Strachey: Troops in Malaya are employed in active operations in aid of the civil power. They have been engaged first in destroying terrorist gangs in the jungle and on its fringes, and secondly in supporting the police in the more populated and resettled areas with a view to ensuring the security of the civil population. All reports show that these duties, difficult and arduous as they are, are being carried out in an exemplary manner. The hon. Member will appreciate that anything in the nature of a detailed statement,

    191
    on the activities in which the troops have been engaged would not be in the public interest.
    Mr. Low: Is it not important that considerable publicity should be given to the very arduous campaign in which we are involved and that regiments should be named so that the people of the country may understand what each regiment is doing and what is involved? After all, as the right hon. Gentleman keeps telling us and as he is well aware, this campaign is of the greatest importance and those taking part in it are submitted to great danger.
    Mr. Strachey: I have a good deal of sympathy with the hon. Member's view and, as far as security considerations allow, we will try to fulfil it.

    General Wingate (Reburial, U.S.A.)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on the exhumation at Imphal and reburial in the United States of America of the bodies of Major-General Orde Wingate, Captain George Borrow, Mr. Stuart Emery and Mr. Stanley Wills; on what date the Imperial War Graves Commission was notified by the United States authorities that the reburial was to take place; and what steps he is taking to ensure that the wishes of the relatives will be ascertained before similar action is taken in future.
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement about the reburial of Major-General Orde Wingate in the United States of America on 10th November last giving details of how long this had been contemplated; when his widow was informed; and why the usual courtesies associated with a military burial were not observed.
    Wing Commander Bullusasked the Secretary of State for War what were the circumstances of the reburial of General Wingate; and why earlier notice was not received.
    Mr. Strachey: There were during the war a number of cases where, unhappily, the remains of those killed could not be separately identified, and had to be buried together in one grave. As in the aircraft crash in which General Wingate lost his
    192
    life, American and British soldiers were sometimes involved together.
    In January, 1947, the United States Government asked that because United States law requires that American Service men killed in action abroad shall be returned to the United States for final burial, all the remains, where separation into nationalities was impossible, should be repatriated. Negotiations with the United States Government on behalf of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Governments led finally to an agreement that where group burials of British and American dead contained a majority of British remains, the final burial place would be determined by the British authorities, and in those cases in which the majority of the remains were American, the remains in the group should be returned to the United States for burial in a national cemetery, and that in neither case could there be prior consultation with the next-of-kin.
    His Majesty's Government, after a preliminary approach had been made in this particular case to the United States authorities, considered whether in view of General Wingate's renown they would ask for the grave to be allowed to remain at Imphal despite the fact that it was the grave of five Americans and four British, but we felt that we could not press for an exception discriminating against the American dead concerned.
    The grave in Imphal Military Cemetery containing the remains of General Wingate and his companions was accordingly opened by an officer of the United States Army in the presence of a representative of the Imperial War Graves Commission, and the remains removed in December, 1949. All possible respect was shown at the interment by the American authorities to these British dead. The ceremony was attended by the British Military Attaché in Washington and by members of the British Army Mission, who laid wreaths.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Will the right hon Gentleman say whether, when this decision had been taken, the relatives were notified and given an opportunity of attending the ceremony he has just described?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. The agreement, which was come to with the United States

    193
    Government laid it down that there should not be prior consultation with relatives in either case.
    Wing Commander Bullus: Could the right hon. Gentleman ensure that in the future, on the occasion of reburial, ample notice will be given to the country concerned?
    Mr. Bellenger: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether no change is to be made in the principle that British troops shall be buried where they fall and not removed for reburial in their own country?
    Mr. Strachey: No, there is no intention of altering that principle.

    Troops, Korea (Letters)
    Mr. Hollisasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that troops in Korea cannot post their letters home without 2½d. stamps; that posts are delayed through a shortage of stamps; and whether he will take steps to remedy this deficiency.
    Mr. Strachey: Troops in Korea are entitled to use lightweight Forces air letters to write home free of postage and without limit of number: for other letters, and parcels, stamps are required. I am assured that adequate stocks of postage stamps are available in Korea: a local shortage occurred at the beginning of November but while it persisted, ordinary letters presented at Army post offices were accepted and sent home free of postage.
    Mr. Hollis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while that may be generally true, it is not universally true and some letters were held up? There is no point in going into the past, but can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that in future all letters, without exception, will be sent home if stamps are not available?
    Mr. Strachey: Certainly, Sir. As my information showed in my answer, they are all sent home already.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: As these troops are not only on active service overseas, but are also taking part in hostilities, could they not be granted the privilege of having their letters franked?
    Mr. Strachey: For all airmail letters that privilege is already given.

    Reservists, Korea
    Mr. F. Longdenasked the Secretary of State for War if he will give an assurance that Reservists serving in the Forces in Korea will be brought back home immediately on the expiration of the term of their service.
    Mr. Strachey: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence to Questions on this subject on 29th November.
    Sir Edward Boyle: In view of the rather widespread public concern on this matter, could the right hon. Gentleman try to give greater publicity to the intentions of the Government?
    Mr. Strachey: We will do everything we can in that direction.
    Mr. Mott-Radclyffeasked the Secretary of State for War how many Reservists recalled to the Colours in order to proceed to Korea with the 29th Brigade had, at the date of their embarkation, received no training since the end of 1945.
    Mr. Strachey: It cannot be said, without considerable research, how many of the Reservists sent to Korea had left the active Army before the end of 1945. These men received refresher training after their call-up.
    Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: If the right hon. Gentleman would pursue his inquiries, would he not agree that there were a number of cases of Reservists who, on reporting to their units, were promptly sent on embarkation leave only to return from embarkation leave a very few days before they actually proceeded with the draft to Korea?
    Mr. Strachey: I cannot guarantee that there may not have been exceptional cases, but the great mass of the Reservists received quite substantial periods of refresher training. I saw them doing it myself.

    Class Z Reserve
    Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for War beyond what age limit men in Z Reserve are no longer liable for recall in case of emergency.
    Mr. Strachey: I would refer the hon. Member to my hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) on 27th July.

    Cemeteries, North Africa
    Mr. Llewellynasked the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made in British military cemeteries in North Africa with the replacement of wooden by metal crosses.
    Mr. Strachey: Some 2,000 permanent headstones have been erected on graves of the 1939–45 war in North Africa in place of temporary wooden crosses.

    U.S.A. (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
    Mr. Blackburnasked the Prime Minister what message he has received from President Truman concerning his visit to the United States of America; what special steps he is taking to consult Dominion Governments, particularly Australia and New Zealand, during the forthcoming conversations; and if he will enable the Leader of the Opposition to participate in the conversations.
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. The House will be aware that President Truman said he would be delighted to receive a visit from my right hon. Friend.
    On the second part of the Question, we are maintaining the closest touch with other Commonwealth Governments and I can assure the hon. Member that they will be kept fully informed of my right hon. Friend's discussions with the President of the United States.
    I do not feel able to give an affirmative answer to the third part of the Question. His Majesty's Government are grateful for the general support which they received from the Opposition in the debate on foreign affairs last week, but they would not think it right to ask the Opposition to share the responsibility of His Majesty's Government for decisions which may have to be taken during the talks at Washington.
    Mr. Blackburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as was pointed out by Mr. Alistair Cooke in the "Manchester Guardian," there is a considerable misunderstanding in America on this subject, because the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was not invited to take part in the discussions? While appreciating that I am liable to be torpedoed at any moment, may I further ask
    196
    whether he is aware that both in Europe and throughout America people consider that Britain should have been represented at these conversations not only by the Prime Minister but by the right hon. Member for Woodford?
    Mr. Churchill: As I have been referred to, may I be permitted to say that we approve of the course taken by His Majesty's Government?

    FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN
    Mr. Geoffrey Hirstasked the Lord President of the Council under what circumstances were prospective advertisers informed that the cost of full-page advertising space in the Festival of Britain guide was to be £750 and are now informed that the price should be £1,500.
    Mr. H. Morrison: The hon. Member is no doubt referring to the South Bank Exhibition Guide. Owing to the very long period required for producing two million copies of such a publication in present circumstances it was necessary to adopt a time-table of production which called for the letting of the advertisements for this guide somewhat hastily, and it is now clear that an error of judgment was made.
    The Festival Office accordingly wrote to advertisers as the hon. Member has indicated in this Question, and I understand that a number of them have indicated their willingness to accept revised terms, but others have not felt able to do so. While I am much obliged to those advertisers who have offered to accept revised terms, I cannot in the circumstances approve the acceptance of their offer, and the Festival Office will accordingly proceed to carry out these contracts at the original rate.
    Mr. Hirst: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable number of weeks elapsed between the original offer and the discovery of this regrettable error, and will he give an assurance not only that the original contract rate will be maintained but that no further errors of this nature are likely to be discovered?
    Mr. Morrison: I am very sorry about the error. I have intimated that the original contracts will be maintained. The hon. Gentleman can take it from me that

    197
    the Festival Office know my mind about it, and that everything will be done to avoid a repetition of this.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Cominform Activities (Finance)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken to prevent the entry of money into this country designed to assist Cominform activities.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gaitskell): To prevent payment being made to this country would involve setting up elaborate and expensive machinery and imposing an intolerable burden upon trade. The drawbacks of introducing such checks would be wholly out of proportion to the harm they were intended to prevent.

    Post-War Credits
    Mr. Marloweasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what authority repayment of Post-War Credits to married women of 60 years of age is refused unless they opted for a separate assessment from their husbands within three months of the assessment; under what authority his Department has power to relax the rule in cases where the option was impossible of performance; and what is the estimated cost of abrogating the rule so as to permit repayment in all cases to women of 60 years of age regardless of separate assessment.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Section 7, Finance Act, 1941, provides that a Post-War Credit is to be credited wholly to the husband, unless either separate assessment has already been claimed or a claim to apportionment is made. The method of claiming apportionment is prescribed by the Post-War Credit (Income Tax) Regulations, 1942 (S.R. & O. 1942, No. 1111) which require claims to be made within three months of the date of the Post-War Credit certificate or such further time as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may allow. I am afraid that the information asked for in the last part of the Question is not available.
    Mr. Marlowe: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the decision as to repayment of Post-War Credits at the
    198
    ages of 65 and 60 was not made until long after the war, and, therefore, those who had to make their option under the 1941 legislation, did not know under what conditions they were called upon to exercise their option; and will he now review the position in order that they may have fair play?
    Mr. Gaitskell: It is perfectly true that the decision to pay back Post-War Credits at 60 and 65 was made later, but I do not think that it affects the principle which I have explained in answer to the Question.
    Mr. Marlowe: Surely those called upon to exercise their option had no knowledge of what was coming in the years ahead and had no opportunity of exercising their option. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this matter ought to be reviewed?
    Mr. Gaitskell: If we were to make the concession which the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, we should be inviting any wife who is less than five years younger than her husband in fact to claim her husband's Post-War Credit.

    Local Government Staff (Equal Increments)
    Miss Burtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the cost of granting equal increments for men and women employed in local government service.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The cost for the public services other than the Civil Service would be £1.25 million in the first year, rising eventually to some £7.5 million. I have no reliable estimate as to how much of this is for local government staff.
    Miss Burton: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask him whether, as presumably it is not economically advisable to grant equal pay at the moment, he will consider giving this increment as a token recognition of the Government's belief in the principle of equal pay?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I am meeting a deputation on this subject shortly and I should not like to say much at this stage, but I am bound to say that I see great difficulties in the suggestion which the hon. Lady has made.

    Motor Vehicles (Taxation)
    Mr. Mulleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider exempting vehicles built before 1st January, 1917, veteran cars used only for recognised rallies, from the horse power motor tax and substituting a nominal rate of taxation for them.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I have taken note of my hon. Friend's suggestion.

    Income Tax (P.A.Y.E.)
    Mr. Mulleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the issue of a new and simple leaflet, suitable for distribution to workers, explaining the operation of Pay-As-You-Earn Income Tax and stressing the fact that the actual tax paid is based on annual and not weekly income since this is a frequent source of misunderstanding.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir. I will certainly bear this suggestion in mind.

    Oil Refineries (Government Shareholdings)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what shares were held by his Department before the war, in companies then owning oil refineries in this country.
    Mr. Gaitskell: His Majesty's Government held £11,250,000 ordinary and £1,000 first preference shares, in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which held a controlling interest in two companies owning refineries in this country.
    Mr. Keeling: Before saying, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer did, at a Labour meeting on Sunday week, that before the war no oil was refined in this country and that the Labour Government had set up a new industry, should he not have acquainted himself with the fact that oil has been refined in this country on a big scale for at least 25 years?
    Mr. Gaitskell: The hon. Gentleman is right to the extent that I should have said that almost no oil was refined in this country before the war. That does not affect the main point I was making, that this country was investing a great deal in building oil refineries at this time, which would enable some 20 million tons to be refined at the end of 1952.
    Mr. Keeling: There was refining before the war on a substantial scale.

    Hire Purchase (Credit Restrictions)
    Mr. Maudlingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what directions on the restriction of credit for hire purchase have been given by his authority to the banks.
    Mr. Gaitskell: In 1947, as part of the general campaign against inflation, the banks were asked not to increase the facilities they offered for financing hire purchase, particularly of consumer goods. These restrictions are just as necessary today.
    Mr. Maudling: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer give any estimate of the amount of these facilities now available?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that Question on the Order Paper.

    Argentine Hides (Dollars)
    Mr. John Grimstonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make dollars available for the purchase of hides in the Argentine in view of the fact that discounts of up to 17 per cent. are given for payment in this currency.
    Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir. Under the terms of Article 19 of the Anglo-Argentine Agreement on Trade and Payments of 27th June, 1949 (Cmd. 8079), all trade and financial payments between residents of Argentina and residents of the Scheduled Territories are to be settled in sterling.
    Mr. Grimston: Would it not be a good idea to spend in this way some of the dollars we are earning, to help to reduce the cost of living?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I think that the practice of dollar invoicing would be a most dangerous one to accept.

    Tax Evasion (Prevention)
    Sir Richard Aclandasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will, in co-operation with the other relevant Government Departments, draw up a guide to business profits for the use of Inland Revenue inspectors as suggested by the recent memorandum of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation;

    201

    (2) whether he will invite the co-operation of motor licensing authorities so as to make available to Inland Revenue inspectors information about new registration and change of ownership of cars as recommended by the recent memorandum of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation;

    (3) whether he will establish regular machinery in co-operation with the other relevant Government Departments so that information about Government contracts may be regularly transmitted to Inland Revenue inspectors as a cross-check on Income Tax returns as recommended by the Royal Commission on Income Tax in 1919–20.

    Mr. Gaitskell: The problem of securing that business profits are fully assessed to tax has been intensively examined by a special Committee in the Inland Revenue Department. Some of the Committee's recommendations have already been adopted, and others are under consideration by the Board of Inland Revenue. The detailed points to which my hon. Friend refers will be fully considered and discussed with the staff representatives, but I think he will agree that it would not be right for me to disclose the methods adopted by the Inland Revenue to combat tax evasion.
    Sir R. Acland: While agreeing with that last point, may I ask would the Minister bear in mind that, in view of the very hard times that are coming to us, it is very important for material, moral and psychological reasons, to take all necessary steps to circumvent tax evasion?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I will try to do that.

    Sterling Balances
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what adjustment took place of the sterling balances held by India, Pakistan and Ceylon, because of the further releases from their sterling balances made to these countries under the Colombo Plan.
    Mr. Gaitskell: No releases of sterling balances held by India, Pakistan and Ceylon have yet been made under the Colombo Plan, but I hope to be able to make a statement in the near future.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Before the Chancellor makes the statement to which he has referred will he give an assurance
    202
    to this House that the adjustment of sterling balances will have taken place as part of these releases.
    Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman should await my statement.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the date from which His Majesty's Government decided not to adjust sterling balances as a contribution to the settlement of war indebtedness as laid down in Article 10 of the Anglo-American Financial Agreement.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The Article in question contemplated the adjustment of sterling balances not by unilateral decision but by agreement with their holders. Such agreement has never been forthcoming.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: As this Article says that His Majesty's Government undertook to implement adjustment within a very short time, will the right hon. Gentleman say why His Majesty's Government have never made such an effort and why now they have said that they are not going to attempt such an effort?
    Mr. Gaitskell: His Majesty's Government have made efforts, but it is not possible for them to take action on a unilateral basis.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If they say that they have made efforts, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House of one effort, because last week he said that it was not part of His Majesty's Government's policy to present counterclaims, which is the only method of implementing this Article?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I could not agree with that.

    RAW MATERIALS (O.E.E.C. DISCUSSIONS)
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his recent discussions at the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation on the Report of the Economic Committee on Raw Materials.
    Mr. Gaitskell: In accordance with decisions taken by the Council of O.E.E.C. on 7th October, a Report on the raw materials situation was prepared

    203
    by the Economic Committee of the Organisation on the basis of studies made on individual commodities by technical committees. This Report was considered by the Council at its meeting on 1st and 2nd December, and in the light of the Report a number of decisions were made. I will place in the Library, as soon as they are available, copies of the resolutions which embody these decisions.
    Meanwhile, they may be summarised briefly as follows:
    First—and generally—all Member Countries are asked to take all possible steps to increase supplies of scarce materials, to restrict internal demand and to encourage the use of substitutes.
    Secondly, in the case of certain materials, in which Europe is to a large extent self-sufficient, such as coal and metallurgical coke, schemes for equitable distribution of the available supplies are to be worked out.
    Thirdly, an O.E.E.C. Mission is travelling to the United States tomorrow to discuss with the United States Government the general situation in raw materials, and in particular the difficulties which have arisen in the case of cotton and cotton linters and sulphur owing to the reduction in United States exports.
    Fourth, as regard certain other commodities produced to a large extent outside Europe, for example pulp, but including timber also, the Organisation is to discuss with the principal producing and consuming countries the feasibility of holding international conferences; in the case of wool the United Kingdom has been invited to convene such a conference.
    Fifth, in view of the specially important influence exerted by defence requirements on the market situation for zinc, copper and nickel, Member Countries and the United States and Canada are asked to give special and urgent consideration to this aspect of the problem in advance of any international conference.
    Finally, in the case of hides and skins, sisal, tin and rubber, the appropriate technical committees are to continue their surveys and to submit proposals to the Council in due course; the other technical committees will also remain in existence to keep the market situation under continuous review and will report from time to time.
    Mr. Eden: In the case of territories of the British Commonwealth where further increased production is possible, will the Government do all they can to help? I have in mind the situation in Rhodesia where, if more copper could be produced and the coal were available to produce it, some of the difficulties could be met.
    Mr. Gaitskell: We are in continuous touch with Commonwealth countries on this and other matters. We shall certainly do all we can to see that production is increased as quickly as possible.
    Sir R. Acland: In view of the increasing difficulty in regard to raw materials, will the Government consider re-introducing a large number of the controls which have been relaxed?
    Mr. Gaitskell: The President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Supply are the appropriate Ministers to answer that question.
    Earl Winterton: Arising out of the point which was put by my right hon. Friend—and here I must disclose my interest in a particular country—is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of Northern Rhodesia the difficulty is railway communications? Will the right hon. Gentleman give special consideration to railway communications to get these raw materials out of Rhodesia?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I am aware of the difficulty of railway communications. We want urgent results as soon as possible.
    Mr. Maudling: Are the Government considering the re-establishment of something like the war-time joint resources board with which European countries could be associated?
    Mr. Gaitskell: We will not overlook that question.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The Chancellor has given a large number of proposals to meet this situation, but can he give any indication of when he will be able to make a statement showing how the proposals can be worked out?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Naturally we shall keep the House informed on the situation of raw materials. So far as the O.E.E.C. are concerned, the Council is meeting again on 15th January to consider the position. No doubt I shall make a further statement after that meeting.
    Mr. Assheton: In view of the grave anxiety about the shortage of cotton, can the right hon. Gentleman give any information in regard to the Question on stocks which he answered last week?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I do not think I answered the Question about stocks. It was probably the President of the Board of Trade. Perhaps a further Question could be put to my right hon. Friend.
    Sir W. Smithers: When will the Government realise that these controls and committees only make confusion worse confounded, and that the only solution is to let the law of supply and demand operate and set the people free?

    NATIONAL COAL BOARD (SIR E. YOUNG'S RESIGNATION)
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: (By Private Notice) asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has any statement to make about the resignation of Sir Eric Young from the National Coal Board?
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): Yes, Sir. Sir Eric Young expressed the wish that our conversation should be regarded as confidential, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will think it right that I should respect his wish.
    Mr. Lloyd: Am I right in thinking that following the resignation of Sir Charles Reid and now the resignation of Sir Eric Young, there is at present no mining engineer as a member of the National Coal Board?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: That is true at this moment. Of course, it is desirable, in principle, that there should be a mining engineer on the National Coal Board. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the National Coal Board is not now functional in character, and that it has at its disposal nearly all the able mining engineers in the country.
    Mr. Keeling: Will the Minister explain the difference between it being desirable that there should be a mining engineer and it being desirable "in principle" that there should be a mining engineer?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: It means that there certainly will be a mining engineer in due course; but I do not know how soon.
    Colonel Ropner: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think, in spite of any desire on the part of a public servant for conversations to remain confidential, that he should give considerably more information to the House in regard to the reasons for this resignation?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The hon. and gallant Member will recognise how my hands are tied. But I will say this—I think I can say it without a breach of confidence, but quite categorically—that his reasons had nothing to do with a difference of opinion about the present policy or the present organisation of the National Coal Board.
    Mr. Churchill: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the miners how pleased we all were and how much we thank them for working an extra Saturday shift?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that they will do even better next week.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: As the Minister has given two reasons for which Sir Eric Young did not resign, and as the Press has stated that he did not resign because of ill-health or the present crisis in coal production, will he ask, for the benefit of everyone, that Sir Eric Young should authorise him to give the real reasons, which would do much to allay present concern?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: That is really for Sir Eric Young. I have nothing to add to my statement.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eden: Has the Leader of the House any statement to make about a change in the business for this week?
Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. When I made the business statement last week, I hoped that it would be possible to dispose of the first two items for consideration on Thursday of this week by Six o'Clock, and then to move the Second Reading of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Scotland) Bill. It now seems doubtful whether the remaining stages of the Festival of Britain (Sunday Opening) Bill and the Committee stage of the Administration of Justice (Pensions) Bill will be completed by that hour. Accordingly, the Second Reading of the Salmon and

207
Freshwater Fisheries (Scotland) Bill will be postponed until next week.
Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is some time since we had a statement about the military situation in Korea so far as it affects our own troops in particular? Can he let us know whether a statement can be made about this during the week?
Mr. Morrison: I will look into the matter with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence. I hope to be able to inform the House about that tomorrow.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Henderson Stewart: May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter which is causing increasing public concern, and in regard to which the performance of the duties of Members seems at present to be restricted? As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, throughout Scotland every day of the week there are many unheralded cuts in electricity services, with the result that many factories are suddenly thrown into darkness while the machinery may still be running, thereby causing a great danger to life.
I have tried, and so have many of my hon. Friends, to get questions accepted at the Table on this matter of broad public policy, but on each occasion I have been informed, and so have my hon. Friends, that this cannot be regarded as a matter suitable for Questions because it is a question of day-to-day administration of the boards affected. May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that these cuts are the result of Government policy as laid down in the White Paper on Economic Policy, which was published some time ago? Therefore, particularly as this covers the whole country and involves the lives of perhaps hundreds of people, and possibly, as I said earlier, potential tragedy, would it not be possible for Members to be entitled to address Questions to Ministers about this most important matter?
Mr. Speaker: I am really a little surprised at the hon. Gentleman's question, because I am perfectly well aware that we have had a Question by a Glasgow Member in regard to electricity cuts and their effect on industry. As far as I know, the Table does not stop that kind of Question. Therefore, I really do not know what the hon. Member is wanting.
Mr. Stewart: If your declaration, Mr. Speaker, now means that we may address Questions to the Minister of Fuel and Power—which is what the Scottish Secretary advised me—in regard to these constant cuts, I am satisfied, but is that really so? I am not sure.
Mr. Speaker: Of course, if a particular Question has been very fully answered, further Questions are stopped at the Table. It is very difficult in answering Questions, but I do my best—I have some authority on the matter—to see that every legitimate Question is put on the Order Paper. I cannot, however, answer offhand whether a Question has been fully answered before. If so, of course, it cannot be put down again. Whether a Question is put to the Minister of Fuel and Power or to the Secretary of State for Scotland, I really cannot answer that sort of question offhand. I should like to be informed of a particular case, and then I would consider it.
Mr. Stewart: I am sorry to press this matter—
Mr. Manuel: On a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: I cannot have two points of order at the same time. I am dealing with one now.
Mr. Stewart: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that some months ago I raised much the same point in regard to a railway accident, and I then appealed successfully to the Lord President of the Council not to regard that matter as one of day-to-day administration. The Lord President then agreed that Questions of that kind, affecting large sections of the community, would not be regarded as matters of day-to-day administration. May I appeal to him now, Sir, to consider what is, in effect, the same situation?
Mr. H. Morrison: On this matter, Mr. Speaker gave a Ruling some time ago, which I think was accepted by both sides of the House, and, as far as I know, that Ruling is being observed and upheld by the Table and it is also being observed by Ministers. I do not think there is any need for further action.

NEW MEMBER SWORN
Thomas Leslie Teevan, esquire, Belfast, West.

PARKING OF MOTOR CARS IN LIGHTED STREETS
Mr. Spearman: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make legal the leaving of a motor car without lamps in a street that is lit."
This is a very modest measure and a non-controversial one in a party sense in that it has the support of Conservative and Socialist hon. Members. I suppose I ought to declare a certain interest, because I have been in the habit of keeping my car in the well-lit street where I live night after night until last week, when I was told that I should be prosecuted if I did it again. As to what I have done since then, I need not enlarge upon here.
When there is such a shortage of garages, it is a very great convenience to motorists to be able to leave their cars in those streets which are eligible for parking. If they are to leave their lamps on all night, it is very expensive for them in that it runs down their batteries, while it is very tiresome when they find that they are unable to start their cars in the mornings. It is also a waste of national resources at a time when there should be no waste at all.
It might be said that difficulties would occur after midnight in those streets where the lights are put off. Under this Measure, those motorists who leave their cars in streets where the lights are put off would be liable to prosecution; it does not seem to me to be reasonable that the many sensible motorists who realise that should suffer because a few have been unwise enough to get caught in that way. Secondly it might be said that difficulties would occur when there is fog and, in this country, that does occasionally occur; but, in case of fog, cars are generally moving very slowly and a modern car has a lot of shining instruments both front and back which reflect light and therefore make it easy to observe.
I think it is interesting to examine what has happened in other countries. In France, it is permissible for cars to be parked with a single parking light, white at the front and red at the back, but in practice I have found in Paris and many other towns in that country that cars can be left all night without any
210
lights. In Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway, cars are permitted to remain in the streets without their own lights where there is adequate external lighting. In America the regulations vary in the different states; in the State of New York, no lighting is required at all for cars parked at night.
It seems to me that a good law is one which helps the many and hurts only the few, and is easily enforceable. I suggest that the present law inconveniences many, but helps few. In practice this law is widely disregarded. For example, I saw last night, in a street which was well lit, a Minister's car, waiting with the official driver in it, without any lights. I thought how prudent the driver was to conserve the resources of the State at the risk of a prosecution. Two thousand years ago a great Roman said that in his youth there were few laws and little crime; in his old age there were many laws, and much crime. At this time, when so many restrictions are thought necessary, could we not try the experiment of getting rid of one of them? If it is a successful experiment, well and good; If, contrary to the experience in other countries, it is unsuccessful, there should be no great difficulty in reinstating it. I should like to commend the introduction of this Bill.
Mr. Keenan: I do not want to say very much on this matter because I expected that such an important effort as is now being made to relax what I think is a necessary precaution would be opposed. I made no preparation to speak on the matter. I cannot perceive that the passage of this Bill into law would be to the advantage of the motorist, and I should hope that if it were passed, the insurance companies would ask for additional premiums to cover the extra risk that is being run. There is no standard of lighting in any part of the country, and I imagine, from such observations as I have made, that the lighting might be deceptive from time to time.
If cars are allowed to be left without lights, no doubt there will be abuses, as there have been abuses of motoring regulations in the past, for many reasons. The Bill would be a retrogressive step, because the risks that are now run already in the day will be increased if motor cars

211
can be left without their lights on. There is no doubt that there will be danger to motorists and an increase of the road difficulties and risks of injury that already exist.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Spearman, Sir P. Bennett, Mr. Bowles, Mr. James Johnson, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, Mr. Paget, Mr. Peter Thorneycroft, and Mr. Turton.

PARKING OF MOTOR CARS IN LIGHTED STREETS BILL
"to make legal the leaving of a motorcar without lamps in a street that is lit," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 26th January, 1951, and to be printed. [Bill 47.]

WELSH AFFAIRS
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]
3.54 p.m.
Mr. D. J. Williams: It falls to me to make the opening speech in this debate upon Welsh affairs. I am very glad to have the opportunity and the honour of doing so. Hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies will be keenly interested in the subject of this debate, and we all welcome this further opportunity of discussing the affairs of Wales. For Wales has many difficult, complex problems and many urgent and human problems, and it is right and appropriate that they should be debated in this House, and that hon. Members from Wales should express their views about them. It is my task this afternoon to deal with some general Welsh problems, with special reference to the economic and industrial situation in Wales.
This is the sixth debate we have had on specifically Welsh affairs. Already, Welsh Day, as it is known in Wales, has become an established institution, both in Wales and in Westminster. It evokes the keenest interest among Welsh people everywhere, and it has become one of the most important days in the Welsh political calendar.
Since the first Welsh Debate in 1944, vast and sweeping changes have taken place in Wales. I was recently re-reading the OFFICIAL REPORT of that debate. What struck me most forcibly was that in every speech there was one dominant note. That note was fear—fear that at the end of the war there would be a recurrence in Wales of the ghastly tragedy of the interwar years. That fear was widespread and deep in Wales at that time. We all felt that with the coming of peace we should be faced once again with the horrors of mass unemployment, the indignities and cruelties of the means test and the mass migration of Welsh people in search of employment elsewhere.
Fortunately for Wales and for Britain too, those fears did not materialise. If there had been a recurrence of the interwar depression there would have been no Wales left today, and this debate would not have taken place in its present form. It would not have been a debate on the problems and prospects of Wales but an

213
inquest upon the Wales that had been. No nation, and no economy could have survived a second visitation of that ghastly tragedy. The policy of the present Government since 1945 has been the salvation of Wales. It has completely transformed the prospects of the country and the outlook of the people. It has brought a large number of new industries into the Principality, in areas which had been derelict, has brought prosperity to the Welsh countryside, and, above all, has given to the Welsh people a new sense of security and a sense of confidence in the future.
In the last few years a second industrial revolution has taken place in Wales. The whole economy has been transformed, so much so that some of the pre-war problems are now appearing completely in reverse. We have many examples of that. The most outstanding is coal. In the inter-war period Wales had too much coal and too many miners. That was our most difficult problem. Now there is an acute shortage of miners and a desperate shortage of coal. That is our most serious post-war problem. Another example is housing. Before the war houses were sold in the Welsh mining valleys at fantastically low prices. There was no demand for them because people were leaving the valleys. Now there is an acute housing shortage in every mining valley and mining village in Wales.
The building industry is another example. By 1939 the building industry in Wales had died from sheer atrophy. Now, with the industrial expansion in Wales and the requirements for houses, factories, hospitals and pit head baths, the Welsh building industry cannot cope with the demands made upon it. Electricity is another example. Before the war there was no shortage of electricity in Wales for Wales had no factories to consume power, the Welsh people were too poor to instal electricity in their homes, and the Welsh countryside was too poverty-stricken to demand electricity. Now we are faced with a chronic shortage of electricity, for the new factories are insatiable in their demands, through the prosperity brought to Wales our people can now afford to instal electricity in their homes, and with the new prosperity in the countryside there is a widespread and insistent clamour for the electrification of the rural areas.
214
There is, however, a vital difference between these two sets of problems. The old problems were problems of decay. They arose from the decline and disintegration of Welsh economy. The new problems are problems of growth. They arise from the rapid development and expansion of Welsh economy. In some respects the Government has been the victim of its own achievements in Wales. This Government has an excellent record in Wales, but it has not yet solved all our problems. There are some difficult long-term problems, about which I wish to speak later, and there are some urgent human problems which call for immediate attention about which I want to say a word or two.
The first of these is that Wales has the highest unemployment figure in the whole of Britain. We have had that unenviable record since the end of the war. I do not want to give figures and percentages, for they are well known to everybody who is interested in the affairs of Wales, but we are very much concerned about reducing the Welsh unemployment problem to the general national average. The prosperity which has been brought to Wales has, unfortunately, not been evenly spread. The new industries have not always gone to the right places. There has been a tendency to concentrate them around the larger towns, near the main lines and near the coast. This is quite understandable, but it has meant neglecting the upper reaches of the mining valleys, with the result that in those areas we now have very heavy pockets of unemployment.
In South Wales we have a serious unemployment problem of a special kind, that of the partially disabled. Large numbers of these people are ex-miners, men who have been suspended from the mining industry through pneumoconiosis. They cannot return to the mines, and, unfortunately, there is no alternative employment for them. This is a tragic and serious problem in every mining valley. I hope that later on some of my hon. Friends who catch Mr. Speaker's eye will have something more to say about these grave matters, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will be able to indicate to the House that he has some positive and practical proposals for dealing with these very urgent matters.

215
I now turn to the White Paper which appears this year as a Blue Book. It is the fifth White Paper on Welsh affairs which we have had and in both form and content it comes up to the standard of its predecessors. It contains a very impressive record of Government achievements and activity in Wales. It contains a mass of information about Wales and is packed with facts and figures. It tells us almost everything that can be told in figures. No one can now complain of inadequate information about Wales. There is an abundance of information in the White Paper about every facet of Welsh affairs. The danger may now lie in the other direction, that with this mass of data we may fail to see the wood for the trees and that with too close a preoccupation with the arithmetic of Wales we may forget that we are dealing with a nation and the human beings who make up that nation.
For Wales is a nation. We do not learn that from the White Paper, nor indeed from any of its predecessors. Sometimes it is very difficult to get Government Departments to understand that in dealing with Wales they are dealing with a nation and not with a province, or a zone or a region. It seems to be the fashion in some quarters to regard Wales as a province of England, or, what is even worse, as a region of Great Britain. Whenever the expression "The Wales Region" is used a cold shiver runs down the back of even the most internationally minded Welshman. People who do not understand the reason for that will never understand Wales, and people afflicted with the regional complex will never solve Welsh problems.
Wales is not a province and not a region. Wales is a nation with a history, a character and a culture of her own. The Welsh are, indeed, the oldest nation in these islands, and throughout all the crises and upheavals of their history the Welsh people have preserved their own language, their own traditions and their own way of life, the roots of which go far back into the past. These are the great imponderable forces which make and mould a nation, and they cannot be expressed in graphs or reduced to the statistical table of a White Paper.
Wales has her own history. Indeed, that is a truism, but there is a tendency
216
now in certain political and academical circles in Wales to idealise and romanticise Welsh history, to read into it things which it does not contain, to gloss over or ignore things which it does contain, and to deduce from this all kinds of false notions not only about the past but about the present too.
According to this view, all the trials and tribulations of Wales spring from the Act of Union of 1536. An eminent Welsh professor has written that Fascism came to Wales with the Act of Union. The Russian Marxists argue that history sometimes takes forward leaps. Some of our Welsh professors are evidently under the impression that history sometimes takes backward leaps, too. And according to the violently anti-Labour tone of their writings and speeches, one would imagine that the Act of Union was placed on the Statute Book by this Labour Government, and that it was piloted through this House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
Before the Act of Union, Wales is supposed to have enjoyed a golden age, which was destroyed by a conspiracy of the wicked English, supported by some Welsh Quislings, all of them Socialists and all of them, presumably, members of what is contemptuously called the English Labour Party. By a strange paradox this English Labour Party is stronger in Wales than it is anywhere else. It is by far the strongest party in Wales; indeed, in some parts of Wales it is the only party. And the recent by-election in Abertillery is proof of that.
But Wales never had a golden age. If there can be such a thing as a golden age on this troubled planet, then for Wales it lies in the future and not in the past. The basic and most consistent features of Wales, throughout history and down to our own day, are the poverty of the country, the low level of her general economy, and the general backwardness of her technical equipment. This is the key to the understanding of Welsh history. It is the key to the understanding of the problems of Wales today.
Now may I raise a question of some relevance to this debate: is there a special Welsh problem? Has Wales a problem which is unique and distinct to Wales and which has no parallel in any other part of Britain? This question has been

217
argued at great length in Wales over a long time, and we have had a variety of points of view about it. Some hold that there is no special Welsh problem and that Wales, therefore, calls for no special treatment. That, I believe, is the point of view of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health who argued it very forcibly in the first Welsh debate.
Others contend that Wales has a special national problem which calls for a new constitutional relationship between Wales and the rest of Britain. That, I believe, is the point of view of the Liberal Party, and it has been expressed in this House on more than one occasion by the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George). Some people argue that Wales has a special and unique problem which calls for the complete separation of Wales from the rest of Britain.
I do not accept any of these views, but I believe that Wales has a special problem. It is not a national problem; it does not arise from the national characteristics of the Welsh people. It is not a constitutional problem; it does not arise from the constitutional relationship between Wales and the rest of Britain, though we have had all kinds of constitutional proposals for dealing with it. The special Welsh problem is economic, and it arises from the peculiar pattern of the economy which grew up in Wales over the last 100 years.
Welsh economy suffers from four fundamental defects and these constitute a special and unique Welsh problem. The first of these is the utter inadequacy of the transport system in Wales; if, indeed, it can be called a system. An efficient transport system is essential to any prosperous, expanding economy. Wales never had an efficient transport system; it has not got one today. The main railway lines in Wales were built to converge on London and not to unify and integrate our scattered Welsh communities. The other railways lines meander endlessly round the country, leading nowhere, going nowhere. The Railway Executive has recently closed down some of these old lines. Unfortunately it is much easier to close down an old railway line than to open a new one.
Road transport in Wales is in a shocking condition. Somebody has said that all the best roads lead out of Wales and the rest lead nowhere. Our road system
218
is entirely inadequate to meet the demands of modern industry and commerce, and I hope that in the next few years we shall have a vast expansion of the road transport system to cope with the demands of the new economy which is being built.
The second fundamental defect of Welsh economy is the entire lack of balance that has existed now for a long time. Until recently, Wales had only three industries—coal, iron and steel, agriculture—and the overwhelming majority of the Welsh people were employed in them. Practically the whole of Welsh industry is concentrated in one narrow strip. Half the population lives in one geographic county, two-thirds of the population live in a narrow industrial belt extending from Blaenavon in Monmouthshire to Llanelly in Carmarthenshire. The rest of the population is scattered throughout 10 counties. When Welsh industry was expanding, this disequilibrium in our economy was concealed. Nobody worried about it. Industrial expansion brought temporary prosperity to our valleys, but when the great depression came Welsh economy collapsed and Wales as a nation disintegrated. We are still grappling with the aftermath of that terrible calamity.
The third weakness of Welsh economy is the technical backwardness of industry, of transport and of agriculture. Wales has always lagged behind England in technical equipment, and the Welsh worker has always had less machine power at his command than his opposite number across the border. Welsh agriculture has never caught up with the technical level of English agriculture. It has always lagged behind and it lags behind today. The Welsh section of the iron and steel industry was the most backward in Britain. I remember that some years ago my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning described the tinplate undertakings of South Wales as "a lot of old junk." They are still operating on the technical level of the 1870's.
The most notorious example of technical backwardness is provided by the Welsh mining industry, which is the most important single industry of Wales. Until quite recently it was technically the most backward mining industry in Europe. For 30 years this industry was afflicted with what was tantamount to complete technical paralysis, and in South Wales the

219
National Coal Board faces its most formidable task of reconstruction. Indeed, in the Anthracite, in my part of the country, the problem is almost insoluble. The coal plan issued recently by the Coal Board states that in the anthracite area technical reconstruction is impossible and that the only real course for the Coal Board is to start a new industry.
The fourth peculiarity of Welsh economy is the wide gap that has always existed between the economic life of the nation and the educational system of the country. Until quite recently this gap was not only wide and deep; it was complete and absolute. Industry and agriculture were not interested in education, and the educational system was not interested in the economic life. Welsh education became a means of escape from the pit, from the steelworks, and from the countryside, and very often it became a means of escape from Wales. Welsh education became not only exclusively academic. It became aloof, abstract and artificial. It had no social content. It had no real contact with the basic and vital elements in the life of Wales.
The Welsh nation is still suffering from the gap between the educational system and the economic life of the nation. Much has been done in recent years, I know, to bring about a closer liaison between education and economy, but a great deal more remains to be done. We are still exporting teachers from Wales to every education authority in England and Scotland, and we are importing technicians to man our new industries and to reconstruct the old ones. Last year 352 boys were sent from Wales to be trained in industries in England; there were no facilities for this industrial training in Wales. These boys had to leave their homeland. And what happens? They are trained in England, they find jobs there, and they settle down and are permanently lost to Wales. That is one of the serious problems facing us in Wales today.
These are complex and massive problems. They will not be easily solved, but they will have to be solved if Wales is to enjoy prosperity and, indeed, if the Welsh nation is to survive. We have had many proposals for dealing with these problems, and the tendency of the last few years has been to suggest that what Wales really
220
needs is a change in the constitutional relationship of the country with the rest of Britain. During the last few years we have had a spate of constitutional proposals.
Mr. Speaker: Proposals involving legislation are out of order in this debate.
Mr. Williams: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was not arguing in favour of that, but was simply dealing with some of the proposals which have been made. I was saying that we have had proposals for all kinds of new relationships between Wales and England—I am not arguing that; I am not in favour of it. We have had proposals for a Minister for Wales, for a Minister responsible for Welsh affairs, and even for the complete separation of Wales from England.
I have two things to say on that. The first is that the Welsh people do not want separation from Britain. They are too politically mature for that, and they know that such a step would be disastrous. Second, there has been a tendency to look for all kinds of constitutional alibis, instead of facing up to the real Welsh problem, which is the economic reconstruction of the country. That is the basic Welsh problem, and it is our responsibility in this debate to stress and to understand that the only hope for Wales to survive as a nation is to provide it with a solid, stable and prosperous economy, so that Welsh life and Welsh culture can be preserved.
What Wales needs, above all, is a plan. Some time ago the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) said that there could be no freedom in a planned economy. In Wales we know otherwise. We know from experience that there can be no freedom without planning. Under the anarchy of free enterprise the people of Wales had two freedoms—the freedom to starve, and the freedom to leave the country. Under the planning of the present Government, the range of freedom for the Welsh people has been enormously widened. For the first time people are enjoying real freedom. What Wales needs now is a plan to decide the future pattern of Welsh economy, to work out a proper balance between agriculture and industry—we have not started even to think about that yet—to work out a scheme of rural reconstruction, and to decide on a system of priorities within Wales.

221
This is a job which can well be done by the Council for Wales. The Council is composed of people who know Wales. They have already worked on some very important Welsh problems, and I suggest that they should now look at Wales as a whole. I am sure that the Council, given the authority and the necessary technical assistance, can undertake this task of planning the Welsh economy; and they can, I believe, do a really worth while job for Wales.
4.28 p.m.
Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: It may be for the convenience of the House if I intervene at this early stage of the debate with some general observations on both the White Paper—or, as the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. D. Williams) called it, the Blue Book—for this year and the report by the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire, before Members from Welsh constituencies, with their intimate knowledge of the problems concerning those constituencies, raise particular points later in the debate. I shall be as brief as possible, because I realise only too well the shortness of the time allotted today for all these great problems of the Principality.
According to past debates on Welsh affairs, it seems customary for the speaker from the Opposition Front Bench to make a personal statement about his credentials for intervening. This is largely due to attacks from, I am sorry to say, the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) on this Front Bench for failure to provide a Welshman with a Welsh constituency. In a previous debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), in spite of a claim to Cornish blood, and in spite of what he has done for education in Wales, was described as an Anglo-Saxon cuckoo in the Welsh nest. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) fared even worse last year, owing to a remark he uttered on the antiquity of the Gaelic tongue, which proved to be rather unflattering to Welsh.
I can assure the noble Lady that I am at least Carmarthenshire born, and that I did, at a very early age, attempt to win the Llanelly Division of Carmarthen shire. Having accepted, with due modesty and with grave financial loss, so far as
222
my election deposit was concerned, the fact that the constituency preferred to be represented by men like the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary of State for the Colonies and his predecessor, I decided to make a border raid into Herefordshire. It is quite true that I found a fellow Welshman, then the baby of the House, already in possession of Hereford, which he had captured from the Conservative Party for the Liberal Party.
But after all, Welsh men and women do sometimes differ politically, as even the noble Lady herself has shown so recently on the Liberal benches of this House. I would suggest to the noble Lady, with respect, that instead of chiding me for leaving Wales she should congratulate both Mr. Frank Owen and myself for the pioneering spirit, so typical of the Welsh, by which he and I captured the ancient border City of Hereford and held it for Wales for 21 years.
To quote the hon. Member for Neath, I hope the House will not think I am romanticising too much about the past, but perhaps I may be permitted one more personal note in view of the attack which I dare say will come upon me from the noble Lady, and that is that the men and women of Herefordshire were the people who protected Owen Glendower when he sought shelter at his daughter's home at Kentchurch Court—in my constituency—in the last years of his life. I may say that I have slept peacefully and un-haunted for any political infidelity to Wales in Owen Glendower's own room, and that we in Herefordshire are proud to believe that his bones lie peacefully in our soil by the River Wye—that river which draws its source and strength from the Welsh hills.
With those credentials, I hope that hon. Members will allow me to say that I welcome the opportunity of this debate. I feel, however, that to hold the debate on the Adjournment Motion limits our discussion unnecessarily by making it impossible, as we have already heard during the speech of the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. D. Williams), to refer to problems involving legislation. I should like to put on record the opinion, at any rate from this side of the House and, I believe, from other quarters, that as the Council for Wales develops, and as it begins to make still more specific recommendations, any future debate

223
should be on a formal Government Motion asking us to take note of the contents of the Report under discussion.
My own impression, on reading the Report on the Government action in Wales and Monmouthshire, is, frankly, rather different from that of the hon. Member for Neath. He said that this White Paper or, as he called it, Blue Book came up to the expectations of its predecessors during the last five years. I remember the criticisms of those Government White Papers on Wales during those five years, and I can hardly believe that that remark was a compliment.
My own impression on reading this Report is that it has got the failings of the White Papers of the last five years. It seems to me rather a hotch-potch of contributions from different Government Departments. It lacks not only co-ordination but also the leadership and vision of one man in real authority. It seems to me to call loudly for a high ranking Member of the Cabinet with a special responsibility for Wales, as recommended by the Conservative Party in their policy for Wales—which needs no legislation. By that pledge and that policy we on these benches still stand.
I do not believe that a Cabinet Minister in charge of Welsh affairs would have described and dismissed the slate industry in only four lines, in paragraph 118, when double that space is given, in paragraph 240, to what has happened with regard to school dinners, important indeed though they may be, in Merthyr Tydfil since the price was raised by the Government from 4d. to 6d. in October of last year. After all, we have been waiting since 1946 to know what the Government intend to do about the Rees Report on that slate industry, with all that that means for employment in North Wales.
On the other hand, I feel that the Memorandum by the Council for Wales and Monmouth is much more illuminating and helpful than the White Paper. Although this Council has come in for some very rough handling during past debates on Welsh affairs in the House, I think that on this occasion it has been most constructive and helpful, and shows the immense amount of work, time and trouble that members of the Council have put into making their report. We owe
224
them our gratitude. We on these benches, as a party, urge that a properly constituted Council for Wales should be in existence, to advise and assist a Member of the Cabinet with special responsibility for Wales and Welsh affairs.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Does the hon. Member contemplate having a Civil Service under that Minister? Does he not realise that if there is no Civil Service his suggestion would be quite futile?
Mr. Thomas: Frankly, I do not believe that that is the case. We believe that a Member of the Cabinet should be watching all subjects under discussion in the Cabinet from the point of view of the Welsh. I am quite certain that in that way we should get more co-ordination than appears in the Government White Paper this year. We still feel, despite that excellent Report of the Council, that the two chief features of our policy for Wales cannot be properly separated, because they are complementary. I am certain that a Council for Wales, in isolation, cannot be nearly so valuable as it might be as an adjunct to a Minister with the objects I have described.
The Council itself, in its Report this year, talks about the need for a coordinated authority, especially so far as rural Wales is concerned. I realise that the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), may have hopes, after her Parliamentary Question to the Lord President of the Council, of having a special day for debating the Report of the Council for Wales. But I do not think his answer was definite enough to justify one in failing to seize this opportunity of comparing these two documents today.
Mrs. Eirene White: I understand that there has been a communication from the Lord President to the secretary of the Welsh Parliamentary Party on which hon. Members from all parts of the House sit—it is open to Conservatives if they care to come—by which we are given to understand that there is a very strong indication that there will be a further opportunity for debate in the New Year. For that reason some of us, I think on both sides of the House, propose this afternoon to exercise a self-

225
denying ordinance and not to discuss in detail the work of the Council for Wales, or the problems of rural reconstruction, so that we make have a coherent debate during the New Year.
Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I had not myself heard of that message, but I am abiding by what I understand to be the wish of the Welsh Parliamentary Party not to discuss rural Wales at any length, if at all. I do, however, wish to take the opportunity afforded by this debate to make some comparisons between the Government Report and the Council's Memorandum, because they contain points which need underlining, and to which I hope we shall receive an answer from a Government spokesman today. The Council's Memorandum underlines and brings out more clearly in detail what is dealt with more briefly in the Government Report.
I intend briefly to make comparisons between the two documents. Paragraph 39 of the Council's report states:
"There must be a much greater degree of mobility of labour if full employment is to be realised throughout Wales and is to extend to the outlying pockets of unemployment … in the slate quarry region and some other parts of rural Wales."
It is surely very difficult to achieve this great degree of mobility without sufficient houses, and the report on housing in the Government document, and indeed in the Council's Memorandum, is extremely disheartening. The hon. Member for Neath made the point that the Government Report shows a drop both in the building of new permanent houses and the total number of accommodation units comparing this year with last year, and this at a time when Wales—
Mr. D. Williams: I think the hon. Member has misunderstood my point, which was that in the depression of the inter-war period there was no demand for houses, and that now, with industrial expansion, the building industry cannot meet the demand.
Mr. Thomas: I did not misunderstand the hon. Member's point. I heard what he said about depression before the war and how much better off the Welsh people were now. All I would say on that improvement is that a great deal of that was due to planning in advance by the
226
National Government under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), as right hon. Gentlemen opposite who served in that National Government well know. The fact remains that there is this shortage both in the building of new houses and in the total number of accommodation units compared with last year, and that at a time when Wales has an immense task, not only of providing new houses, but of reconditioning at least 45 per cent. of the existing rural houses.
Both these documents make it clear that Wales is not getting her fair share of the building programme. This is confirmed by the Panel of Depopulation in the Council Report and by an analysis of the housing returns. Let me give the House one example. Both the southern region and the south-eastern region of England have 5.8 per cent. of the total population of Britain, while Wales has 6 per cent. of that total population. The southern region has had 44,000 houses provided by 1st March this year and the south-eastern region 43,000, while Wales, with a higher percentage of the total population, has had only 33,165 houses provided during that period. In both those English regions there are today more houses under construction than there are in Wales.
My comparison of these two documents brings me to the development of the tinplate and steel sheet industries, especially in the Swansea area, and I would like from the ministerial spokesman in this debate a reply on the point I wish to raise. The Panel on Unemployment is much more realistic and far more alarming on this development than is the White Paper. The White Paper contents itself by saying, in 2½ lines, that:
"The possible effect on employment … of the establishment of the new steel and tinplate works at Margam and Trostre is being investigated."
The Panel say they are aware of this investigation, but they go much further and warn us that by 1955 additional unemployment, due to these developments, will be no fewer than 5,000 and may be as high as 10,000. They stress the importance of planning in advance to avoid that danger, and I hope that whoever speaks from the Government Front Bench today will be able to give us some assurance, in greater detail than we have had from the Government White Paper, that they have plans in preparation.

227
I turn to the diversification of industry. We must distinguish carefully between diversification of heavy and medium industries on the one hand, based as they are on the Welsh native coal and iron and steel industries, and the ill considered—I stress the word—stimulation of light industry in Wales. While the Government Report merely hints about the difficulties of the latter in a somewhat hazy and embarrassed sentence in paragraph 78, the Panel of Unemployment of the Council for Wales says that it feels considerable anxiety about the future of the new industrial economy that has grown up in the last few years.
I do not know if Members heard the broadcast by Professor Arthur Beecham, Professor of Industrial Relations at Cardiff, on St. David's Day this year, when he pointed out that we may be spreading our manpower resources too thinly in building unwanted factories for industries which may have no future as competition becomes keener and the margins of markets narrow. While, in the last year, the Government White Paper tells us, four million square feet of factory space has been completed, I believe it is still true that the Government have not been able to find a single new tenant on Grenfell terms for the Grenfell factories. If the Minister can refute that no one will be more delighted than myself.
So far as the South Wales ports are concerned, we are glad to see from the Government White Paper that there has been continued improvement since last year, but the figures produced in the Appendix corroborate the statement in the "Conservative Policy for Wales" at the last election that
"the ports of South Wales are a national asset which is now being party wasted."
I had a fairly intimate knowledge of those ports when I was at the Admiralty at the latter half of the war. I know their immense strategic value. Their capacity for handling cargoes is far greater than the trade which they are now handling. The 1938 figures bear this out, for in that year the six principal ports handled total traffic amounting to 24,500,000 tons. Last year the traffic handled was just under 16 million tons, about 65 per cent. of the 1938 figures.
Some ports seem to have been worse hit than others. The trade at Swansea is as big as it was pre-war, but the trade
228
at Cardiff is only half what it was. It cannot be expected that the handling by South Wales ports of coal for export and bunkering can soon, if ever, be recovered. I agree with the hon. Member for Neath that it is vital that we should make progress in the matter of transport and the linking of the South Wales ports with the great industrial areas of the Midlands. In our Conservative Policy for Wales we stated bluntly that we considered that the trunk routes from South Wales to the Midlands should have first priority, even over that trunk road about which we have talked so much between South and North Wales. In my view first priority should go to a road for fast-moving traffic between South Wales to the Midlands, with spurs branching off to Nottingham and Derby.
When one turns to the coal industry, with which the hon. Member for Neath dealt, the most alarming position disclosed in the Government Report is the fall in the output of saleable anthracite. Members who sit for mining constituencies know better than I do what that fall means, for apart from a very small amount in Scotland, it is in Wales alone that anthracite is to be found; and how important it is for domestic heating, steam raising, malting and brewing and many other purposes. This, and the growth of absenteeism in the coal mining industry in general must cause concern, and I shall be grateful if the Minister who is to reply to the debate can analyse the causes.
In a debate in which we all want to do our best for the Principality, I am very anxious not to stress party differences; but to compare the coal industry with the steel industry, as the White Paper does, gives us a very different picture. Here, as the White Paper says:
"in the production of crude steel South Wales is maintaining a constant ratio to the figures for the United Kingdom in the steady progress made by the steel industry as a whole."
The labour force in the steel and tinplate industries increased in the period under review by 1,235, as against a decline in the coal industry of 4,537. The White Paper says, on coal, that there will be no appreciable supply of foreign labour in the future, but, on steel, it says that plans to recruit more foreign labour are being prepared. What explanation can the Government give for this divergence

229
between the two industries on this Question?
I had wished to say something about rural Wales, but, as I said in reply to an interjection, although I am not a member of the Welsh Parliamentary Committee, I would not wish to break the agreement to which that Committee came. Nevertheless, I hope that a day will come—and soon—for a debate on rural Wales which perhaps could be based on the very illuminating factual report of the Panel on Depopulation. In particular, we should want to ask the Government for their views on the interesting and important recommendation of this Panel when it says that:
"the Council for Wales should be given authority to undertake, with an independent staff, detailed and authoritative investigation into the problems of rural Wales, including all aspects of Welsh administration."
That would also give an opportunity to certain hon. Members who cannot be present on the Liberal benches today because, I understand, they are on important work connected with the Towy Afforestation Scheme. I know the area well; I went over it only last August. It would be wrong for me to discuss that subject while the matter is sub judice, but I should like to make one constitutional point, and perhaps the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) will not be altogether in disagreement with me on this.
It seems highly unsatisfactory that an inquiry should be held by the Minister of Agriculture who is himself the person responsible for agreeing, in the first place, that the Forestry Commission should plant this land. I need hardly say that I am making no personal attack on the present Minister of Agriculture. I am only trying to help him, for when one appeals to Cæsar against Cæsar it is sometimes apt to be embarrassing for Cæsar
I have noticed that my non-Welsh predecessors, speaking from this Front Bench during previous debates, have usually concluded their speeches by magnificent tributes to our literature, our poetry, our songs and our music. That is all very flattering, but my conclusion today will be somewhat different. I wish to ask for actions and not words. My appeal is to the Lord President of the Council, the arch-priest of the Festival of Britain. I
230
saw in the Press last weekend that, once more, the Lord President gave us what is now obviously his signature tune when he said that it was his greatest wish "to make the people happy and to let the people sing." That is all very well. But why is it, if that is the case, that the Lord President has allotted less than 0.5 per cent. of the general expenditure on the Festival as a whole to our Welsh land of song?
I cannot feel that the Lord President is so free from all troubles and anxieties about the Festival that he can ignore this golden opportunity of allowing the Principality to come to his rescue. Not only have we the most beautiful country in this island for foreign visitors to see, but the festival spirit is surely an integral part of the Welsh character, as it has been throughout the ages. How often have we all watched those long treks in carts, in gigs, and on horse back, for miles and miles down mountain roads and lanes when there is music to be found at the end of the journey?
I beg the Lord President not to ignore these potentialities, and most seriously do I hope that those who answer for the Government today can promise us action on the many disquieting features contained both in the White Paper and in the Report of the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire.
4.56 p.m.
Mr. Emrys Roberts: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) has intervened in this debate. I thought that he did not need to spend so much time apologising for his intervention. He seemed to me to give the impression that for two long years he had been smarting under the strictures of the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George), and to endeavour to show that this time, at last, the Conservative Party has produced a speaker for Wales whose credentials are above reproach.
I entirely agree that it is not desirable to have this debate on the Motion for the Adjournment because it restricts the scope of our discussion. I wonder whether the Conservative side of the usual channels made that point clear when the business for this week was being settled. After all, it is rather late to put that on record today. I should call attention to the fact that I

231
raised the point a week ago when the programme of business for this week was announced by the Lord President of the Council. I hope that in future years we shall avoid having any debate on Welsh affairs on the Motion for the Adjournment.
I wish to refer to one other matter which was mentioned by the hon. Member, and that is the question of housing in Wales. There is no hon. Member from any part of Wales who is not distressed by the letters that he gets from his constituents. Let it not be thought that the position is better in the rural areas than it is in the towns. The position in the rural areas is simply shocking. There are disgraceful houses in my constituency of Merioneth. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) did a most useful service when he published his Report in 1939 criticising so many of the rural authorities in Wales for their neglect of rural housing.
I had occasion to look at the figures mentioned in that Report which is now known as the Clement Davies Report. Those figures disclosed that in the 20 years between the two wars 130,000 houses were built in Wales. In the five years since the end of the last war, under the present system of building, 50,000 accommodation units have been provided in all; in terms of permanent homes, about 36,000 homes have been provided. If that rate of progress is maintained, it is obvious that, in the 20 years from 1945, we shall do better than we did in the 20 years between the two wars. It is only right that we should look at the matter in the light of the actual figures which have been published.
The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. D. Williams) referred to unemployment in Wales. The fact that our unemployment figures are so much higher than those for any part of the rest of Britain is one of th most distressing aspects of Welsh affairs today. The hon. Member did not give the percentages but they are disclosed, as at June, 1950, in the White Paper, and, as at October, 1950, in the Ministry of Labour Gazette. From those figures it is evident that we continue to have the highest rate of unemployment. In October, 1950, in Great Britain the percentage of men unemployed was 1.5 per cent., and that of women unemployed was 1.4 per cent.—an average of 1.45
232
per cent. In Wales the figures were: men, 3.2 per cent.; women, 4.3 per cent.—an average total of 3.5 per cent. The total unemployment in Wales at 16th October was 32,932, and we have the highest percentage of unemployment in Great Britain, Scotland coming next.
I hope that the Secretary for Overseas Trade will tell us that there are some special measures in hand to deal with the very difficult problem. The Advisory Council refer to the matter in their report when they state that, in future
"… the survival in Wales of many of the new industries which are subsidiaries of larger concerns outside Wales may be highly problematical."
I wonder if the Board of Trade have considered that statement; if so, I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell us whether the Board of Trade agree with it, and, if they do, what their policy is for safeguarding the future of these new light industries in Wales.
While I am on the subject of new industries, I should like to point to the extraordinary slowness with which decisions are taken in regard to Welsh problems. Although I am not going to make a constituency speech, I wish to refer to Blaenau Ffestiniog, in my constituency. We have been agitating for a new factory for at least five years, even longer. The President of the Board of Trade came down on 18th December, 1948. He was convinced of the need for a new light industry to provide alternative employment to the heavy industry which already exists. He was convinced and everything was to go forward with Cabinet priority. Yet, the building of that factory has not yet started. It cannot be the fault of the local authority. They are, naturally, anxious to have the factory started. There has been a handing over of responsibility between the Board of Trade and the Welsh Board of Health, and one feels that decisions in regard to Wales are taking far longer than they ought. There is no authority charged with co-ordinating and hastening the activities of Government Departments.
The hon. Member for Neath referred to what he called a "constitutional alibi," instead of facing up to the real economic problems. I should be out of order if I developed the case for a Welsh Parliament, but the whole case for such a Parliament is that these problems cannot

233
be solved unless the authority to deal with them is concentrated in Welsh hands. The hon. Member also referred to the need for giving the Advisory Council more authority. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Hereford supported that or not, but I think that that would be quite wrong.
Authority should be in the hands of an elected body, which deliberates in public, and which has an adequate Civil Service at its disposal. There is a Civil Service at present in Wales under the various regional offices. The trouble is that there is no elected body with authority directing the activities of that body of civil servants. We have far too many consultative councils and too much power in them in Wales. The real solution is to transfer authority for decisive action into the hands of the elected representatives.
The hon. Member for Neath said that Wales needs, above all, a plan to decide her future economy. I absolutely agree with him, but surely it is rather late in the day to be saying this. Is there no plan already? The foundations of the plan should have been laid five years ago. It is more than ever urgent that the Government should be considering whether they cannot frame a plan for Wales, which will co-ordinate the whole of the interests in Wales and decide her future economy, and the manner in which to deal with her manifold problems. I am sure that bodies such as the Advisory Council cannot prepare, or work out, or operate, such a plan.
If a plan is necessary for anything it is necessary for the land of Wales, because it is clear at present that there are a lot of conflicting demands for land in Wales—the Ministry of Agriculture, the Board of Trade, the Forestry Commission and the War Department. It does not look as if there has been any really comprehensive survey of the land of Wales or any plan for its use. The land of Wales is important in two senses. First, it is important as the source of the national life, in which the hon. Member for Neath rejoiced; secondly, it is important in a very practical way—for our sustenance in these days and in the years to come. It may even be more important than ever soon, because we may have to depend upon it for food production more and more
234
The hon. Member for Hereford referred to public inquiries into various demands for land. I entirely agree with him that they are completely unsatisfactory. An inquiry held by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning into the War Office demand for land at Trawsfynydd was completely unsatisfactory in every way. The whole burden of the case of the local bodies was that this was valuable food producing land, and a large number of farmers and agricultural experts gave evidence. There was no one there to put the point of view of the Ministry of Agriculture, and we had no opportunity of asking them questions or cross-examining their officials. Then, some months after the inquiry had been held, the Ministry of Town and Country Planning confirmed the War Office demand without giving any reasons at all. That was done without even publishing the report of the chairman of the inquiry. That is not in the nature of a democratic process, and as Wales is infinitely concerned with this demand for land from various Government Departments, it is necessary that the procedure for public inquiries should be reviewed.
I want to finish by referring to one other matter. The hon. Member for Neath said that my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey had been one of the most prominent persons in putting forward a demand for a Welsh Parliament. But the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies—he is not in his place at the moment, although he has been present throughout most of the debate so far—in a debate on Welsh affairs in 1944, put forward a demand for devolution in very strong terms. It was also put forward in strong terms by the Minister of Health in those days. I think there is a very widespread demand for this, which is not confined to one party.
The question is often asked, "Can Wales sustain a Parliament or a Government of her own?" The answer to that could be provided if the Government were to take a more sympathetic view of the various demands which have been put forward for a full inquiry into the financial and economic position of Wales. A short while ago the Prime Minister announced that he was setting up a committee which would prepare an economic balance sheet for Scotland, and there was much pressure from both sides of the House at the

235
time that that committee should cover the whole of the United Kingdom, or that a similar committee should function in respect of Wales. By the rather curt nature of the replies he gave at that time, the Prime Minister conveyed the impression that he was entirely unsympathetic to that kind of inquiry.
I think it would be a very good thing if at present the Government were to take a sympathetic view of this demand for an inquiry into the financial and economic position of Wales—a demand which comes from many quarters. The hon. Member for Neath told us that there are many figures in the White Paper. That is true, and they are interesting and valuable, so far as they go. But it is not a complete economic balance sheet for Wales, and I can seen nothing but good coming out of the production of such a balance sheet. If we want to prepare a plan for Wales, we can only do it when we have that balance sheet. I should like the Government to look again at this question of preparing a complete financial statement for Wales, because, on that basis, we can prepare a plan and pursue a course of action for the well-being of our country.
5.13 p.m.
The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Bottomley): In entering this debate today, I feel that I am called upon to present my credentials for so doing. As Secretary for Overseas Trade, under the direction of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, I have been entrusted with the distribution of industry policy, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. D. Williams) said, in opening the debate, that the most important thing in connection with it today, and generally, was the consideration of economic matters. May I say to him and also to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas), who opened from the Opposition Front Bench, that I am grateful to both of them for providing me with a good deal of historical background.
In dealing with the subject with which I am most fully conversant, perhaps I may be allowed to make a brief review of the past in presenting what is, after all, the annual stocktaking, and in dealing with some of the questions addressed to me. I think it is true to say that in the past the basic industry of Wales was
236
chiefly coal-mining. The world markets then were in such a state that there were no demands for exports of coal and steel, and that had a serious effect on the economy of Wales generally. There was little or no secondary industry and the low wages paid in the rural areas were a general pattern for industry.
As a result of that, we have, today, low standard farms and poor houses. That situation has obviously to be put right, but in these days of shortages of raw materials, and sometimes of skilled labour, it is not easy to overcome problems left to us from the past. I think it can be truthfully said that when the Labour Government came into power, in 1945, they had to construct new industries, reconstruct old industries such as the coal, iron and other heavy basic industries, and had to rehabilitate agriculture. In other words, they had to provide a properly balanced economy.
From 1945 until 1949, coal production went up by 10 per cent. in spite of the fact that during those years we were losing too many people from the pits. I confirm that the figure of 4,500, mentioned by the hon. Member for Hereford, is correct as representing the number of men who left the pits. Naturally, the loss of those men is now beginning to affect production. The drop in the output per shift is not due entirely to absenteeism. Indeed, many excuses can be made on that ground, and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General will be dealing with that point. At the same time, the output per shift in South Wales is not as high as we would wish. The real cause of this is, of course, minor disputes, which could easily be put right if the conciliation machinery were used.
As we know, the National Coal Board have introduced a plan. They have made one or two reservations in the case of Wales for the very reason I have just given. From 1950 to 1965, they hope to spend £97 million for the provision of seven new pits and the reconstruction of 26 existing pits in South Wales, and eight in the North. As has already been mentioned, the coal produced in South Wales is of great value. The steam coal and anthracite produced there is the best in the world; indeed, South Wales is the only source of supply. As Secretary for Overseas Trade, I know what a heavy demand there is for that coal, and how,

237
despite the gloomy forecasts, we were able to resume exports of that coal much more quickly than was at one time thought possible. Those exports have resulted in our getting the food and raw materials which have enabled us to build up our economy so successfully in the past few years. If everybody puts his back into it the Welsh coalfields can be revolutionised.
Iron and steel production is increasing, although I think it is true that, with existing plant, the limit has been nearly reached. However, as we all know, new plants are being created at Margam and Trostre, and as they get into their stride we shall see production further increased. There is a fear of redundancy in connection with the opening of these new steel works. There is a possibility of that, and the leaders of the industry are by no 11 means sure how big the redundancy problem will be. I can only say that in overseas markets, the demand for tin and steel plate is as heavy as it has ever been and looks like increasing, so that, as far as I can judge, the opening of these new plants will not result in redundancy, but in an increased demand and more work.
Nevertheless, the Government have to face the possibility of redundancy, and they are not just sitting down waiting for that to happen without doing something about it. They have planned to provide advance factories. In the past, as we know, the Government have had to consider, in permitting the building of factories, whether they would achieve the earning or saving of dollars. The Government had to apply that test. But in certain areas, like the one I am talking about now, the Government ease these tests in order that the factories will be there to provide work, should there be any unemployment. This applies particularly to West Wales.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In the report it says that the advance factory programme is now finished, and that of the 38 factories constructed, only one remains unlet. I am not able to reconcile that statement with what the hon. Gentleman has just said.
Mr. Bottomley: This is in addition to that. What I am trying to say is that in West Wales, at present, where there may be unemployment because of redundancy in the steel industry, we are making pro-
238
vision for a new factory in the Swansea district. If the, problem necessitates it, another one will be provided at a later stage. We want to be assured that there will be a substantial tenant for this advance factory at Swansea, so employment will be of a continuing nature.
I turn now from the basic industries to the diversifying light industry. Before the war, men were mainly employed only in the basic industries and there was no employment for women, but as a result of what has been done by the Labour Government it has been possible to employ in the manufacturing industries double the number engaged in the mines. The Government have done all they can to use the old munition works that were in Wales. In addition, they have brought about the development of new factories and have either built them themselves or encouraged private enterprise to build them. In the case of three Royal Ordnance factories they have developed three new industrial estates.
I would be the last to suggest that we have done all that is necessary. That is only an attempt to tackle the problem. We recognise that we have more to do, and we shall continue to carry out this policy. Indeed, the number of factories under construction and licensed to be built is 93, and 96 new factories have been approved though they are not yet licensed. We have found, of course, that it would be an advantage to have a factory down on the site ready for industry to take over, rather than to wait for industry to come there and say, "Will you build a factory to our requirements?" The Government, therefore, have provided advance factories so that the incoming tenant has a factory readily available and does not have to wait one or two years before he can start production.
Thirty-six of these 38 advance factories have been allocated and they are employing nearly 2,000 more people than were employed a year ago when we were last debating this subject. Since 1945, 450 new firms have been introduced into South Wales alone. It would be wrong of me to attempt to deal with rearmament, but I ought to say, in passing, that the Government in their rearmament programme certainly have the development areas very much in mind. To date, 10 per cent. of the additional rearmament contracts placed have gone to Wales and, of course,

239
there will be indirect benefits from the increased steel, increased coal and many other items that are required.
Turning now to the unemployment situation, I can confirm the figure given to the House that it is at present 3.5 per cent. of the insured population. But I do not confirm that it is the heaviest. It is heavy enough, but Merseyside has a higher percentage than Wales. However, since the last debate there are 3,000 fewer unemployed, which is an indication that the problem is being tackled. When we compare figures for the past we find that in 1932 there were 238,000 unemployed, or 39 per cent., in 1946 there were 61,000, or 8.5 per cent. Today the figure is 33,000, or 3.5 per cent.
The greatest problem in connection with unemployment, of course, is that of the disabled workers. There are 64,000, or 7 per cent., of the insured population in Wales disabled. That is a very large number and of those 64,000 there are 10,700 unemployed. However, here again the figure is 2,000 less than the figure we had when we debated this matter last year, which shows that an improvement is being made. The disabled men are provided for in the Remploy factories. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is here and that is the special responsibility of his Department. They employ many disabled men. In my Department we have the Grenfell scheme. All the Grenfell factories are let. I had the pleasure of going to Ammanford this year and taking part in the letting of the last one. In connection with the Grenfell scheme I should say that if it should so happen that the factories were not being taken up we should not hesitate to change the terms.
It is important that these factories should be used. We have changed the terms to some extent in this sense, that if there is a firm with a parent factory, which also wants a Grenfell factory we are prepared to let it on the terms that overall the same number of disabled men are employed as would have to be employed in a Grenfell factory alone. Only one factory has been let under those terms. All the others have been let under the full terms of the Grenfell scheme. There are other factories in addition to the Grenfell factories, which have been let on the Grenfell terms.
240
Disabled workers are, of course, many in number and so we must rely, in the main, upon new industries to help them. Four hundred and fifty of these have been introduced, and those that employ 20 or more are asked to make up 3 per cent. of their employees from among disabled men. In a recent survey of 400 factories it was found that the percentage of disabled employed was nearer 8 per cent. That means, in estimated figures, that somewhere about 50,000 disabled men are employed in the industries that have been introduced.
Reference has been made in the debate to the rural areas. I want to conform to the wishes of the Welsh Parliamentary Party, but I should like to refer to those areas in passing. Agriculture and forestry have benefited by Government action in introducing the Forestry Act, 1945, the Hill Farming Act, 1946, and the Agriculture Act, 1947, to say nothing of our attempts to deal with rural water supplies and sewage under an Act passed some time ago. There is much leeway to make up and the Government will not hesitate to take action. I hope we shall be able to debate this at greater length on another occasion.
There has been some criticism during the debate of the firms that have been introduced into Wales. I think this criticism can be summarised as alleging that they are of an unsatisfactory financial standing, that they are only branch factories of parent undertakings, and that their production is flimsy. This may be true in some cases, but it does not apply universally. When it comes to letting a factory or leaving it idle one may sometimes let it to the wrong customer.
The Government have applied stringent tests. In the case of a factory that is to go on one of the estates the estate company concerned is careful to examine the financial position of the company, and only if it is satisfied on that point, does it allow the factory to go into production. If a firm builds its own factory I think it is reasonable to assume that its financial standing is such as to allow it to go into full production. It should be said with regard to branch undertakings that many of them are employed on work which has necessitated removal from the industrial centre of this country for strategic reasons. Or it may be that entirely new production has been started, and that new production

241
can be carried out better in the new area than in the old established centre.
With reference to "flimsy" production, whatever our economy may be, some less essential goods are desirable, and to that extent it is perhaps necessary to introduce this kind of light industry to obtain a balanced economy. I can assure hon. Members who raised the point that the Government are constantly concentrating upon the need to get the right kind of industry in order to provide stable employment in Wales and, indeed, elsewhere. I believe that what I have said indicates that the Government have not only given consideration to the matter but have given effect to the many considerations involved. The most important thing is that there should be no slipping back. If we can hold our gains, that in itself is a most desirable thing. If we can improve upon them so much the better; and, of course, we shall try to do so.
If I may end on a personal note, I should like to say that in 1935 I became associated with a Welsh miner. He was and is the general secretary of my own trade union, the National Union of Public Employees. He told me a lot about Wales. I know that the Welsh people have a passion for education and culture. I know they have a keen interest in their religious and social institutions. They have an ancient language. I know what caused more damage to all that than anything else. It was mass unemployment. So far as I am concerned in today's debate, I want to say that the prevention of economic insecurity is the best way in which we can be sure that the ancient heritage of the Welsh people is preserved for all time.
5.32 p.m.
Sir Herbert Williams: The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) sought to have a bit of a wisecrack at my expense when he said that I knew nothing about the Welsh language. It is quite true that I do not know as much about it now as I used to know, but some years before he was born, every Sunday I used to go to Sunday school in Wales because that is where we were taught to read the Bible in Welsh. At the day school we only learnt it in English. Although I have forgotten a good deal of what I then learned, I still remain a rather enthusiastic Welshman.
Mr. Emrys Roberts: I only indulged in what the hon. Gentleman calls a wisecrack because he was muttering something about the Welsh language.
Sir H. Williams: I merely said that somebody had suggested Wales was a nation, and I said it was a language. There is something in that, because a large number of people who speak Welsh in South Wales are descendants of English agricultural labourers who went into the coalmines. They are not Welsh at all. It is just as well to bear that in mind. I have some claim to be Welsh. My father was from Caernarvonshire and my mother from Montgomeryshire. She was English-speaking, and she could only talk with her mother-in-law when my father acted as interpreter. My grandmother could not speak English at all.
I rejoiced when the Secretary for Overseas Trade, who has now left the Chamber, said that the Welsh had a deep faith in education. That is true. It is extraordinary what happened in the rural villages of North Wales in days gone by. My father, who died many years ago, walked nine miles a day to go to a secondary school. Of course, today a benevolent Board of Education provide scholars with taxis, but there were no taxis in those days. It is true there is a fanatical devotion to education among the Welsh people. It was Wales which started the county schools about 55 years ago. Their secondary education was streets ahead of that of England. But we are not primarily discussing those problems today. We are going to discuss the industrial problems.
I am amazed to find how few who live in England have been to Wales. I have been surprised at the number who have no knowledge at all of the lovely scenery of Wales. It is interesting to look at the Welsh map. As a boy I lived in Cheshire, I could see across the Dee to Moel Fanau, Flintshire's mountain, where we have an iron and steel industry and a coal industry of importance—an industry with which is associated the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers). In parts of Denbighshire a great deal of farming is carried on, and as we move further south into Caernarvonshire and Merioneth we have the slate quarries and a good deal of agriculture. Moving further south we come to an area which is primarily agricultural, and then we come to the great

243
South Wales area which dominates Wales in population and industry, with its coal going down and iron and steel coming up.
It is South Wales which has presented many of our great problems. Let us advertise to the people of England the great tourist possibilities of Wales. A very large proportion of the people of Wales earn their living by providing facilities on the beautiful Welsh coast and in inland resorts such as we find in Radnorshire which are not patronised as much as they might be by English people. The Council for Wales might do a bit more for tourism in Wales. It was my privilege just over two years ago to become chairman of the largest political conference ever held in Wales.
Mr. George Thomas: It must have been a Labour conference.
Sir H. Williams: No, it was not. The Conservative Party conference, being held on a democratic basis, has four times as many delegates as ever attend a Labour Party conference, and we have no card vote. However, I have no wish to get into this kind of controversy. I was amazed to find the large number of delegates at that conference who had never before been along that lovely coast of Flintshire, Denbighshire and Caernarvonshire and many other places further south. We ought to do a little more to advertise tourism in Wales, because it is an important factor in the economy of the Principality.
I think South Wales owes an enormous debt to the late Lord Portal. As Sir William Portal in the days of the grave distress in South Wales, he was commissioned by the then Government to report on the position there. I believe other people reported on the North-East coast and Cumberland. As a result of what Lord Portal did, there were established the first trading estates in South Wales, and in particular one with which I am familiar, the Treforest estate, which is in the constituency of one of the Officers of the Household whom I am glad to see on the Front Bench. I refer to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Pearson). He knows the place very well because he has visited the factory of which I am chairman, though I am only a nominal share-
244
holder. It happened to be the first factory opened on the Treforest Trading Estate, and I think the first factory opened on any trading estate in South Wales. That goes back to 1937.
Two refugees from a certain part of Central Europe thought that from the point of view of their religious beliefs they were better out of Germany. I only met them after they arrived, and they started an enterprise. I am not seeking to advertise their products; they are selling all they can produce at the moment. There was no suitable labour for that factory in South Wales; the managing director had to train all the labour because there was no similar factory in the whole of South Wales. I merely mention that to indicate that I have some knowledge of the problem that existed there.
Some of the enterprises that started have been very successful, although others have been less successful. There have recently been great developments. The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), who is very interested in nylons, would be delighted if she travelled in a motor car in South Wales and found a great nylon spinning works. They make only the yarn there. Somewhere else, I think, they are making those things which seem essential to the comfort of the modern woman. [An HON. MEMBER: "Those elusive things."] I do not know whether they are elusive or not, but I understand the great advantage is that they do not ladder so easily and that if they are washed they can be dried without any trouble. As a devoted husband, I am sometimes instructed by my wife to do the washing and I find that if I put nylons over a towel they are perfectly dry in the morning. I cannot achieve the same results with my own socks. These remarks, of course, were not in my notes but I was led into them by injudicious interruption.
I wonder whether enough attention is paid by those interested in Wales to the influence of petroleum on Wales. In one of these documents there is a reference to the great refinery at Llandarcy, which I think is near Swansea, where last year they refined two million tons of petroleum. We all rejoice in that; it gives employment to people and makes sure that more of the refining process takes place in this country, which is an advantage. We are not importing the

245
oil in a refined form, but are importing the crude oil and obtaining the petrol, lubricating oil, the paraffin and all the other things which are obtained from the fractional distillation—cracking is, I believe, the correct term—of petroleum.
Nevertheless, it was petroleum which caused the grave unemployment in Wales. South Wales owed its prosperity primarily to the export of coal for ships' bunkers and coaling stations all over the world, to supplying coal for our own Navy and other navies, and supplying coal for passenger ships. For strategic reasons, in the case of navies, coal has ceased to be the fuel used. For technical reasons, for cleanliness and for other reasons, it has ceased to be employed for the propulsion of passenger ships. The vast unemployment in South Wales, which was built up after 1919, was primarily due to petroleum, not to four years of Liberal misrule—and I see that the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) is no longer in her place; not to so many years of Tory misrule or to subsequent years of Socialist misrule, but to petroleum.
In fact petroleum was the dominating factor. Everybody knows that, but people do not mention it often enough. It should be pointed out. As a result, South Wales was left with this tragic army of unemployed, and the extraordinary thing was the number who did not want to leave South Wales. They remained there in the vain hope of returning to the pits. It is a most extraordinary thing, as the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) knows; he and I are good personal friends. It is perfectly true that adequate recognition was never given to the tragedy. What is the use of saying that there were so many unemployed coalminers in South Wales? In one sense they were coalminers, but in another sense they were not.
Last night I decided that I should like to take part in this debate and I looked up a few figures. I hope I have them correctly, but it was about 11 o'clock last night when I was looking for them. I had two separate books of statistics and one of them was the Annual Digest of Statistics. If my information is right, employment in the coalmines of South Wales and Monmouthshire, which was treated as part of South Wales for this purpose, reached its maximum in 1923,
246
when there were 253,000 on the books of the colliery companies. I do not say that that was the number at work on each particular day, but that was the number entitled to be at work, unless they were absent because they did not want to work that day or were sick. At any rate, they were not unemployed.
Mr. David Grenfell: The figure recorded for 1920 is 273,000.
Sir H. Williams: I obtained my figures from this statistical abstract for the United Kingdom. Perhaps they did not have a Welsh editor. I think the hon. Member for Gower is thinking of the total number of people registered as miners. I am dealing with the number on the colliery books. Let us assume that he is right, however, and that I am wrong; it was a very large figure. I said 253,000; he said 273,000. As I indicated, I obtained these figures very late last night after taking some part in the Festival of Britain in this Chamber, and that may have misled my eyes.
That figure fell precipitously and by 1938 had dropped to 135,000. There were a lot of people who were unemployed in South Wales at that time who declared themselves to be miners, but who, for some reasons, would not move. As a broad proposition, very few of the factories established on the trading estates have taken in miners—people who have worked in the mines. I know a shop steward in a place in which I am interested who used to be a miner and who thinks that the factory in which I am concerned is better than the mines. That may be due to a change of boss or to a change of employment—I am not certain which. There still remained, however, a lot of people described as unemployed miners.
I turn now to 1948. The number of people in work in the mines was 108,000. In 1950 it was 102,000 so that, in fact, there were 30,000 fewer people in work in the coal mines of South Wales than in 1938. The older people have died or have ceased to seek employment; they are no longer on the register. Thus, when the Minister of Fuel and Power, talks about full employment he should remember that the trouble with the coalmines is that, for a variety of reasons, people have drifted away from the mines and are drifting away from them more rapidly today than

247
they did in pre-war days—and that cannot be blamed on Tory misrule.
That was the tragic effect. As a result of the change in the shipping situation Cardiff has suffered in particular, and more than Swansea. Presumably because they are more concerned with the import of iron ore and the export of tin plate, and because they are very much concerned with the petroleum developments, the people of Swansea have not suffered in the same way. Cardiff has suffered catastrophically, and the employment provided in Cardiff in that direction is much less than it used to be. We ought to bear in mind the catastrophic effect on South Wales of this switch-over from coal to petroleum as a means of the propulsion of ships.
Petroleum has had another effect. I do not want to trespass on a debate which is to be held on another day, when hon. Members will discuss the rural problems of Wales, but I must point out that petroleum has had a curious effect on agriculture in mountainous areas. The more we mechanise the agriculture of the plains the more it is possible to remunerate adequately the ordinary farm worker. On the other hand, one cannot mechanise sheep on the hillsides. One of the problems we face is the depopulation of the agricultural mountainous land in every country in the world. The more we mechanise an industry the higher is the output per man-hour and the higher is the remuneration we can offer. The depopulation which has taken place is, again, in part a petroleum problem, and I ask hon. Members to consider it. It may be rather a new thought to many; it is rather a new thought to me; but it is worth while bearing it in mind, because there are some forces which one cannot resist.
There has been a suggestion that there should be a Welsh Parliament. Although I have lived in England for many years, and although the two constituencies I have represented have been English constituencies, I retain my affection for Wales and I go there very frequently. They seem to like me when I go there. The other evening I had a meeting at Brecon. The population is only 6,000, yet the number at the meeting was 1,500, which seemed an undue proportion of the total population. I
248
understand some had come in buses from elsewhere, but that does not matter; it was a good meeting. [An HON. MEMBER: "There were many curious people."]
I am disturbed about what I call Welsh nationalism. The plain truth of the matter is that Wales is economically dependent upon England. Scotland is dependent upon England.
Sir William Darling: For what? Not for men.
Sir H. Williams: They are dependent on England. Later on we may get a report on the financial relationships between England and Wales, as on those between England and Scotland. It will be found that Wales does depend on English money. Let us consider the road problem. In the north of Scotland they could only develop the roads with a 100 per cent. grant from the Ministry of Transport. At the meeting I was at at Brecon I heard an insistent demand for an improvement of the roads in central Wales. I think they need improvement. That cannot be done out of local resources. Hon. Members have only to look at the statistics about the yield of a penny rate in Wales to see that.
It has to be English money that will solve some of these Welsh problems. It has to be English money to solve the not so great problems of Scotland. If the Welsh want Home Rule they have to pay for Home Rule. I shocked some hon. Friends of mine before the war who had a Motion down about Home Rule. I shocked them by proposing to add at the end of their Motion words to the effect that they could have it provided they paid for their unemployment insurance, their health insurance, and all the rest of it. They were all very angry with me because I shocked them.
Mr. Grimond: Will the hon. Gentleman not agree that England took a considerable amount of money in the past out of both Wales and Scotland?
Sir H. Williams: I do not know. The United Kingdom collects the taxes for the lot. But hon. Members must bear in mind what is paid out of that money on local services, for that is the real test—and that is apart from the expenses of general services, such as defence, and all the rest of

249
it. Scotland and Wales are in fact, subsidised by England.
Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I am sorry to interrupt a fellow Caernarvon man, but how can he come to that definite conclusion when he knows that the full facts and figures about the Welsh contribution are not available?
Sir H. Williams: They used to publish them in the old arguments about Home Rule for Ireland and with regard to Scotland. In those days it was perfectly clear that Scotland was definitely dependent on England and Wales. I remember reading the figures. It was probably before the hon. Member was born. Moreover, my memory is pretty retentive. I have not the precise figures, but I remember the truth of the general statement. One has only to look at the vast areas of mountainous country in Scotland, and the similar characteristics of Wales, to know it must be so.
That is why I have always resisted proposals for making Wales separate. I regard them as completely reactionary. We have got half the world trying to federate Europe and the other half of the world trying to de-federate the United Kingdom. It seems to me that there is something to be said for leaving some things alone. [Laughter.] I am glad I am getting some support from someone like the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who was doing a good job of work at Strasbourg, if I may say so.
Nevertheless, there is a problem. There is a sense of dissatisfaction. There is a feeling that Wales, to use a common phrase, is not getting a fair crack of the whip. The Conservative Party have considered that, and at a Conservative Party conference over which I presided a resolution was passed which I may summarise by saying that our view is that there ought not to be a Minister for Wales but a Minister, comparable to the Lord Privy Seal or the Lord President of the Council, in my judgment, who would have supervisory responsibility over all the other Departments in so far as they deal with Welsh problems. We have the Welsh Board of Health under the Minister of Health already. The Minister happens to be a Welshman now. Sometimes it is a Scotsman. There is seldom an Englishman in charge of the health of Britain. I remember that at one time the
250
Secretary of State for the Home Department was a Scotsman and the Minister of Agriculture was a Scotsman, and the Minister of Health was a Scotsman, and the two last Ministers had responsibility for affairs in Wales. That all shows how very tolerant we in England are.
Sir W. Darling: Does that not show the contribution that Scotland makes to the health of England?
Sir H. Williams: I agree, but I should like to know what would happen in Edinburgh if I were appointed Secretary of State for Scotland.
Sir W. Darling: Mr. Ernest Brown was.
Sir H. Williams: Yes, but he had been elected to represent a Scottish constituency—Leith.
However, there is a conflict in Wales, to which reference has already been made, between the Forestry Commission and the farmers. I do not know the exact area affected, but I heard very distressful stories about how families running the same hill farms for generations were now apparently to be turned out in order that trees might be planted. It may be that the Forestry Commission are right, but I do think that there ought to be some consideration given before the State, or an agent of the State, by violent action expropriates people from holdings which have been theirs for generations. I am not judging that particular case. I do not know enough about it. But I am impressed by the sense of anger and frusstration I discovered on this subject when I was in Wales the other day.
This sort of thing is going on not only in Wales. The Earl of Iveagh, who served for many years in the House of Commons, is fighting exactly the same battle in Suffolk, where, at great expense, he has turned what was bad land into good land producing a great deal of food; and now it is to be taken away from him by the Forestry Commission unless he succeeds in his appeal under the procedure. We all know that we want trees, but, on the other hand, there ought to be a balance in these matters.
I see the Postmaster-General on the Front Bench. He is not getting any wrong numbers today, but he is here to defend the interests of Wales. He is a Welsh miner. I shocked a lot of miners when I was speaking in Swansea some two years

251
ago. [Laughter.] Oh, I shocked them all right. I believe in shocking my audience. It is one way of making them sit up. It is an awful tragedy that some miners of South Wales are suffering from the worst of moral diseases—undue self pity. It is true. I hope it does not shock anyone here if I say so. It is true, I think, of miners throughout the country, but particularly true in South Wales; and the right hon. Gentleman and others of his colleagues by their propaganda have helped to induce that attitude.
It is a terrible thing to inflict that sort of inferiority complex by talking all the time about the "boss class." The boss class in those days were mainly Liberals, not Conservatives. Most of the coal barons in South Wales were Liberals when I was a youngster. We have the National Coal Board now. It is still the boss class. It is a boss class just as bad now as it was bad then. The miners are all very unhappy. They are leaving their jobs. There is no happiness in the nationalised coal mining industry. Nearly half the strikes that take place in this country are in the nationalised coalmining industry. I do not want to introduce a note of undue controversy on an occasion when Welsh people are trying to be united, but even at the. National Welsh Eisteddfod they have a few dissensions, and this is the first Welsh Eisteddfod we have staged in this new Chamber.
However, I do hope that this debate, though there are not many English Members present, may receive reasonable publicity in our much reduced newspapers, and that it will draw the attention of the people of England to the fact that Wales—although we have a lot of Socialists in South Wales and a lot of Liberals in North Wales—has some perfect tourist resorts which are worth visiting, and which will bring immense advantage to that perfectly beautiful country, which I always visit with the utmost pleasure.
5.59 p.m.
Mr. David Grenfell: I am very pleased indeed that I have sat throughout this debate listening to the sensible, practical speeches that have come from every part of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), who has just spoken as a Conservative, is proud, I
252
believe, at being a Welshman. I, too, am proud of being a member of that small community. We have an old saying in Wales which expresses my thoughts better than any words I could choose of my own. It sounds better in the euphemistic words in which it was handed down to us:
"Cas gwr na charo'r wlad ai maco."
Translated it says, "Hateful the man who loves not the land that bore him." Scott said something equally fine in his eulogy of his native country.
"Breathes there the man with soul so dead. …"
There is something wrong with a man who does not love the land to which he belongs and the people from whom he sprang.
I am very proud of the place that Wales has held in the country and in this House, where it has made a tremendous contribution. Seventy-five per cent. of the possible Welsh membership of this House belongs to the Labour Party. The Welsh are democrats. There is an explanation for all things, and this afternoon we have done well in emphasising the physical explanation for the changes in fortune that have befallen this little country.
I am a planner, and just as I like to explain the reason for a break down, I also like to examine and analyse the elements in reconstruction. In the little country of Wales, with an area of 8,000 square miles, for as far back as departmental statistics carry us, which is over 100 years, we nourished roughly one in 15 of the entire population of the British Isles. Our proportion is smaller today, for we have 2½1 million of the total population of over 50 million, which is about 5 per cent. of the population of the British Isles.
What is the explanation? Is the country intrinsically too void of resources to maintain its due proportion? I do not believe so. I should like to remind my own countrymen, as well as those who are not expected to know Wales as well as we know it, that 100 years ago Wales produced half the iron production of the British Isles. At the same time she produced one-third of the coal production of the British Isles—an enormous disproportion of production and service given by and exported from Wales for the sustenance of Britain. No country in the world has exported so large a quantity

253
and so high a value in proportion to her population as Wales. The hon. Member for Croydon, East, referred to the coaling of ocean-going steamers, and I would remind the House that the British Navy has had an incomparable advantage in being able to have the coal from South Wales.
I should like to sit down to plan the future of Wales. I am not at all pessimistic. I believe that we can fix a figure of population which we might fairly be entitled to maintain. We are now 2½ million. We had 2¾ million 20 years ago. Three million is a fair target; I think the figure should be higher. If we budget for a larger population we must also budget for a larger production of the goods which flow through the channels of trade. We can pay our way as we go, and let Britain as a whole buy her proportion of the commodities we cannot get at home.
Wales must be an exporting country. We are not now able to export coal in as large a quantity as I should like to see exported. I say in the presence of my coalmining colleagues that in Wales we should aim at an annual production of not less than 30 million tons a year. I should put the steel production figure for Wales at about four million tons, which is substantially above our present level. For tinplate and strip tinplate I would put a target production figure of two million tons. Production only needs to be brought up to that level in those three main elements, and Wales becomes at once the most prosperous country in Europe.
There is nothing too ambitious about those figures. There is nothing we cannot do. In agriculture Wales has its disadvantages, because the average level of Wales physically is hundreds of feet higher than the average level of England. Excuse the conceit, but in my opinion the average level of Wales intellectually is substantially higher. When considering the problems of transport and movement, it must be remembered that we cannot have the railways anywhere except in the valleys, and it will be difficult to construct main roads needed especially to deal with modern traffic, except along the main valleys, with suitable inter-valley communications to link up.
I am glad that the House has approached this problem with far more
254
judgment and far more appositeness than it has done on previous occasions. There is to be another debate, when larger considerations will be before us. I have been many years in this House and am a great admirer of this institution. I know of no better Parliamentary House in the world. I do not think there is a more universally representative planning authority than this House. I hope that we shall come back with a plan for Wales for early consideration, first for the material problem involved, secondly in the commercial field in world association, and thirdly, that we shall come here without prejudice in considering how to heal the decayed portions of a small nation which deserves well of Britain.
6.8 p.m.
Mr. Llewellyn: I should like, first of all, to say how very proud I am to have the honour of following the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell): This is the first time I have spoken in this House in a Welsh debate, and I know that hon. Members opposite will not take it amiss if I say that I would rather follow the hon. Member for Gower than anyone else, because he is held in such high esteem in all parts of the House. I hope he will forgive me if today I start by saying something with which I started a speech in Swansea not long ago, when I told the story of a small boy in Cardiff, of whom we often speak, who ended his prayers by saying, "Goodbye God. Tomorrow I am going to Swansea." I feel rather like that myself in coming here for my first Welsh day, as the only Tory on the Taff south of Flint and west of Monmouth.
Welsh Day, like Christmas Day, comes but once a year, although I believe that is to be remedied in future. As far as we can, I believe that we shall try to persuade the Government to grant our demands. Ogden Nash, the American poet, said:
"Things are always what they seem,
And this is wisdom's crown.
Only the game fish swims upstream
The sensible fish swims down."
Nevertheless, things are not always what they seem. I have listened with interest to the Secretary for Overseas Trade in his admirable stocktaking, and I think he should be congratulated on resisting the temptation to spoil the stocktaking by striking out on both sides of the

255
counter. But I cannot help wondering why he chose 1932 as the particular year, in the midst of "Tory misrule," for quoting unemployment figures. I can only imagine that it was because that year was the first anniversary of the then Labour Party out of office, and they were very thankful to be out.
There is a second point on which things are not what they seem. To judge from the White Paper or the Blue Book concerning the state of the South Wales ports neither the paragraphs on it nor Table 8 give a clear picture of Cardiff docks. I hope that in future years we shall have a review in the Blue Book showing the number of ships entering the ports, the number of men on the dock register of each, the average number of unemployed per day and the export and import figures of main commodities for each port. The Blue Book conceals the true and tragic situation of Cardiff docks today. If we compare the figures for 8th October this year with those of last year we find the following decrease. Cardiff, down 51,000 odd tons; Penarth, down 38,000 tons; Barry, down 64,000 tons, making a total of 154,000 tons. On an estimate, on the basis of those figures, this year will be a worse year than last.
Or again, in terms of shipping—281 fewer ships have entered this year than last. If we compare the estimate for this year with 1938, of the total trade—and 1938 was itself not a very good year—we see that the trade of Cardiff is down by 3,300,000 tons.
Mr. G. Thomas: Is it the hon. Gentleman's case that there should be direction of shipping into the quiet ports?
Mr. Llewellyn: I will give the hon. Member the answer in my own way. Barry is shown by 3,178,000 tons and against this downward trend of six and a half million tons, Penarth shows a rise of 20,000 tons. The hon. Member asked whether I advocated the direction of shipping. The answer to that is "No," nor, I believe, do Gentlemen opposite, certainly not the Front Bench. Perhaps if I am wrong on that point I shall be corrected later.
Looking at the problem in terms of the state of the national dock labour register for the month ended 11th February, 1950—and this is Cardiff dock workers only—
256
the total number of men on the dock register was 1,056 and the average number per day unemployed during this particular period was 215. We get a downward trend every month from February to October of the total number on the dock register. The fall is from 1,056 to 1,020, and no replacements. If we look at the month of September, which was the worst, we find that one-third of the total men on the dock register were unemployed every day. These figures are calculated on the exclusion of men transferred to other ports.
As the hon. Member for Barry (Mrs. Rees) knows, similar conditions prevail there. I do not have to stress to the House what the effect of this slump is on the ancilliary trades and services in the ports. Taking into account the factors I have given I am sure that the House will appreciate that the Prime Minister's reply to a Question which I put to him on 26th October, 1950, caused great concern, to put it mildly. I asked the Prime Minister whether he was aware of the lack of trade at the Cardiff ports. I will not weary the House with the whole of the Question and the Prime Minister's answer, except to quote the first sentence of his reply:
"I am not aware of any substantial falling off in the trade of the port of Cardiff in the last two or three years but there has been a loss of tonnage on export coal as compared with pre-war years."
I do not wish to appear ungrateful for the fruits of Government action. It was a good thing when, in 1947, the Minister of Food made arrangements for the importation of 7 per cent. of the nonperishable foodstuffs to come to the South Wales ports. It was a good thing for them that he made arrangements for their cold storage to receive 3½ thousand tons of meat and dairy produce every six weeks. Neither do I quarrel with the Prime Minister's dictum about private enterprise. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by saying:
"… to obtain an increased share of trade for a particular port, much depends on the initiative of the local trading and shipping interests."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th October, 1950; Vol. 478, c 403.]
Of course, private enterprise could be more enterprising, and it would be, in my view, if there were greater incentives for industry to take risks, and if there were better opportunities for new entries into trade and industry. I think that the

257
figures I shall quote show that the results of private traders efforts compare favourably with those subject to State control. If we compare the figures for 13th November, 1938, with those for the almost comparable period of 5th November, 1949, we see that the imports of grain and flour are down. On the other hand, iron ore is up, and oil and spirit is up. Mining timber is down, and general and other cargoes are slightly up. The State controls, to a large extent, imports of grain and timber and much food that comes into our docks. It cannot, therefore, shed the load of responsibility to private enterprise for the state of Cardiff Docks. Moreover, let it now be remembered that in times of war South Wales ports are necessary for the survival of the whole nation.
It is impossible to divorce the prosperity of the Cardiff Docks from that of the coal fields. I am afraid that is a platitude. As the House well know, my family has not been unacquainted with the coal fields. I was a little surprised when the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. D. Williams) said that in 1938 our mines were the most technically backward in Europe. I only present these figures to him because they reveal the gravity of the problem.
In 1938, if we exclude opencast coal, the coal output was 35,292,800 tons and in 1949 just under 23 million tons. I do not want to press the point too far. There are strong differences which divide us upon it. I want, however, to say one thing: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) is not here. I am sorry to have to quarrel with my own side when I have so much to quarrel over with the opposite side, but I do not think that it helps to go about saying that the miners are suffering from a sense of self-pity. That may or may not be true; but I think that if it were true, it is all the more damaging to say so. I want to say, also, that I do not think that it is altogether fair to blame the Government for the exodus of people from the mines. They have greater choice of employment. It is a dangerous, difficult and unattractive calling.
I deny the right of anyone in times of peace to benefit from coal production which has been mined at the expense of other men's liberty. The first memories I have of my father was of him coming
258
home straight from work at the pit with coal dust still on him and taking a look at his children before cleaning himself. That is a memory which may be shared by other hon. Members opposite. I agree with the spirit of the letter, written by "Ex-Miner," that appeared in the "Observer" on Sunday. He states:
"There is a need of a new social climate in the mining industry."
I agree, but I know that that climate is conditioned as much as anything else by politicians. To play up the grievances of the past or of the present, and both are real, involves the risk of swamping a sense of service with an overwhelming and blinding sense of grievance. The finest news that could reach Cardiff Docks would be the success of nationalisation expressed in terms of trucks and coal. I hope, too, that the National Coal Board are bearing Cardiff in mind in selecting ports for the imports of coal from America and elsewhere.
I ask the Government, although I know that it is partly in vain, to do four things for the Cardiff Docks. I ask them to increase the imports into our docks of State-controlled commodities, to improve communications with the Midlands as a matter of urgent priority, to frame their financial policy so as to encourage risk-taking by old firms and new, and to remove the threat of nationalisation from the steel industry. So much for the calm and sad and often empty waters of Cardiff Docks.
I regret having to turn now to a matter on which I have been asking the Postmaster-General Questions. It is a matter in which I have a remote interest, and that is the question of television in Wales. The reason why I have a slight or perhaps strong personal interest in this is because I believe that at one time the home in which I was brought up, but in which I have no financial interest at stake, was considered as a possible studio and television station site. I am not absolutely certain about this, but I want to raise the question of the television station site. It is strange, in view of the fact that on 25th May the Postmaster-General's approval was sought for the site and was granted on 26th June, that there is no mention of it in the Report, which takes us up to 30th June.
As the House knows, Cardiff Rural District Council, in co-operation with the

259
Glamorgan County Council, objected to the selected site and suggested St. Lythan's Downs. Since then, five months have elapsed. I hope that the Postmaster-General will be able to tell us that the site has been acquired, or that the negotiations are now far advanced. Who is to blame for this? If someone is to blame, the House and the country should be told. The Postmaster-General, not unnaturally, says that he is not to blame. He suggests that the Cardiff Rural District Council is to blame. In passing, I apologise to the hon. Member for Barry for raising a matter which concerns her constituency, although I am doing so by agreement and it is a matter that concerns us all.
Whoever is to blame, it is not the Cardiff Rural District Council. That is confirmed by the Minister of Town and Country Planning who, in reply to a Question I put to him, said that there had been no unnecessary delay. I now come to the Air Ministry. The Secretary of State for Air has admitted a delay of six weeks arising out of a rather extraordinary misunderstanding with the Glamorgan County Council, which is equally concerned; but not with the Cardiff Rural District Council. He stated that he regretted there was a delay in his Department, which was owing to the failure to indicate that the application for the siting of a television mast at St. Lythan's was related to the siting of a television mast at St. Nicholas. When a Minister expresses regret, it would be ungenerous to pursue the matter any further. Therefore, there is no need to say anything more about the delay of six weeks.
I now come to the Postmaster-General and the charges he made against the Cardiff Rural District Council on 15th November, 1950. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. D. Thomas) asked him
"what progress has been made by the British Broadcasting Corporation in its negotiations for a new site for the Cardiff television station and what is the location of the new site."
He replied:
"The B.B.C. is awaiting the agreement of the local authority before completing negotiations for the acquisition of the new site, which is on St. Lythan's Downs, near Wenvoe."
It seems rather odd that they should have to wait for that, in view of the fact that it was the Cardiff Rural District Council that
260
originally suggested the change. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), whose attention I am always delighted to have, then asked:
"May I ask the Postmaster-General whether it is likely that the rural district council will hold up this development much longer?"
It is clear that he was under the impression that they were to blame. The right hon. Gentleman replied:
"I am hoping to get their co-operation in this matter, because we have wasted three months on this."
That suggests a lack of co-operation, if it suggests nothing else. I further asked:
"Is it not a fact that the rural district council are not holding this up, but that the Air Ministry caused a very long delay, and that they—not the rural district council—are responsible for holding it up?"
The right hon. Gentleman's reply was "No, Sir." It subsequently transpired—I do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman knew it at the time—that the Air Ministry admitted a delay of six weeks. He went on to say:
"The St. Nicholas site was cleared with the Air Ministry very quickly. It was the rural district council which stopped it there."
The evasion or misunderstanding is very evident from that reply. It did not escape the attention of the House, because my question obviously related to St. Lythan's, as did the original Question. Later, following a Question in regard to a television station for the North of Scotland, I asked the right hon. Gentleman, in a supplementary question, whether:
"some small rural district council is holding up this development?"
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
"No. In Scotland they seem to have more sense."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1950; Vol. 480, c. 1706–7.]
The right hon. Gentleman may laugh, but there are three charges that are made: that the rural district council held up development; that there was a lack of co-operation on its part and a shared responsibility for wasting three months, if not the entire blame for wasting three months; third, that the rural district council had shown a lack of sense. The right hon. Gentleman laughed. I did not hear his laugh re-echo through the House, but it seems to me that if that were a joke it was a poor one and made at the expense of the Cardiff Rural District Council and, indeed, of Welsh rural district councils as a whole. It is more like a joke that

261
we would expect from someone who was trying to be a poor imitation of Caradoc Evans and not from a Welsh Postmaster-General. It is an ill bird which fouls its own nest.
I invite the Postmaster-General to prove that there was any unreasonable delay on the part of the rural district council, and he will then have to disprove the Minister of Town and Country Planning, or lack of co-operation, or lack of sense in the planning objection to the original site which the rural district made.
Mr. G. Thomas: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us if he is speaking for the Cardiff Rural District Council in this matter?
Mr. Llewellyn: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to me he would have heard me acknowledge that I was speaking about something which was in part of the division of the hon. Member for Barry. I am not speaking for the Cardiff Rural District Council any more than I am speaking for the Glamorgan County Council, because their reputation as the planning authority is at stake, too. I have no claim to speak for either of these bodies, but as a Member of this House, who has seen an injustice done to a small rural district, I want to see it removed. I hope that we shall not be told that this was merely another of the right hon. Gentleman's hypothetical flights of fancy. The Cardiff Rural District Council is only a small rural district council in a small land, but it is as much entitled to have its reputation and good name preserved as any large council or Government anywhere. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to remove the smear which he has put upon this body, whether he intended it or not.
6.33 p.m.
Mrs. Rees: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Llewellyn), in his pursuit of the question of the delay in regard to the site for the new television station in Wales. I was rather surprised to hear him refer to the Cardiff Rural District Council as a small council. It is one of the most important rural district councils in Wales.
Mr. Llewellyn: What the hon. Lady says is perfectly true, but I am sure she will agree that when compared with the Glamorgan County Council, on which she
262
also serves, she will see that the rural district council is comparatively small.
Mrs. Rees: Yes, the rural district council is comparatively small compared with the Glamorgan County Council, but it is one of the wealthiest if not the wealthiest, rural district councils in Wales, and it could hardly be described as typically rural. It is not my purpose to defend either the county council or the rural district council. I shall leave the Postmaster-General to deal with that point at the end of the debate if he so desires.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North, made reference in some detail to the trade at Cardiff Docks. The question of the volume of trade at the South Wales docks is not a new one, and particularly is that so in Barry. Before the war it was a burning problem. I was a member of the Barry Council, as it was at that time, and we were continually concerned through the years with the depression at the docks. Ship repairing in those days went to the Continent, and Barry suffered as a result.
I can claim to know something about the docks problem because I am a docker's daughter. I have lived among the dock workers all my life, and I still live in close proximity to Barry Docks. Therefore I can claim to speak with some experience of the position in South Wales in general and in Barry in particular. There is no need for complacency at the present time in the matter of trade in the South Wales ports. The dock workers are concerned about their future and have expressed great fear about their future employment.
Of course, the prosperity of the South Wales ports is linked closely with the prosperity of the mining valleys. Barry docks were built for the export of coal, and the present insecurity is due to the decline in the coal shipments. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, North, stated, the Government Report is not up-to-date on the present situation at the ports. As far as it goes, it is accurate, but there have been further developments since it was published. In 1949, 2,658,094 tons of coal were dealt with at Barry. In 1948 and 1947 the total was less, but in the first half of 1950 1,343,038 tons were dealt with, giving reason to think that the position was improving. However, since the end of June and the publication of the Report, there has been a steady de-

263
cline with a much greater fall in recent weeks. Indeed, it is estimated that by the end of this year there will be a decline of 300,000 tons on the 1949 figures from Barry.
The difficulties of the mining industry are appreciated, but the dock workers with the present sense of insecurity, are concerned for their future. They fear that the coal trade will not return. Certainly, as has been stated by the Member for Cardiff, North, there is an urgent need to develop more general trade in the ports that have been dependent upon the export of coal. It is evident that efforts have been made in the ports in South Wales by the Government Departments including the Ministry of Food, and by the nationalised industries to ensure shipments of goods from the South Wales ports. I would express the hope that that policy will be maintained, and, indeed, that renewed efforts will be made to generalise the trade of these ports.
Recently in Barry three vessels were loaded with Government stores for the Far East. We welcomed the loading of those ships in Barry, but greater shipments were made of Government stores from Liverpool and London, where there is less fluctuation in the general trade. The dockers read the shipping journals, as do most people in seaport towns. They follow their friends and relatives from port to port. They read other items too, of how ships are held up waiting for berths at certain British ports. They feel that some of that shipping could be diverted to the South Wales ports and they ask for a fair share of the nation's overseas trade.
I received a letter recently, as I gather the hon. Member for Cardiff, North, did too, from the Cardiff Chamber of Commerce. The hon. Member quoted from the letter, so I know that he received it. The letter dealt with the general question of the decline of trade in recent weeks in Cardiff, Penarth and Barry Docks. I was grateful for that information, although the letter contained bad and not good news. I imagine that the Cardiff Chamber of Commerce would not have written to me had trade at the port been improving. The purpose of the letter was to draw the attention of the Government to the situation and to air the problem in this House. That has been done.
264
I think I am now entitled to express the hope that a similar letter was sent to the national body, the Federation of Ship-owners, or whatever may be its proper designation—I understand it is the Shipping Federation—because that body could do more to send ships to South Wales ports than anyone else. For my part, I regret that the Government relinquished their wartime power for the direction of shipping; it would certainly have helped with the difficulties in South Wales at the present time if it had been retained.
There is a reference in the Blue Book, on page 14, to the Government's action and encouragement for the improvement of facilities and equipment at various ports in South Wales, and for the modernisation of those ports. I should add that since the publication of that Report the commercial dry dock at Barry, owned by the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive and now under lease to Messrs. Graham Bailey, Ltd., is being widened to 75 ft. by the lessees. It will be ready in 1951 to take the largest types of cargo vessels afloat. I would recall what I said at the beginning of my speech, that in pre-war years much of the ship-repairing which should have been done in South Wales was done on the Continent of Europe. Ship-repairing is dependent on some extent of general trade at the ports.
Naturally, being on this side of the House, I must pay tribute to the Government for their policy of encouraging the establishment of factories in the development areas. The ports of South Wales have benefited from that policy. Factories have been opened up in Barry since the war, and new industrial buildings constructed, employing some 1,500 men and 700 to 800 women. The last factory to be completed was for a subsidiary of Distillers, Ltd., British Resin, Ltd., and it is now employing something like 1,200 men.
This diversification of employment, which takes up the leeway and balance of unemployed men and women, and particularly of men, at the ports, is greatly appreciated. Our largest industry in the seaport towns is the docks. Our largest industry in Barry is the dock, which now employs directly something like 3,000 men, which is approximately one-third of the male working population of the town of some 40,000 inhabitants. Another

265
1,000 men are indirectly employed in ancillary industries connected with the ports. Those industries would not be there but for the fact that Barry is a seaport town. I would join with those who have already spoken on this subject in an appeal that something should be done to retain this national asset.
At this stage I would pay tribute to Mr. Hugh Edwards, the Chairman of the Council for Wales, for his prompt response when this problem was brought to his attention and for saying that his Council would immediately investigate the problem. Already I gather that he has asked—according to information which I have at home—for a statement to be made by each of the interested parties in this industry so that his Council may sit down and consider the problem and make recommendations at an early date. I hope that there will be no delay about their report and that when the report comes, those who should make their contribution to preserving this industry will do so, whether they be on the Government benches or in the industry itself.
I understood that this debate was to be narrowed down to questions of employment and industry in Wales. I would have preferred a wider debate, because I should like to speak about education in Wales. I pay tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education in regard to his guidance as chairman of the working party on educational administration in Wales and the setting up of the Welsh Joint Education Committee. This committee has recently made its first report. The activities of the committee show that it has made a worthy start and I welcome the work that it has done. The Government's Report refers to education and to the Welsh Joint Education Committee.
On page 45, reference is made to technical education in Wales, and I am glad to see that a good deal of progress has been made recently both through the activities of the Joint Education Committee and by the local education authorities in Wales to improve the facilities for technical education, particularly in industrial areas. The report of the National Youth Employment Council, just published, on the work of the youth employment services, draws attention to the shortage of accommodation for technical education in many areas in Wales which has—this point is important—
266
"militated against the development of plans for progressive training of young workers."
I want to stress the need for further expansion in this sphere in Wales. I know that the Welsh Joint Education Committee has considered technical education in rural Wales. Perhaps that is not necessarily a problem peculiar to Wales. It must be difficult to establish facilities for technical education in any area which is sparsely inhabited, but it certainly is a problem in rural Wales. It is also a problem in those areas where new factories have been established and where new skills are required of the people. I mention this in the hope that there will be further developments in technical and further education in Wales.
Another aspect of education in Wales is the problem of the handicapped child. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), has on more than one occasion in the House mentioned the paralysed, spastic children and has deplored the lack of facilities for their education. The hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) has made reference to the delights which we in Wales have in educational matters and the faith that we place in education for our people. The head of the Welsh Department of Education is reported in one of the daily papers as saying:
"We may compare favourably as far as passing people into universities goes but in the preparation of these poor children"—
He was referring to handicapped children—
"we are far behind England. Wales is already aware of the needs of the blind and the deaf"—
The Welsh Joint Education Committee last year dealt with the problem of the deaf child most effectively and had the co-operation of all the education authorities of Wales in establishing, with the help of the Ministry of Education, a school for the deaf at Llandrindod Wells—
"and schools have been provided for them, but there are categories, such as weak and difficult children and epileptics, for whom no provision is made. We must admit that the picture is an unsatisfactory one reflecting unfavourably on the educational set-up in Wales."
The figures which I have are not up-to-date and are not completely reliable. They will become more reliable as

267
ascertainment of these cases through the education authorities improves. The 1949 Report estimates that Wales has 1,636 delicate children of whom only 244 are being educated; 1,145 physically handicapped children of whom 111 are being educated, and 94 epileptic children of whom only 23 are being educated. There are also figures for mentally defective children and the maladjusted. I believe that "educationally subnormal" is the correct description now. I should not like the Government's Report on Welsh activities to go by, without stressing the paragraph dealing with handicapped children and the lack of facilities available for their education. We have referred in the debate to the disabled men. These are disabled children. It is no use talking about training centres and so on for older people if we do not provide a basic education, a foundation for the physically handicapped and delicate children.
As a new Member of this House I should like to say how much I appreciate the co-operation of the heads of Government Departments in Wales. They are most helpful. I think this is the moment to express one's thanks to them for their co-operation and assistance. There may be room for criticism of the Blue Book, but it is a most useful document. The annual reports which the Government have inaugurated are worth having. Government action has helped Wales and her seaport towns. We are not complacent and we do not think that all the problems of Wales have been solved, but we feel that something has been done to meet her problems, and I am glad that we shall have another opportunity to discuss the excellent Report produced by the Council for Wales.
6.58 p.m.
Mr. Goronwy Roberts: We have all been impressed by the sincerity of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mrs. Rees). I wish I could follow her in her treatment of some of the educational problems of the Principality. I shall not do so because I have come to the debate on the assumption, suggested in the Lord President's statement last week, that today would be devoted more or less to the question of industry and employment in Wales.
268
I welcome this arrangement whereby we concentrate on a specific aspect of the Welsh scene. Past debates on Welsh affairs have appeared to me to be in danger of becoming diffuse and inconclusive because they have ranged over too wide a field. I thought we were in danger of having that happen earlier today when we began to half-handle the constitutional issue. We cannot treat the constitutional question in a series of asides. Later in this Session we must have extra time prescriptively to consider the Report of the Council for Wales and the constitutional issues thrown up by it. Consequently, this afternoon I shall confine myself deliberately to the question of industry and employment.
Actually, this subject is not so narrow as some might think, because it is of fundamental importance to Wales, not only economically but socially and culturally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. D. Williams) so ably put it. The chief threat to modern Wales and to our survival as a nation has always been economic insecurity. The story of the inter-war years is well known, when mass unemployment became a chronic feature of the Welsh social structure, when we lost half a million of our youngest and best, and when, even after this massive exodus, we still had an average of 167,000 unemployed in the Principality.
The result of this was obviously not only a declining and ageing population; it meant, also, the attrition of the very fabric of our social structure. As the pits closed so did the churches, and as the farm houses were deserted, so were the village Eisteddfodau. Language and livelihood, culture and industry in Wales, more than anywhere, have been linked to-together in adversity and prosperity. Today, the position is vastly different, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mrs. Rees) rightly pointed out, and a great deal of praise is due to the present Government for what it has achieved in the field of industry and employment in Wales. Having given that due credit, it is right for us to point out a number of disquieting factors, and that I now propose to do briefly, offering certain constructive suggestions.
First, it is true that the unemployment figure for Wales today is about 33,000, which contrasts most agreeably with the pre-war figure and which is a marked

269
advance on the post-war peak of 70,000 in March, 1946. But what is equally true is that while throughout the United Kingdom some 15 out of every 1,000 of the insured population are unemployed, in Wales the figure is 35, more than double. Now we have our fair share of Income Tax, of military service and of everything else, and it is time we had our fair share of the remunerative work of this country.
A second disquieting fact emerges when we analyse the content of the Welsh figure. It is a chilling fact that a very high percentage of our unemployed is partially disabled, about 10,500 or, roughly, one-third of the whole. We know why this is so. Until recently Wales was almost exclusively a land of heavy industry, of dangerous industry. But as the diversification of industry proceeds and the opportunity of lighter occupation increases, we shall more and more reduce the load of industrial casualties. In the meantime we have this hard core of partially disabled unemployed, both in the south and north.
In the coalmining areas in the south there are the Grenfell factories which propose to give employment to disabled miners. In the slate quarrying areas of the north factories are projected under the Development Commission. Here may I say to the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) that if he is having difficulty about getting the factory built in Ffestiniog I think we might be able to help him in Caernarvon, because the Nantgawr one is actually going up and the cases are fairly analogous.
Mr. Emrys Roberts: Yes, but the agitation for the factory at Nantlle started five or six years ago, and that factory is still not completed.
Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I think that the cases are fairly analogous. They are new factories, designed to take up the slack of unavoidable unemployment in a slate quarrying area, where the traditional industry is no longer able to give full employment.
But building new factories is not enough. I think there is a case for the Government paying special attention to their tenancies in areas like this and of assisting them financially so that they may find their feet. After all, their purpose is humanitarian as much as economic They are designed to provide
270
work for men who produced, in the days of their strength and health, enough wealth, and more, to justify a subsidisation of the lighter work provided for them when they are older and disabled. I make a special plea for the tuberculosis disabled, of whom we have far too many in the rural areas of Wales. Can we be a little less punctilious about forcing certain factories, designed to give work to T.B. subjects, to conform exactly with a mass of regulations before they can qualify for financial assistance?
Let me give one small example from Caernarvon, a town which I have the honour to represent. As a result of an upsurge of public spirit and voluntary contribution we have there a bright little factory designed to provide work for tuberculosis disabled slate quarrymen, who can do what work they can when they feel like it. Yet we are having the utmost difficulty in qualifying for the grants which we know are available. This is the kind of case where the Departments concerned should slash through the red tape.
The third fact which emerges from an analysis of the Welsh figure is that the decrease of 3,000 in the number of our unemployed between 1949 and 1950 is a net decrease, there having been a welcome drop of 4,100 in the development areas, but an actual increase outside them, that is, in rural Wales. All the reasons for that increase are not bad. For instance, a glance at page 18 of the Blue Book will show that mechanisation of Welsh agriculture is now proceeding rapidly, and this is bound for some time to come to cause a certain displacement of workers.
There is another reason, quite unconnected with agriculture, for this small but serious rise in rural unemployment. It is a reason to which I draw the attention not only of the President of the Board of Trade but also of the Minister of Supply. During and since the war a great many small engineering concerns have been established in North and West Wales, giving employment to a largely rural population. Unfortunately, some of these concerns are now finding it difficult to obtain orders and are laying off men. At the same time, there are manpower crises in many of the older established engineering undertakings in the tradi-

271
tionally industrialised areas—Birmingham, I heard today, has vacancies for some 40,000 new workers.
In Caernarvon a small engineering firm has just closed, and has dismissed some hundreds of highly skilled workers, while, at the same time, near Chester, a large firm is crying out for men. There are two ways in which that kind of paradox can be solved. We can depend upon the effect of protracted unemployment to drive men away from home to where the work exists, or we can take measures to direct overworked firms to sub-contract some of their work to under-employed firms.
I come now to a general point. I hope that because our factories in Wales are so new and our workers so adaptable, there will not be a wholesale switchover to rearmament work during the next few months. We have a right to this assurance and to know that, whatever the course of rearmament, a permanent peace-time structure of employment will be maintained in Wales equally with other parts of the country.
We assumed at the start of this debate that we would concentrate on industry and employment and would not touch too much upon agriculture. I do not want to do so unduly, but I must mention one aspect of the agricultural industry in Wales which today is probably reducing the number of people who want to enter that industry and, indeed, of those who want to stay in it. I refer to the inordinate and persistent demands for good farming land by Government Departments, particularly the Forestry Commission and the War Department.
There is considerable unrest and misgiving in the countryside of Wales about this matter. It is having its effect upon recruitment to agriculture, and is tending to drive people out of Welsh agriculture. The Welsh farmer needs security as much as he needs subsidy. He is exhorted to look up to the Minister of Agriculture, and when he looks down again the Forestry Commission have taken away his farm. We cannot conduct a secure, healthy, effective agriculture on the basis of mistrust, anxiety and uncertainty of that sort.
Yet, in spite of all these difficulties and dangers, the general picture from the
272
viewpoint of industry and employment in the Principality is encouraging. I am glad to be able to pay a heartfelt tribute to the work of Members of the Government and the Government as a whole for what they have done in this fundamentally important field of providing an adequate livelihood for the Welsh nation. They have made a magnificent start, although a good deal remains to be done. I believe that the Welsh people agree with me in giving thanks to the Government for what they have done in this field. Certain hon. Members might dissent from that remark, but I believe that the vast majority of our compatriots agree with what I am saying. I end by saying that Abertillery, at least, is practically unanimous about it.
7.15 p.m.
Mr. Garner-Evans: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) should have finished on that note, for I was waiting to hear the Hallelujah Chorus once again. The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. D. Williams) began the debate in a mood of optimism and thanksgiving, and I rather hoped that all the other hon. Members who followed would maintain that note. We all welcome the tremendous transformation in the life of the Welsh nation since those dark years before the war, and I believe that everybody would give praise where praise is due in this respect.
I was rather sorry, in some ways, that the hon. Member for Caernarvon dealt with the Blue Book. It is an extraordinary document, one of the most scrappy documents I have ever known. I believe it was the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) who described it as "a hotch potch." I would call it "lobscouse," made up of scrag ends, and it will be noticed that the price even of those scrag ends has gone up from 1s. 3d. to 1s. 9d., although the content is very much the same as in previous years.
I am sorry that the scope of the debate is rather limited. Those of us who represent industrious but non-industrial constituencies find ourselves rather at a loss about which subjects we should take up. I very much hope that what the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) said is true, and that we shall

273
have yet another debate at the beginning of next year on the much better report produced by the Council for Wales.
Mrs. White: May I correct the hon. Member? It was, in fact, I who made that suggestion.
Mr. Garner-Evans: I beg the hon. Lady's pardon. I thought that there was a little hurried consultation between the two Members. Although the voice is the voice of Flint, the message really came from further south.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to a small village in my constituency and to its plight. I do so with great modesty after listening to the plight of the constituents of the hon. Member for Caernarvon and the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts), both of whom, I know, have much greater problems in Nantlle and Ffestiniog. Most hon. Members will have heard of the village of Glyn-Ceiriog—it is only a very small village. It added to its fame by lending its name to one of our best lyric poets. This tiny village, although only five miles from the English Border, has maintained an extremely lively Welsh culture. It depends entirely for its livelihood on the quarrying of slate and granite.
In September of this year the last quarry in that village was closed, and 70 men were thrown out of work. There is no other industry of any sort in that valley apart, of course, from agriculture. It has become a miniature distressed area, and I plead with the Government to extend the Wrexham development area at least as far as Chirk, so that these men can still live in their Welsh surroundings, enjoying their Welsh culture, and yet earn an honourable livelihood.
There is a very tragic point to which I would like to call attention about the Ceiriog Valley. About 25 years ago there was a project for building a reservoir in the Valley. The Warrington Corporation wanted water; they planned a great reservoir there. Had that scheme gone through there would have been enough employment in the Glyn-Ceiriog to have kept the people employed for all time. But what happened? Prejudice, masquerading as Welsh nationalism, was stirred on this subject. The building of that reservoir would have involved the flooding of a considerable area of the upper reaches of the valley. Certain
274
homesteads would have been flooded and, worst of all, a cemetery would have been flooded. A terrible howl went up all over North Wales and vast petitions were signed. People said, "You must not do this." I remember the slogans of the time:
"Boddi Cymru er Mwyn torri syched Sais"—
"Drowning Wales to slake the thirst of Englishmen."
That prejudice and playing on the emotions were sufficient at that time to bring about a suspension of the scheme and the misery of Glyn-Ceiriog today is to a large extent due to the stupid narrow-mindedness of some of our fellow countrymen, 25 years ago. There are other vast schemes for Wales which might be prejudiced quite as much today, and I beg of fellow Welsh Members, whenever they touch on any development schemes for Wales, to rid themselves, as far as they can, of some of this nationalistic nonsense which might result in the impoverishment of our fellow men.
I am going to "stick out my neck" when I mention hydro-electric schemes. There are vast schemes for hydro-electric development in Wales at present. We must have electricity, apart from the human drudgery which lack of electricity entails. I am appalled to read in the Report that in the constituency of the noble Lady the hon. Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) more than 60 per cent. of workers' and farm houses have no electrical supply. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor the situation is even worse and more than 80 per cent. have not these facilities. It is not only the economic side of our life which suffers through lack of electricity, but I believe that our cultural future is jeopardised by that lack. One cannot run a television set on a battery. There will come a time, I hope before long, when we shall have our own broadcasting corporation in Wales, putting across Welsh television programmes. There will be great competition among the Nonconformist ministers as to who is to be the "Charlie Chaplin of the cyfundeb" on television.
I believe we can maintain a strong cultural life in rural areas if we can bring to the countryside the amenities of the town in the way of television and broadcasting. There is also the employment side. A lot has been said so far about

275
the lack of co-ordination between our educational system and our industrial system. I can envisage a time when thousands of young Welshmen will be kept fruitfully employed in their own country generating electricity, even if that electricity is exported over the English border. But already a tremendous howl is going up about these hydro-electric schemes.
All sorts of prejudices have been raised. I should be the last ever to suggest that any unnecessary damage or desecration should be caused in Snowdonia. I should fight it tooth and nail, but already these prejudices are being worked up. The noble Lady—
Lady Megan Lloyd George: Do I take it from what the hon. Member says that he is in favour of the hydroelectric scheme as far as Snowdonia itself is concerned?
Mr. Garner-Evans: As far as hydroelectric schemes for Snowdonia are concerned, I am 100 per cent. in favour of them.
Mr. Watkins Mr. Watkins (Brecon and Radnor) rose—
Mr. Garner-Evans: May I qualify that? I said I was 100 per cent. in favour of them but I did not say I was in favour of 100 per cent. of the schemes, too. That is a different thing. I believe there are certain parts of that scheme which would be unpleasant.
Lady Megan Lloyd George: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but will he be more specific, because I think it is vague generalisations of this kind that prejudice the whole case? He says that he does not wish to have electrification at the expense of desecration of Snowdon. Could he explain to which particular parts of the scheme he takes exception?
Mr. Garner-Evans: I am sorry I have not the scheme in front of me at the moment, but I hope I shall be able to particularise later on. The point I am making is that hon. Members should be very careful before they raise these old prejudices. The noble Lady did a Moses in reverse. She saw the golden calf, then went up the mountain with the Tablets and then broke the Tablets. She turned up there and made a most brilliant speech.
276
Snowdon, we were told, is the temple of our independence and we must keep the money changers out. That is the sort of thing which has kept back development in Wales over a long period. I do hope that as the new Moses the noble Lady will not lead her people back into an alien captivity, be it that of England or of the Socialist Party.
Mr. Watkins: What about Colwyn Bay and the tourists?
Mr. Garner-Evans: Again, we have this prejudice cropping up on the subject of forestry. I read this Report with great enthusiasm. I find, according to the Report, that there is a possibility that some 800,000 acres of Welsh land will be planted by the Forestry Commission, giving employment to 25,000 men. It is a tremendous possibility. I agree with every word that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) said about the need for a plan. Of course, we ought to have a better picture of what parts can be spared for forestry. But I do beg hon. Members not to begin with a prejudice against forestry. There is an odd feeling which many people share that every new invention is the invention of the devil. That kind of attitude is taken up by far too many people and organisations in Wales.
Turning to the subject of education in industry, we find that although we have a forestry school at Capel Curig, on an average only six Welshmen attend that school. The number increased this year to 17, but I repeat that on an average only six young Welshmen are taking advantage of that training scheme. I beg that when we consider forestry development in Wales—we should do so with an open mind, and should also think about the tremendous potential which it has in store for the happiness and future of our nation. Let us eliminate this old prejudice. One can already hear the kind of new phrase which will be coined—"Welsh people are to be just lumberjacks in the lumber room of England." That is the sort of phrase that will be coined to defeat any of these schemes.
I wish to refer to the tremendous possibilities for the development of the tourist industry in Wales. I should like to pay my tribute to the splendid work which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), has done in

277
that connection. I beg the Minister of Works to be a little more imaginative in the way he treats applications for licences for the improvement of hotel accommodation in North Wales. Most hon. Members will have seen how these applications are treated, and I need not go into that aspect of the matter. In passing, I should like to draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, once again, to the facilities and amenities which exist on the North Wales coast for the housing of civil servants.
I believe that the whole tourist industry will to a very large extend depend on the extension and the encouragement of festivals and of the arts generally in Wales. I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) refer to that point. We need more encouragement for the arts in Wales. Rightly or wrongly we have the feeling that we are not getting a fair share of the financial assistance which is being given in that direction. It has already been mentioned that out of the Festival of Britain expenditure of next year only 0.5 per cent. will be spent in Wales; that is, out of an expenditure of about £10 million about £60,000 will be spent directly by the Festival Committee or its agencies in the Principality.
The Arts Council of Great Britain has done splendid work in encouraging the arts in Wales, but we are very doubtful if we are getting, even from the Arts Council, anything like a fair share. The budget of the Arts Council for the next year is about £900,000. The expenditure of the Arts Council in Wales will be about £30,000. I beg all those in authority to press the Arts Council—possibly issue a directive—to reconsider the claims of the arts in Wales.
I said at the outset that I was in a very optimistic mood. I share the hope and belief that the hon. Member for Neath expressed in his statement that the golden age for Wales has still to come. May it come soon.
7.37 p.m.
Mr. William Elwyn Jones: I do not intend to pursue the topic which the hon. Member for Denbigh (Mr. Garner-Evans) has pursued and to dilate
278
upon the prejudices of my fellow countrymen. I should prefer to reserve those observations for my native land. We have had some interesting speeches in this debate, and one of the most interesting was that of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas). It is always interesting to hear how Wales appears to one of her prodigal sons across the frontier.
I do not wish to follow the course which has been followed by quite a number of hon. Members in this debate, mainly to make a kind of grand tour of Wales and a general survey of her problems. Rather, I intend to direct my attention to one problem and to one special industry in which I am particularly interested. I refer to the slate industry in North Wales. The hon. Member for Hereford referred to that industry in his speech. I wish to address myself to a special problem which arises in that industry.
Slate quarrying has for many decades been regarded as a peculiarly Welsh industry. It has in its day made a marked contribution to the prosperity of the counties of Caernarvon and Merioneth. The slate quarrymen have traditionally been regarded as one of the most cultured bodies of men in the Principality. They have been patrons of the arts and of the literature of our country. It was, indeed, largely through their initiative and enterprise in seeking for advanced education in Wales that our present educational system was developed to the extent to which it has been developed. It was due to their financial sacrifices that the University College for North Wales was established at Bangor 70 years ago. Accordingly, the welfare and future development of the slate industry intimately concerned the economic prosperity of the two counties of Caernarvon and Merioneth. Its prosperity also has profound significance for the cultural life of Wales as a whole.
It is unfortunate that in recent years there has been an appreciable decline in the number of those engaged in the industry. In 1939, about 4,500 men were employed in slate quarries, but today the number has declined to approximately 3,000. That is an appreciable decline in a small industry. It is causing grave anxiety to those concerned with the future welfare of the people of the two counties which I have mentioned.

279
I also searched to see what reference there was in the White Paper to the slate industry, and I shared the astonishment of the hon. Member for Hereford. I found that there were in this long Report only four cryptic lines which deal with the industry. I am surprised that those who compiled the document did not devote greater attention to this basic industry. As the White Paper states, there is a demand for the product of the industry. There is no doubt that as roofing material slate is far superior to any other product. It is superior to the tile in durability. During the 20's and 30's there was a marked decline in the demand for slate, but today builders and architects recognise the superiority of slate as a roofing material.
I want to draw the attention of the Minister concerned to one of the causes of the decline in the number of men employed in this vital industry. It is the dread fear of that terrible scourge of both coalmining and slate quarrying—the disease of silicosis or pneumoconiosis as it is now called. I wish to emphasise the imperative need of doing everything possible to reduce the incidence of this disease among slate quarrymen. I am sure that my sentiments are shared by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts), because I know that there is a similar problem in his constituency. The burden of my contribution to this debate is to impress upon the appropriate Minister the necessity to put into operation the scheme for the reduction of the incidence of silicosis in the slate industry, as this is one of the main causes which has retarded recruiting into the industry during recent years.
For about 15 years now, experiments have been carried out at the quarries at Penrhyn, Dinorwic and Llechwedd to discover the best method of extracting slate dust from underground workings and the sheds in which the men work. I pay tribute to the initiative and enterprise shown by the owners of those quarries in carrying out these experiments. I am glad to say that by now a most effective method of dust extraction has been discovered. Machinery for this purpose has already been installed in many quarries, and the need now is to extend facilities for dust extraction to all the quarries in North Wales.
280
The old method of dust extraction was somewhat primitive and quite inadequate. It consisted of the application of water to damp down dust which lay on the floors, on the machinery and on the slate. This method was ineffective because it did not deal with the dust suspended in the air. The machinery recently devised will extract the dust in suspension and at the source. According to tests in the sheds and in the underground workings, the experiment is highly successful. I ask the Minister of Fuel and Power, who has already approved the system, to pursue the matter with the greatest energy. I am certain that he will obtain every help from the representatives of the men engaged in the industry who are organised in the Quarrymen's Union.
Although the quarry regulations have for many years placed upon the owners of quarries the statutory duty of suppressing dust, I regret to say that the appropriate Government Departments have not shown that activity in pressing this matter which one would have expected. At present one of the main difficulties in the installation of dust extract machinery is that of securing adequate supplies of steel to enable manufacturers to make the plant. I urge the Minister of Fuel and Power to exercise his influence to secure a fair allocation of steel to manufacturers to enable them to make the necessary equipment. The industry should receive the support of every Government Department, because it plays a vital part in the life of Wales as a whole.
I wish to draw attention to one other aspect, and that is the medical treatment of those suffering from silicosis. Silicosis frequently occurs with tuberculosis. There are long waiting lists for admission to sanatoria. I am aware of the difficulties of manning the hospitals, but I urge the Minister of Health to hasten the admission of sufferers from these diseases to sanatoria as quickly as possible. It should be our prime purpose to reduce the waiting list to a minimum.
7.47 p.m.
Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: Tonight we are discussing Welsh economy and I, at least, will attempt to give effect to that by economising as much as I can in the use of words and pinpointing the problem which, in my opinion, is the outstanding one confronting Welsh economy.

281
The greatest factor at the foundation of our economy as a nation is the prosperity of the coalmining industry, and that prosperity and its future development depend upon the possibility of recruiting additional labour to the mines. The Ministers concerned make the necessary appeals, in the first place to the miners to put their backs into their job, and secondly, to the country as a whole to recruit manpower from outside the mining communities. There is upon the shoulders of the Ministers themselves, and the Government collectively, the responsibility of ensuring that a fruitful contribution is made.
I have heard hon. Members expressing their concern about the desecration of Snowdonia. I want to call attention to something which, for many years, has brought about the desecration of human life in the mining valleys. To me, the greatest problem which the Government have to face—and, up to now, it has not been possible to find a solution to it—is that of finding employment for disabled miners, particularly those miners who have been disabled as the result of silicosis and pneumoconiosis. It may be suggested, but it cannot he argued, that this is not a peculiarly Welsh problem. An examination of statistics would reveal that this problem of the disabled miner concerns the South Wales coalfield more than any other coalfield in this country, because the latest figures I have, show that, from 5th July, 1948, to 24th September, 1949, of the total of 5,421 certificates that miners were suffering from silicosis and pneumoconiosis issued in that period of 15 months, 4,302 were in the South Wales coalfields.
Everybody has adopted a most sympathetic attitude towards this social problem, but I am of the opinion that if it is to be effectively dealt with, it must not be treated as a normal unemployment problem. Out of a total number of 9,250 persons on the disablement register at present, 3,712 are certified as suffering from pneumoconiosis. This is the important point to which I wish to call the attention of the House. One-third of all the persons who are certified as being disabled from pneumoconiosis are over 40 years of age and have been idle for more than 12 months.
Let me give a picture to sharpen the vision and pin-point it into the constituency which I represent—the Rhondda.
282
The total number of persons employed in the Rhondda Valley is 3,096; the total number of males is 2,293, and there are 1,257 on the disablement register. That is equivalent to saying that 54 per cent. of all the males employed in the Rhondda Valley are on the disablement register; 80 per cent. of these persons are over 41 years of age, and 64 per cent. have been employed for periods between 12 months and two years. Therefore, it is impracticable and well-nigh impossible for men suffering from these diseases, apart from the fact that they are now in the autumn of their lives, to compete in the open market for the normal types of occupation that are in circulation.
Many years ago, in an effort to solve this problem of providing work for disabled persons, the Government set up a committee known as the Grenfell Committee, named after my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell). That Committee was set up mainly to deal with this growing problem of disablement in the South Wales mining valleys, and the recommendation of the Committee to establish the Grenfell factories at that period was the basis of the strong hope and belief in a bright prospect, not only of the Committee that made the recommendation, but of this House, which accepted it and legislated upon it.
What is the position up to date? In view of the fact that we have had these Grenfell factories operating for many years, what inroad have they made towards the solution of the problem of the disabled person suffering from pneumoconiosis? These factories are employing only 288 disabled persons, and they are employing only 109 persons suffering from pneumoconiosis. If, in addition to the Grenfell factories, we take the four other factories which have been leased on Grenfell terms to other firms, we find they employ 137 persons suffering from pneumoconiosis. So the total inroad made into this exceptional and extraordinary problem of disabled persons suffering from pneumoconiosis is the vast total of 246.
It may be argued that, in these circumstances, we should apply the principle of trial and error. I believe that there has been a very fair trial. The time factor up to the present has revealed that the hopes and expectations of this House, when it accepted the

283
Grenfell scheme, have evidently not been realised.
Let me further pin-point this question of the pace of development of the Grenfell factories in the Rhondda Valley. I will not mention the names of the factories, because mention of their names might prejudice them and people may be inclined to fix responsibility on those men who are doing such excellent pioneering work in the mining valleys. This factory, which I will call No. 1, was occupied in 1947, and the target figure of employment when it was leased was 175. After three years of occupation, this factory employs a total of 18, but—and this is the remarkable fact—only 27 persons suffering from pneumoconiosis have been employed in that Grenfell factory in the Rhondda for three years. The average rate of employment of persons suffering from pnuemoconiosis in this factory has been nine per year.
Let us take factory No. 2. This factory was occupied in January of this year, with an employment target of 110 persons. The present number of persons employed is 69, but only 18 persons suffering from pneumoconiosis have been employed in this factory since last January. The most extreme case is factory No. 3. This factory has been in occupation since 1948 with a target of 100 persons to be employed, but up to the present it is employing only 21, and of that number only eight are suffering from pneumoconiosis. One could repeat instances of this complete failure.
The people of Wales recognise the achievements that are being accomplished by this Government as a result of their planning of the economy of Wales. We are all proud of the successes, but do not let our successes and the brilliance of our achievements blind us to the facts—the ugly facts—that lie beneath, or blind us to our failures. They are not conscious failures, but failures, after all the available avenues have been exhausted, to solve this problem. With all the inducements, all the persuasion and all the very hard and difficult work of the Board of Trade representatives for Wales in steering industrialists towards these factories, the result in November, 1950, is a complete failure of the scheme. Striking a personal note, I am very sorry that this should be a barren memorial
284
to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) who has been responsible for pioneering this work.
Mr. Grenfell: I do not regard these factories as barren memorials of my report. I am proud that we have the new factories, and I am hoping to see them fully employed soon.
Mr. Thomas: There are powerful organisations such as the National Union of Mineworkers who are concerned at this very moment in meeting the Minister of Fuel and Power and in persuading the men in the mining industry voluntarily to work two extra shifts a month in order to get the necessary coal on which to found our national economy and our additional war economy. Here is an opportunity for the Government to assist the National Union of Mineworkers in their attempt to do what everybody expects them to do, to put their back into the job and to keep the men in the mines and to get additional men into the mines. The greatest contribution that the Government can make towards the assistance that the Minister of Fuel and Power requires, is to guarantee to those new recruits into the mining industry that if at some time or other they become affected by this dreadful disease, they shall have security and employment in the autumn of their lives.
I wish to call the attention of the Government to the recommendation of their own child—the Council for Wales. This Council has probed into the matter, and it is convinced that certain proposals and responsibilities must be accepted by the Government. I ask the Government to consider this matter and to admit that the Grenfell scheme will not solve the problem. But I anticipate that the reply will be, as has been repeated oft-times in this House in the course of the past six months, that the Government are depending in the main on the absorption of these disabled men into the factories as a result of the normal development of industry.
I have no faith in that prospect being realised because it is not fair even to the pioneering, well-intentioned industrialist who comes into the development area and has to conduct his business on commercial lines, to expect him to solve what is, after all, a social problem. Therefore, I ask the Government to think again, and by any positive action that they can take administratively, to do something in these

285
valleys that will give security to those men who have given their lives at the coal face in order to found our peace economy and who are expected in the next three years to risk the infections of the mines in order to found a war economy.
I anticipate that the reply of the Government will be that the prospect of the impact of rearmament on the development areas, is bound to bring some benefit in its train. I hope that the present war economy is not the alibi which the Government are putting forward for their own shortcomings in this matter. We do not want the disabled men in the South Wales coalfields to rely upon the few crumbs that will fall from the rearmament and defence table; we want the Government to consider more positive, far-reaching and lasting proposals that will give these men a place in our peace economy.
8.8 p.m.
Mr. Finch: I am glad to have the opportunity of taking part with my Welsh colleagues in this debate. I think it was in 1944 that a day was originally set aside for the discussion of Welsh affairs, and according to the report in HANSARD quite a number of hon. Members at that time expressed their anxiety about the future position in Wales when hostilities came to an end. We now know that as far as the unemployment problem is concerned, it has been reduced to the figure of 32,000, whereas in the inter-war years it stood at between 150,000 and 244,000. Anyone travelling through the areas of South Wales will now be impressed by the large number of factories that have been established and the thousands of men and women who have been absorbed by them.
The question now arises whether we are sufficiently fortified against future vicissitudes of trade. Have we a reasonable chance in South Wales of facing competition in trade and industry in the future? It is in this respect that I am somewhat apprehensive. In the first place, it has to be recognised that road transport costs are high and are bound to be reflected in the prices of goods for export and home consumption. Long distances have to be travelled to convey goods to and from the Midlands to South Wales. I agree with the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) that transport is a very important factor in the economic life of the country. These
286
long distances from Cardiff round Gloucester into the Midlands are very costly to the industrialists, and the time has come—indeed, I think this has become an economic necessity—for the Severn bridge to be constructed. Without that, we shall be handicapped in South Wales from every point of view.
A similar position of difficulty exists on the roads of South Wales. They are some of the worst in the country. From Cardiff to Merthyr there are bottlenecks and narrow carriageways which give rise to serious impediment of traffic. A similar difficulty exists on the road from Newport to Tredegar, and the level crossing at Pontllanfraith is dangerous. Apart from that, we have to bear in mind that a larger number of men and, indeed, women are travelling to and from work on roads utterly inadequate.
If we are to give the South Wales industrialists and the people in South Wales a fair chance to compete in trade and industry, the first and the most important thing to do is to reduce transport costs, which can be brought about only by improvement in the roadway system and the construction of the Severn bridge. I know that in 1946 there was a policy for the construction of the Severn bridge and the improvement of certain roadways, but, so far as I know, we have heard nothing further about that since. I hope that whoever is to reply to the debate on behalf of the Government will give us some assurance that some policy will be adopted to improve the roadway system and the transport system generally in South Wales.
In the second place, we have to bear in mind that we have for years depended largely upon coal and steel. During and since the war a large number of factories have been established in the South Wales industrial area. However, the majority of these factories are in what may be termed the light industry category—furniture, radio, electric goods of one kind or another. Works have sprung up in South Wales which to a large extent are branches of undertakings that have their head works and offices in the Midlands. In any time of trade depression the industrialists will probably be more inclined to close down their works in South Wales, which are branch undertakings, rather than their

287
works in the Midlands, where the possibilities of development are larger.
The question arises whether it is possible for light engineering industries to be brought to South Wales. The Coal Board has put forward its plan. We now know exactly what collieries in the near future are likely to be closed, those that will remain in production, and those where new sinkings are to take place. I want to submit that here is a guaranteed market for colliery machinery; here is a guaranteed market for pneumatic drills, pneumatic picks, machine belting of many kinds, that can keep quite a few factories in South Wales in production, adjacent to the collieries themselves. Therefore, I submit that the second suggestion to help trade in South Wales is the establishment of light engineering works in the Principality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas), has already referred to the efforts now being made to deal with the problem of pneumoconiosis. We know of many problems affecting the mining industry in South Wales which are not peculiar to the industry in South Wales; but when we come to this problem of pneumoconiosis we can say it is peculiar to South Wales. Seventy-eight per cent. of those certified in the mining industry are from South Wales, and for years now this in itself has given rise to the serious unemployment problem with which we are confronted. It is not, however, only a question of unemployment. In these days, when so much is said about loss of manpower from the mining industry, it is important to remember that for the 10 years prior to the coming into operation of the Industrial Injuries Act, 15,000 men went out of the mining industry of South Wales suffering from pneumoconiosis—sufficient men to man seven fair-sized collieries. They were prohibited from continuing to work in any occupation involving the handling of minerals.
However, the Industrial Injuries Act, which came into operation in July, 1948, allowed men to continue to work in the industry provided they came up for periodical examination. The Workmen's Compensation Act provided that a man suffering from pneumoconiosis had to leave the industry unless he could obtain a situation which did not involve his hand-
288
ling minerals. Under the Industrial Injuries Act men can continue to work in the industry, under approved conditions, with the result that since that Act came into operation, from the 5th July, 1948, to the 25th March of this year, 4,615 men declared to be suffering from pneumoconiosis were recommended for work at the colliery.
I do not want for a moment to give any encouragement to absenteeism. Far be it from me to do that, but I would remind the House that in the mining industry there are 4,615 men suffering from pneumoconiosis who are working underground in South Wales today. Since 25th March of this year a further 1,400 men have been certified to be suffering from pneumoconiosis, and are continuing to work underground. So that, by the end of this year there will be over 6,000 men suffering from pneumoconiosis employed underground in the mining industry. It must be appreciated that those men will not be able to continue daily at their occupation. In winter time and in severe frost it is impossible for them to continue at their employment, so that when considering absenteeism in the South Wales coalfield, I ask the House to bear in mind that 6,000 men suffering from this disease are working underground.
There are two other points that I should like to make in connection with the problem of pneumoconiosis. I have already pointed out that under the Industrial Injuries Act a proportion of the men certified as suffering from this disease are able to continue working in the industry. The men so certified come up for re-assessment. Approximately 6,000 men will come up for re-assessment this year, and there will be another 7,000 to be initially examined next year, with the result that the medical board will have to cope with examining between 13,000 and 14,000 men in 1951. In South Wales there is a medical panel of seven doctors, one working part-time, and in the Swansea district there are four specialists, making 11 specialists in all to cope with the examination of between 13,000 and 14,000 men in 1951.
I submit that number of specialists is quite inadequate; that this medical panel will not be able to cope adequately, and that delays are bound to arise. Even now between 900 and 1,000 men are waiting examination by the medical board. I know that the Ministry of National Insur-

289
ance are doing their utmost to increase the personnel of these panels, but one of the difficulties is that the specialists employed for pneumoconiosis by the Ministry under the Industrial Injuries Act are paid on a Civil Service basis, and their status is lower than that of those employed by the hospital board. Indeed, from the information that I can obtain, it seems that specialists in lung diseases, such as tuberculosis, who are employed by the hospital boards get twice the salary of those employed under the Ministry of National Insurance for treating pneumoconiosis. Miners should have the best possible medical attention, and if we are to increase the personnel of these panels, measures should be taken by the Ministry to improve the status of the medical men who are employed by the medical boards.
There is one other point in connection with these men who have been certified under the Workmen's Compensation Acts to be suffering from pneumoconiosis. I have already indicated that they are prohibited from returning to work in the industry. Now that those under the Industrial Injuries Act can return to work in the industry, there is a growing concern among many men certified under the Workmen's Compensation Act who desire to return to work.
I know in my own constituency men who would be prepared to return to work underground if their compensation rights could be safeguarded, although they are suffering from this disease in its early stages. I know that negotiations have been proceeding between the Ministry and the National Union of Mine Workers on this matter for some time, but that the time has now arrived, especially when we are short of manpower, when we should have some statement from the Government as to whether there is any likelihood of these men being allowed to return to work, with their compensation rights safeguarded.
I have mentioned several problems in South Wales which are so much the concern of most of us on these benches. If we are to retain men in this industry, we must make the villages, towns and valleys a lot better than they are. I look with great satisfaction on the development which has taken place at Cwmbran; but has not the time arrived, even from a long-term planning point of view, for villages on a similar basis to be established throughout the coalfields of South
290
Wales in order to bring more happiness and contentment to the people of South Wales? The grim surroundings are not attractive to young men; they prefer to get away from them. They prefer to go to Cardiff and Newport or somewhere else and take up a position outside the mining districts.
I hope that we may obtain an assurance from the Minister that in their future plans the Ministry will at least put forward proposals for meeting the local authorities in South Wales in setting up cultural centres in the mining valleys, providing better towns and better transport and lighting. I believe that some of the matters to which I have referred can be dealt with in a sympathetic way by the Government, as I am sure they will be. I do not for a moment want hon. Members to imagine that we are not getting prompt attention either from the Ministry of National Insurance or from the Welsh Coal Board. To my knowledge, we are getting the most prompt attention, but these are matters of high national policy. I think that if some of the proposals which I mentioned can be put into operation, they will bring more contentment and happiness to the people of the South Wales coalfields.
8.24 p.m.
Mr. Padley: In two respects I feel somewhat in the position of a maiden speaker today, because, first, this is my maiden contribution to a debate on a Welsh day, and, second, I am an Englishman who has the honour to represent a distinctively Welsh constituency. Any trepidation that I may have in addressing the House is lessened by the fact that I know that Wales is the most Socialist country in the world. And I speak as a Socialist. It may be that the modesty of my hon. Friends leads to this fact being under-estimated. It is true that nowhere in the world is there a nation with such a preponderance of Socialist opinion. Nowhere is there a people which has stood by the Socialist faith in good days and bad, with the tenacity of the Welsh people. It is, therefore, fitting that Wales today is being rebuilt by a Socialist Government.
In this debate the parties opposite have not opposed fundamental Socialist policies. Indeed, at times they have endorsed them. We have not heard the cry of "set the people free," nor have we

291
heard a demand to rid Britain and Wales of "irksome controls." The demand of the Tory Party Conference to abolish building licences has not been echoed in the speeches of Members opposite. Why is this? It is because it is self-evident to anyone who has studied recent events in Wales that only the instruments of economic planning—control over the location of industries, the licensing of building and the allocation of materials—could have secured the remarkable developments which have wrought the great transformation from depression to prosperity and from despair to hope.
The Welsh economy is founded on two great basic industries. Under Socialist direction, since 1945, they have experienced a rejuvenation, and under public ownership the men and women of Wales know that their future is secure. Side by side with that rejuvenation of the old basic industries, new industries have been growing up, giving more balance to the industrial structure and providing employment for the people. It is sometimes said that this new structure is artificial. It is inevitable, of course, that there should be some artificiality in the present structure. In the modern world, attempts to develop infant industries in other parts of the world have always been accompanied by high tariff walls.
It is not surprising that it has required, and will require in the future, deliberate stimulus and encouragement by Governmental policies if these new industries are to take root, and if they are to be built to withstand any competitive winds that blow. It is not surprising, because industrial Wales, in general, lacks the tradition for that kind of industry. It leads to the problem of importing key workers, with the adjacent problem of providing houses for them.
I should like to underline the appeal which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) for the recognition by the Government of the need for drastic improvement of communications to and from Wales, which is vital if the new structure of light industries is to establish itself on a secure foundation. While I am on this point I would like to make a passing reference to the comparison made by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) between some Southern coun-
292
ties of England and Wales in regard to houses. The hon. Gentleman did not give the comparable figures of new factories built. It is because of years of neglect by Tory Governments that the building resources of Wales have been stretched to the uttermost to provide not only homes for the people but factories to provide jobs for the people.
Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I gave the acreage of new factories, too.
Mr. Padley: I will check that up in HANSARD tomorrow, because what I was going to ask the hon. Gentleman was: Would he stop the building of new factories or introduce direction of building labour from parts of England into Wales? The building industry of Wales is working at full stretch, and in the district that I know best there are very great claims to three things—housing, factories and essential structures like power houses to provide the energy required by the new light industries.
I come to my final point. Inevitably, the final point of any hon. Member who represents a Welsh mining constituency concerns the problem of tackling the hard core of unemployment amongst miners suffering from pneumoconiosis. In recent times Britain was shocked by two great coal mining disasters. The loss of life was such that our hearts went out to the communities affected, but the ravages of pneumoconiosis in death and suffering, though less dramatic than the grim casualties of a major disaster which attracts public attention, are, nevertheless, greater.
The public conscience of Britain would respond to bold Government initiative which started specially-designed public enterprise in the Welsh mining valleys, particularly in the narrow valleys where factory siting is difficult and where there is a special problem which cannot be treated on economic grounds alone. It is a social problem, a human problem and a moral problem. I plead for the men of my own three valleys and the rest of the South Wales district for specially designed public enterprises to bring work and hope to that hard core of young men, who have given their lives in the industrial activities of the nation in both war and peace.
8.35 p.m.
Mr. Percy Morris: One of the advantages in being called upon to speak toward the end of a debate is that

293
one can see the principal outlines that have emerged from the contributions made by hon. Members in all parts of the House. The problem of Wales was referred to in a very interesting article by Sir Frederick Rees, a former principal of Cardiff University and a great public servant. It was written for "The Nineteenth Century and After," and appeared in April, 1949, It was reprinted in February of this year, following the General Election. In the introduction, Sir Frederick said:
"Until there is a considerable degree of unanimity in Wales and a resolve to place whatever plan is generally approved in the forefront of political agitation, little can be achieved."
I immediately examined the question of the measure of political unanimity which has been reached in Wales. I find that in this House there are 27 Labour Members, five Liberals and three Conservative Members, and one Conservative National Liberal, whatever that may be. It is perfectly obvious that the Labour Party in the House has every right to claim that it is the voice of Wales. Hon. Members may prefer to apply the test according to the number of votes cast for the political parties who contested the election. No fewer than 11 parties were represented in the contests that took place in Wales. The Labour Party polled 887,647 votes while the other 10 parties' aggregate votes amounted to 640,580, giving the Labour Party a majority of nearly 250,000. When I heard the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), this afternoon I thought how unreal was the Conservative position about the situation in Wales, as expressed by hon. Members like the one to whom I have referred.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. D. Williams) initiated this debate he made it clear, and other hon. Members have reinforced it, that much has been done and that much remains to be done. If we are to succeed in our fight it must be done according to plan. There are very encouraging features, and we should give the present Government credit for them. If I may say so, without being thought presumptuous, we are obliged to the Secretary for Overseas Trade for the very helpful, informative and sympathetic statement that he made. He revealed at once an understanding of the problems of Wales and a capacity to deal with them. We are looking for-
294
ward to having more to do with him in the years that are to come.
Among these features is the spending of £50 million at Margam Abbey steel works. The same amount is being spent upon the generation and distribution of electricity. A sum of £10 million has already been spent on the re-equipment of coalmines, and a further £10 million is going to the development of petroleum refining. Altogether there is a capital investment programme for Wales amounting to no less than £220 million. That excludes orders that may come in in connection with the defence programme. It is essential that we should derive the maximum benefit from the expenditure of such a vast sum of money.
That brings me to one of our major problems. That problem was referred to by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch). If we are to implement this industrial programme for Wales to its full capacity and derive the maximum benefit, we must have transport. We need transport to convey coal to the ports and we must have transport from South Wales to Birmingham and the West Midlands. The 10-year plan of the Ministry of Transport, adopted in 1946, must be applied in Wales for national highway development. Approximately £35 million should be spent in improving road communications to North Wales. That would be wise, because the Government would get a good return. There is nothing more helpful to trade than the maximum mobility of traffic to and from the ports. It is not a one-way traffic. It comes from Birmingham and the Midlands to South Wales.
South Wales offers Birmingham and the West Midlands two great assets, a nearby outlet for all their productivity and also opportunities for delightful health-giving holidays amid scenery of great beauty. If these two areas can be wedded both industrially and also from the point of view of holiday resorts, it will be to their mutual advantage and to the advantage of our trade. I acknowledge what the Government have done and I urge them to do more. I have never joined in cheap criticism of the civil servants who help us so much, and for this comprehensive and informative Report I give them our thanks. I hope that in 12 months' time we shall again be discussing Government action and that we shall have an equally

295
helpful Report and an even better prospect for the future.
8.41 p.m.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I offer no more apology for intervening in this debate than has already been offered by other representatives of English constituencies who have spoken; and I do so for both personal and general reasons. I represent a Black Country constituency and I am a Black Country man. But, like very many Black Country people, I come of Welsh stock on both sides and I have since my earliest years, been connected with the Principality by ties of both study and affection.
But there are more general reasons why it seems to me that these debates should not be restricted exclusively to representatives of Welsh constituencies. We too readily think of Wales as a country bounded by the frontier of the Principality; but Wales is wherever there are Welshmen and wherever the influence of Wales extends, and I am not sure that Wales is not doing a greater work outside the Principality even than inside it. Finally, as long as this is a United Kingdom and this is a United Kingdom Parliament, we ought all to take responsibility and feel responsible for the welfare of all parts of the United Kingdom. We should not allow this House to break up into, as it were, a number of "Grand Committees" according to the part of the Realm which we happen to be discussing.
We have an advantage this year in the Welsh debate which we have not had previously, because we now have not only the official Report of Government action, but also an unofficial viewpoint on Wales from the Council for Wales. The memorandum is a very useful corrective, if one may so put it, to the rather bureaucratic optimism of the Report—I do not say that in any very critical spirit—and nowhere is this corrective more valuable than in regard to unemployment, which has been the main subject of the debate. The words in the memorandum have several times been referred to, but are so impressive that they are worth mentioning again.The memorandum says:
"There must be a much greater degree of mobility of labour if full employment is to be realised throughout Wales. …"
296
Then it says:
"Looking further ahead, and upon a wider field, the Panel feel some anxiety about the future of the new industrial economy of Wales."
Those are measured and grave sentences, and I believe they are justified. I cannot share the view of the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. D. Williams) that there is throughout industrial Wales a sense of security. It is true that there is a sense of well-being and a sense of gratitude for the change in the economic climate from 10 to 15 years ago, but I challenge anyone who really knows the feeling in the South Wales industrial towns to say that there is a feeling of security.
Mr. Cove: There is none in the world.
Mr. Powell: But not only for that reason. There is still a strong feeling of apprehension, which is not merely a reflex from the experience of the past but is based upon sound considerations which we ought to have in mind. The inhabitants of industrial Wales know that the governmental apparatus and the conditions which at present are ensuring near-full employment in the Principality are not of a nature to last for ever. They know that under present conditions the pressure which can be exerted upon firms to open factories in South Wales, and to maintain them there, is of a quite exceptional and temporary character. The whole force of the machinery of licensing and planning is being used for that purpose. They know that the Ministry of Food, and other Ministries, have at their disposal the direction of cargoes to Welsh ports. They know that we are living in a period of demand for labour, of demand for consumption goods, which is, in its present intensity, exceptional.
Therefore, people in industrial Wales are seriously asking themselves whether their present near-full employment is as firmly based as it should be. There I agree entirely with the point of view of the hon. Member for Bedwellty who, if he will forgive my saying so, seemed to me to make one of the most constructive speeches in this debate.
The section of the Government Report which deals with employment, and also the point of view inherent in the speech

297
of the Secretary for Overseas Trade, set the sights rather low and looked too much at the immediate future. In thinking of employment this year and next year, important though it is, in thinking of our 11 million square feet of factory space which are planned and coming along, I think we are omitting the more important middle and farther distance. I believe that there can only be lasting full employment in Wales if Wales is able to compete on equal terms as an industrial location with any other part of the Kingdom. It is only if, when free from the temporary assistance which it has enjoyed since 1937, it can offer equal or superior advantages to industry that in the long run we shall be able to maintain full or near-full employment in industrial Wales.
For that competitive capability two difficulties have to be overcome. As I see it, there are two main reasons why, at present, South Wales is at a disadvantage in competing for industry with other industrial areas in the Kingdom. The first is the pattern of population in industrial South Wales: the distribution of the population, conditioned, as it is, by the location of housing, conditioned as that, in turn, is by a pattern of economy which is already obsolescent or obsolete. The other obstacle, which has been more often referred to in this debate, is the remoteness of industrial Wales—not in distance but in comparative accessibility. I shall deal in a little more detail with those two points.
The relationship between housing, mobility of labour and employment has been succinctly put in a document with which hon. Members opposite will be familiar. "The Conservative Policy for Wales and Monmouthshire." in which it is said that
"though high output of houses at low cost is a social requirement not confined to South Wales, in South Wales it is also an indispensable requirement of industry. The concentration and modernisation of existing industries, and the promotion of fresh ones, will not happen unless new homes arise where they are wanted and when they are wanted."
Mr. Cove: That is a platitude.
Mr. Powell:
"The main effort of house building for some time to come must he concentrated upon creating or expanding the centres which command easy access to a growing range of alternative employments."
298
With that thought at the back of our minds, I find disappointing the account which is given in the Report of the progress both of new towns and of the extension of the existing towns in the coastal plain of South Wales, which is dealt with in paragraphs 190 and 191. The new town at Cwmbran has hardly got beyond the stage of the appointment of a corporation, and the other sites further west, from which much was hoped, have proved upon examination not to be suitable, so that—let us face it—practically no start has been made upon the re-arrangement of the pattern of homes in South Wales. So much for location.
Now, as to quantity. It is no use relocating houses unless they are being built at a sufficient rate. The Report discloses that in the year to which it refers the output of houses was nearly 25 per cent. lower than in the previous year. I hope that both these points in regard to housing will at any rate be taken account of by the right hon. Gentleman when he replies.
There are many reasons for this state of affairs, but I am sure that hon. Members will not have overlooked a very interesting—I do not know whether I should call it cynical or euphemistic—expression which is used in regard to house building by the Council for Wales. They say that:
" … the Ministry of Health … have endeavoured to push forward the provision of houses so far as is practicable. …"
and that they are satisfied—what are they satisfied about?—
"that on the whole as much progress has been made as can be expected under the existing arrangements."
That is very tactfully put, but it is not incumbent upon me to be quite so tactful as the Council of Wales felt was desirable. I was very young when I learnt a Welsh proverb, of which I am always reminded by the Minister of Health and his housing policy:
"Pan gyll y call, fe gyll ymhell."
which, for the benefit of any Sais or even Yscotyn who may have got in here by accident, means, "When a clever man goes astray, he goes far astray."
We see in South Wales the repercussion of the Socialist housing policy in a special form. We see its effect, not only upon output, but also upon location. If the main, or almost the exclusive, responsibility for housing is in the hands of local

299
authorities, then it follows that both the waiting lists and the production of houses will conform to the existing layout of the population.
The use of local authorities as the main housing providers tends to freeze the existing distribution of the population. Therefore, quite apart from the general national policy in housing, I ask the Ministry of Health to consider whether, in industrial South Wales, where private enterprise has a quite special interest and concern in housing, they will not give more attention to two other instruments of housing. With ordinary private enterprise we are familiar; the other, on which I want to place stress, is the use of housing associations, because I believe that in the development of the new housing centres which we want to see growing up in South Wales housing associations can play an important part.
I pass from housing to communications, on which I can be more brief, since more has been made of this point during the debate. In the passage where the Report refers to South Wales ports, already dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Llewellyn), a significant and rather alarming statement is tucked away. It deals with 1949 and the first half of 1950. In regard to 1949 it is said:
"Exports of other commodities,"
that is, apart from those which had increased
"particularly in the miscellaneous classes of manufactured goods handled as general cargo, were disappointing."
Then, in regard to the first part of 1950, it says:
"Exports … of general cargo decreased."
It is the general cargo passing through the South Wales ports which is one of the surest indices of the industrial stability of South Wales. Those cargoes from the South Wales ports are intimately connected with the communications between South Wales and the rest of the country because the whole process of knitting South Wales into the general industrial texture of the Kingdom as a whole is dependent on communications and, generally, road communications. If anyone with that in mind reads paragraphs 302 to 307 of the Report he will be deeply disappointed.
300
We all know of the difficulties and limitations on capital expenditure on roads; but this is a case for that much abused word and idea, "priority." We have to decide what really matters most for the lasting continuance of high employment in Wales. I submit that it is communications between South Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom, both across the Severn and to the Western and Eastern Midlands. If the Government agree, someone has to lay down what should come first. Here, as in so many ways, we miss what the Tory Party wants to see. We miss a single responsible member of the Government, who can say, "This is the policy, as far as Wales is concerned at any rate, which I have laid down for roads. I am here to defend it. I realise that there are other claims, but I believe this is right and will explain why."
It is that spirit, that co-ordinating, informing, vivifying spirit of one responsible person that we miss in this Report and we miss it because we have not a Minister for Wales. The temporary—I use the word "temporary" in no carping spirit—specially favourable economic climate for South Wales gives Government and people an opportunity which will not last for ever, an opportunity of taking what steps the Government can, to prepare the basis and background for a lastingly firm industrial structure.
I am sure that on grounds of pure economics there ought not to be so many people in Wales as there are. I am sure that on the same grounds we ought to forget the Welsh frontier and let the population move freely—and I am sure it would move out of Wales rather than into Wales. But we are not economic men and we do not want to be. The Welsh, in particular, do not want to be. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) described how, in the years between the two wars, unemployed miners remained for a generation in Wales, hoping against hope that there might be employment there, rather than leave Wales.
I am sure that the people of Wales are ready to make some purely economic sacrifice. The Government, on their part, ought to make some sacrifice, a definite move towards retaining in Wales more population than perhaps on a purely economic basis could find optimum

301
employment and productivity there, because it is, after all, the maintenance of a population in Wales not much less than the present size—to put it at its worst—on which the survival of the entire Welsh heritage depends. If that is to be, there must be a durable structure of full, or near-full, employment for industrial Wales.
To that end the Government must do their part. I have tried to describe some of the ways in which they can and should act; but the people have to do their part, too. If the Government have done their share, it is the responsibility of the Welsh people if they do not make industrial Wales able to compete for industries upon even terms with any other part of the Kingdom.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. George Thomas: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has spoken with a knowledge of Welsh customs and Welsh ways. He quoted a Welsh proverb to the effect that when a clever man goes astray he goes far astray. There are few men on the other side of the House who are more clever than the hon. Gentleman, but I suggest that in his remarks tonight, particularly towards the end of his speech, he himself went astray. He threw out some suggestion that the Welsh people must be prepared to sacrifice; those are his words. I understand he was speaking for his party. He did not say what further sacrifices the Tory Party yet expects of the Welsh people.
Mr. Powell: Might I make that term a little clearer? If it is true, in an economic sense, that a redistribution of population within the Kingdom as a whole, taking no account of national differences, would bring about an economic optimum, it is clear that if we maintain that national frontier, as I think to some extent we should, and as the Welsh people also think, we shall have to put up with a little lower return for labour than we could get under optimum conditions. That is all I said.
Mr. G. Thomas: Every Welshman in the House and certainly the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George), and my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), would welcome the opportunity to deal
302
with the hon. Gentleman. He has done his cause a great deal of harm.
Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Nonsense.
Mr. G. Thomas: The hon. Member for Hereford says "Nonsense," which reveals exactly how much he knows of the Welsh temperament. If there is one thing which a Welshman loves it is his home, and it was indeed the policy of the party opposite that drove half a million of the cream of Wales away to find employment elsewhere.
Mr. Llewellyn: Does the hon. Member include the period from 1929 to 1931 as being the responsibility of the Tory Party?
Mr. G. Thomas: If the hon. Member, who I believe was born in 1929 or thereabouts, believes that he can excuse the dreadful crimes committed against Wales by his party by referring to two years when there was a Labour Government which had not a majority in this House, then indeed his arguments are weak.
Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: And which doubled unemployment.
Mr. G. Thomas: I wish to turn to my own speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and I realise how relieved the Opposition are that I am leaving their black record in Wales. It was a miserable record, and the reason why there is so much emotion stirred up among Welshmen on a day like this is because Welsh people have long memories. We judge the experiences of today in the perspective of yesterday.
It is bearing in mind what other Welsh days have been that the Welsh Party—I trust I can speak for the Welsh Party in this matter—come to the House and say that we acknowledge that tremendous inroads have been made into the mistakes of yesterday. Great improvements have taken place, but while we accord appreciation we do not feel complacent towards the Government. We are not complacent when we express appreciation for the things that have been done.
This has been a bread and butter debate. We have not enjoyed ourselves, as we love to do, talking about Welsh culture, poetry and drama. We have left that in the firm assurance that there is to be another day when we might discuss constitutional questions affecting the Principality. My hon. Friend the Member

303
for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins), who is secretary of the Welsh Parliamentary Party, has been in consultation with the Government, and there are Welsh Members who have deliberately withheld today from this debate because they wish to take part in the debate on constitutional issues.
What are the bread and butter issues in Wales? In essence they are no different from those in England, Scotland or Ireland. The Welsh people are not isolationists. Above all, they are conscious of their ties with their fellows in the United Kingdom. We realise that our economic problems are commonly those which affect the other parts of the United Kingdom. But let us look at the basic industries of Wales. I was proud when I heard the Secretary for Overseas Trade give new hope to the mining industry by his promise of new mines to be opened. He will have a problem to find men to work in the mines. In the old days it was not a problem of how to get men for the mines; it was how to get a job for the men.
From the human point of view, we much prefer to have this problem in which we have to look everywhere for the men, rather than to have the problem of men looking everywhere for jobs. I rejoice that in Mardy in the Rhondda Valley the National Coal Board are investing £4,500,000 to re-open a colliery closed in the days of private enterprise and to give new life to the little mining community. It was my privilege to hear the hon. Member who represents me in this House, the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas), speak on this subject of new hope for our industrial areas.
Our approach to almost every problem is the human approach, and our main problem in Wales concerns that army of men who have been injured in the service of the community—those men whose lungs are turning to stone because they helped to provide the coal for the rest of the people who sometimes have the impertinence to talk about absenteeism among miners, but who take jolly good care not to let one of their boys go down the mine to produce the coal. These men have a special claim upon any Government, and they have a very special claim upon a Labour Government, for no part
304
of Britain has been more loyal to the Labour movement than the industrial area of South Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), who is loved and respected throughout the Principality by people of all parties, was honoured by the Government when he was made chairman of the committee to make recommendations about how to deal with the disabled. He produced a scheme. The Government now have every Grenfell factory in operation; but experience is proving that that is not enough. It is a wonderful scheme, but my hon. Friend would be the first to admit that it is not enough. There are still disabled persons who are rusting, and when any man is allowed to rust away in a community, it is a challenge to any decent Government or to any decent political party. I ask the Postmaster-General who, I believe, will reply to this debate, to tell us the state of the Remploy factories in South Wales.
What are the local authorities and the Government doing? Are they pulling their full weight to provide the orders for the Remploy factories? I understand that there is some difficulty in this regard, and, if there is, here at least is one way in which the Government could stir itself to tackle this problem of the disabled. It is little less than a miracle that since the war 60,000 disabled men and women in Wales have been found a job. The Welsh people are a proud people, but they are also a grateful people, and we thank God that the days when an able-bodied man could not get a job are gone, and that 60,000 of our compatriots who have been disabled have been found employment. But the Government must not feel that there is left a solid core of disabled with whom it is unable to deal.
I want now to refer to a question which several hon. Members have raised during the debate, and that is the question of the Welsh ports. We realise that, if it were not for so large an amount of traffic being directed and controlled by the Government, the position of the port of Cardiff, to which the hon. Gentleman opposite referred, would be far worse indeed than it is at present. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but the dockers would not agree with him.
Mr. Llewellyn: How does the hon. Gentleman explain that the comparable

305
figures for 1938 for this kind of commodity, without control, were better than they are today?
Mr. G. Thomas: Surely, the hon. Gentleman has some knowledge of the figures regarding coal, and knows the demands that the new industries on the home front are making? More coal is needed on the home front, and new factories in Wales are using coal. If we were to go without fires, if we were to close down our factories, we could export much more coal through Cardiff docks.
Mr. Llewellyn Mr. Llewellyn rose—
Mr. G. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman will have to excuse me, as I have not much more time.
May I give this illustration? My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty has been hailed in Cardiff by people of all political parties for his work on behalf of Cardiff Docks. The Parliamentary Secretary and I, with the present Minister of Pensions, went to a conference called by the Lord Mayor of our city to deal with the question of trade in the port of Cardiff, and what did we find? We found a shipowner complaining that not enough ships were coming to Cardiff, and my hon. Friend was able to pin-point one of the companies which had been complaining that the Government was not doing enough as a company which had, in fact, taken its ships away from Cardiff and sent them to another port because it paid them better to do so.
Apparently, the hon. Gentleman opposite has also forgotten the fact that, if the Ministry of Food direct more ships and cargoes to Cardiff, they will not be working on the ordinary commercial basis. May we have an assurance from the other side of the House that there will be no Questions about losses by the Ministry of Food because we are sending ships a longer way round to Cardiff? In connection with this problem, I desired to refer to the closing of the East Dock at Cardiff, about which I am very much concerned, but I may be accused of making a constituency speech and therefore shall not do so, although it was a point with which I wanted to deal.
There remains the question which almost every hon. Member who has spoken has raised. It is the question of transport in South Wales. It is a delightful run in
306
a car from Cardiff to the Midlands, but it is a long, winding road, and it takes a long time. The winding road from Chepstow, in particular, down to Newport is a handicap. If the town of Barry were linked with a great arterial road to the Midlands we could transform the position of trade. The imagination shown by the Ministry of Transport in the original scheme was hailed throughout the Principality. The Welsh party welcomed these proposals, but now the icy hand of the Treasury has come down upon us. We submit that it is not in the best interests of England or of Wales to delay getting on with this job.
With regard to the question of the Severn Bridge, about which an hon. Member wanted to speak if he caught your eye tonight, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, at least the foundations of that project could be laid. That would make no demand upon steel or upon the weapons that are necessary for the rearmament drive.
Mr. Marples: What about cement?
Mr. G. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has just come into the debate.
Mr. Marples: I was here at the beginning, too.
Mr. G. Thomas: I am very glad to see the hon. Gentleman.
I wish to refer to a question which my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. D. Williams) mentioned in his opening speech this afternoon. It is the linking of technical education with the needs of our economy of Wales. Five major projects have taken shape in Wales this year to provide further technical education. In all the bright history of the Welsh people there has never been a single year when five technical schools have been under construction before. Therefore, let us give credit where credit is due. Most of these schools seem to be going to the north, and I am very glad. Far be it from me to harm the unity that has prevailed throughout this debate today between the north and the south.
Reference has been made to the Arts Council and what is being done for the Principality. I am always reluctant to compare what is done for Wales with what is done for Scotland. I think that is the wrong angle from which to approach our Welsh problem.

307
However, I cannot but acknowledge that the Arts Council for Scotland has far more executive power, far more control over its finance, than the Arts Council for Wales. We have a couple of members in Cardiff who report to a handpicked committee of which the chairman is a civil servant. All due regard to him. But this handpicked committee spends but a fifth of the money that the Scots get, and I have yet to learn that the poetry and the literature of Wales, which is pouring out from our modern writers, is pouring out in Gaelic from Scotland. There is no one in this House who holds the Scots and Scotland in higher regard than I do, but I think it is unreal that the Arts Council should not be devoting more of its money and more of its ability to the Principality.
I want in conclusion to address this word to my right hon. Friend. The Welsh Members are not expecting him merely to speak with pride of the achievements of these last five years. He can leave that to the people at home. They will speak with pride. What we want from the Postmaster-General is to know, where do we go from here? What is he going to do now to help the disabled, and to make sure that the adaptability and the versatility and the skill of the Welsh workmen are used even when the talents they first enjoyed are reduced because of physical weakness? We of the Labour movement must keep faith, first of all, with those who have fallen by the wayside in service to our community.
9.22 p.m.
The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ness Edwards): This has been, I think, one of the best Welsh days we have had in the House. It is certainly the best day's debate on Welsh problems that I can remember. I thought that the debate was opened with an extremely sane and sensible speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. D. Williams). I am sure my hon. Friends will not mind my mentioning his very good contribution. He was followed by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas), who tried a little bit of political seduction on the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George), but completely without success.
Lady Megan Lloyd George: Hear, hear.
Mr. Ness Edwards: I am glad to have the noble Lady's concurrence.
Let me mention one or two speeches which I thought were excellent—in parts. Many of my hon. Friends on this side who were engaged in the mining industry will remember with a good deal of affection the father of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Llewellyn). He was one of the brighter men in the South Wales mining industry. I thought that the first part of the hon. Member's speech was so much like his father, but that the latter part was, unfortunately, so much like himself. I hope that with the passage of time as he grows older, he will copy his father; if he does, I am sure that the House will welcome his contributions.
I should like to clear out of the way a point about which the hon. Member was concerned. In so far as I was concerned, I thought it was put offensively. He was talking of the television site in Wales. I think he has got things mixed up. He mixed up the Air Ministry consent for the St. Lythan's Down site and the St. Nicholas site. It is true that with regard to the St. Lythan's Down site the Air Ministry was guilty of delay. It was the Cardiff Rural District Council, acting as agent for the county planning authority, which was responsible for the refusal to give planning consent for the St. Nicholas site. On the 28th of last month the whole thing was cleared up, and the St. Lythan's Down site has now had complete sanction from all the parties concerned.
Mr. Llewellyn: In thanking the right hon. Gentleman very sincerely for his reference to my father, I should like to ask him whether or not he now shares the view of the Minister of Town and Country Planning that no unreasonable delay has at any time been caused by the Cardiff Rural District Council. If he will give that satisfaction, I think the matter may perhaps be decently forgotten.
Mr. Ness Edwards: It is always very difficult to agree with anybody else nowadays, particularly one's colleagues. I have not yet joined the "Brickdroppers union," but I am always in danger of having a close association with them.

309
The Cardiff Rural District Council was responsible for the objection to the original site. That was, in itself, responsible for the delay from 26th June until October, when the B.B.C. made up their mind to abandon the St. Nicholas site because of the objections. That is the position. I do not want to be unduly critical of the Cardiff Rural District Council; I know they are an extremely wealthy rural district council, but I think that they could have acted with more expedition in this matter. I am giving my own opinion, and perhaps we had better leave the matter there.
Let me now turn to matters of much greater consequence. I was very much impressed by the first three-quarters of the speech of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). It is a pity it could not have been made retrospective 20 years. If only he had been here 20 years ago when there were frightful conditions in South Wales, and in Wales generally, we would have had at least one voice on the Conservative benches that would have been friendly to Wales. I thought that the last part of his speech left him open to a great deal of misrepresentation, and showed far too much regard for the economic man and not for the human. That was my feeling.
Mr. Powell: I was precisely attacking the theory of the economic man, and rejecting that approach to the whole question.
Mr. Ness Edwards: If the hon. Gentleman will read HANSARD tomorrow he will find that he rather slipped in this matter, and seemed to express a hard-faced policy which in the past, I am afraid, had too great a place in the counsels of the Conservative Party.
There have been one or two little stirs on the surface of the water in this debate, but it has been a very friendly one. The problems which have been selected for discussion have been approached in a realistic manner. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), made a typical Welsh speech, full of fire and passion. He was the typical Welshman of the debate. While most of my hon. Friends kept their passions in control and softened their speeches, he felt, in winding up on this side, that he had to put life into the debate. I thoroughly enjoyed his speech
310
and the things he said, as, I am sure, did the whole House. He asked me not to speak with pride about the past, and said that the people of Wales were very proud of what we had done. Nevertheless, I have, to a degree, to indicate what we have done as part and parcel of a continuing process.
I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), who has now almost become the doyen of the Welsh Parliamentary Party, made a very sensible remark when he talked about having a budget and a plan for Wales. That is true. We must have a plan for Wales. It is equally true that the idea of a plan for Wales occurred in the time of the Coalition Government. The development and expansion of these plans and the execution of them has been the responsibility of this Government. So, in the first place, I say that the policy of full employment and the policy of the development areas did come originally from the Coalition Government in which members of this party were represented, and they undoubtedly had something to say about the matter.
The need in those days was for complete diversification of industry in South Wales. That was accepted on both sides of the House. I think that the Conservatives agreed with us that that was the right policy to pursue. As a result, it was decided to plan development. The Distribution of Industries Act was passed, under which powers were taken by the Government to effect the change which has taken place.
As the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, has said, a miracle has taken place in Wales. How has that miracle been effected? It will be remembered that, before the war, Wales was dying of pernicious economic anaemia. Our people were drifting away; there was poverty on all hands; housing was going to the dogs. Reference was made about houses being sold for next to nothing. Houses in my own constituency were sold for £20. That was the state of affairs in South Wales, and, indeed, in one part of Senghenydd there was a row of houses which no one would buy because the colliery there had been bought and shut down—bought in London one day and shut down the next, and the whole community was dislocated.
Sir H. Williams: Are not the Coal Board shutting down collieries now?
Mr. Ness Edwards: It was planned to provide new jobs for 150,000 people in South Wales. Let us see how that has turned out. Up to the present, 107,000 of these jobs have materialised and are occupied. There are 43,000 more to come under the original plan. There is unemployment in Wales now of 32,000. Let me make it quite clear: there are 43,000 new jobs to come when the new factories are built and there are 32,000 unemployed. At the same time, there are 10,000 unfilled jobs in South Wales now waiting for employees. I hope that picture—this general background—is still in the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
In actual fact, if all the jobs could be matched to all the men, there would be unemployment now of 22,000, and there are 43,000 new jobs to come under the new factory construction. In that way—and with regard to the proposals which my hon. Friend the Member for Gower mentioned in his speech—the budget we have made provides for a greater population than the population at present in Wales. There is also in Wales now, as my hon. Friend knows, an unspecified number of vacancies in mining, an unspecified number in tinplate, and an unspecified number of skilled building craftsmen. Limitation on reconstruction in Wales is the limitation of skilled craftsmen in the building industry. When Members say that we should do this and do that, I would remind them that the question the Government have to face is from where we are to get the skilled men to do the job.
Let me put it in other terms, in terms of factories. There are 276 new factories in production. There are 75 now under construction, and 112 that have been approved for construction but not yet started. It will be seen that if all these factories are built, the great problem we shall have to face in South Wales is to find all the labour to man the factories. Taking the general view, the Government have been generous in their conception of the needs of the working population of Wales. Let me try to put it in another way. I find that since the end of the war, the building licences issued in Wales for physical reconstruction are to the tune of of £65 million. On the building of new
312
factories and the conversion of R.O.Fs., the Government have spent £14 million. A further expenditure of £2 million is provided for in the new factories that are under construction and have been licensed.
It would be wrong if I did not at this stage pay a tribute to the private employers of labour who have come into the development areas. It is quite wrong for these new employers to have behind them the criticism that they are foreigners producing useless goods. We are doing a disservice to the new industries that come to Wales when we indulge in that sort of criticism. Many of them are public-spirited men. My only regret is that it is necessary to pull in people from outside of Wales, when more people in Wales ought to be prepared to take the same risks that these people are prepared to take. I should be very pleased to see a queue of Welsh capitalists lining up even for the Grenfell factories. I pay my tribute to these private employers who have helped in the creation of this diversification of industries in South Wales.
I turn to agriculture. The agricultural situation in Wales is far better than it has ever been. Nearly every farmer has a motor car. There is a prosperity to be seen in the Welsh countryside. We have only to look at the number of applications for licences to build new farm houses or to recondition farm houses to know that money is about.
Mr. Watkins: And for telephones.
Mr. Ness Edwards: And for telephones. Many farms were sold for a song in the old days. Let me take the injection of new capital for the year under consideration. We find that subsidies to the value of £4¼ million were poured into Welsh agriculture to improve land and stock, for drainage purposes and by way of marginal land subsidies. That, in itself, has made a contribution. Last year the total loans sanctioned to local authorities in Wales to enable them to do the jobs they want to do was £24 million. All this money, going into Wales, is bound to have the effect of giving liveliness to the old economy and a new hope and a new outlook to the Welsh people.
Of great significance to the development areas are the Exchequer equalisation grants, which have saved the rates in heavily rated areas. This came to

313
£6,480,000 last year. In my own constituency one of the urban councils was able to have the equivalent of a 2s. 10d. rate out of this grant. I might also mention £5,233,000 for universities, school buildings, hospitals and coast erosion. This sort of thing is bringing new life to Wales, and stopping the drift from that country to other parts of Great Britain.
Many of the questions that were raised during the debate are, I hope, being answered in this general survey which I am attempting to make. For instance, there is the coalmining industry, in which last year there was an investment of new capital to the amount of £4 million. In the gas industry there was an investment of nearly £1 million and in the electricity industry nearly £5 million. The most gigantic strides are made in the steel industry, where there has been an investment of £56 million since the end of the war. This has been done by the Steel Company of Wales under the general direction of the Central Steel Board, in London, which is a sort of semi-Government body acting until the nationalisation of steel comes about.
I should also refer to the rearmament programme and its effect on Wales. This year, under that programme, there will be spent in Wales £30 million, and that will materially help the new factories enabling them to work to their full capacity. I am conscious of the point put by some of my hon. Friends that we do not want a war production in Wales, which will collapse at the end of the period of rearmament. That is the situation to which the Government is very much alive. They will see to it that orders are spread in such a way as not to produce a situation like that.
Lady Megan Lloyd George: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what proportion of the contracts will go to North Wales?
Mr. Ness Edwards: I could not give that information without notice, but I am sure that the noble Lady will not need any reminding that North Wales is not so heavily industrialised as South Wales. There are, however, a number of important production units in North Wales which will have to be considered, because of the general shortage of steel. In that way I hope North Wales will be adequately covered.
Having dealt with the general position and given a general picture showing the
314
Government's plan, how far it has been carried into effect, and how much further we have to go, I now come to those things about which there has been considerable discussion in the debate. We have to recognise that South Wales has unemployment. We have, roughly, 32,000 unemployed, and have had them for a number of years. Of that figure 10,000 are disabled workers, and one third of the 10,000 are pneumoconiosis cases, whose disability is of a special type. The 10,000 disabled unemployed men have remained at that figure for about five years. Despite the fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) said, that in the last five years 15,000 men have come out of the mines with pneumoconiosis, we have been able to keep the figure of the unemployed round about 5,000. In spite of the pressure which we have put forward to get these men into employment, we find all the time that a new intake is coming from industry to the unemployment register.
We also have to remember that about 2,000 of the 10,000 disabled men are only fit for sheltered employment. That problem we have attempted to deal with by the Remploy factory programme, which, so far, has employed 894 out of the 2,000. There are 14 Remploy factories in Wales. I am not satisfied that all the assistance that could be given to these factories by local authorities is being given. I know that the factories are expensive. This is an expensive piece of ambulance work, but it ought to be done rather than let 2,000 men rot in their cottages.
I should like to see local authorities in particular helping this plan. Having work done on your doorstep, so to speak, is of far greater importance with factories of this kind than with normal factories. For example, if a county council wants books rebound, it is far better to get them done in a Remploy factory in the county than to send them to London. That principle applies to Remploy factories throughout the Principality.
I was rather shocked when I heard a reference to the "barren memorial" to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower. There are 10 of these Grenfell factories in production, and there are working and earning a living there 472 disabled men who, otherwise, would be rotting in the streets. The scheme has not had the

315
success that we expected. We cannot expect to build up good production from disabled men in a short time because they take longer to bed down. It will need patience, but I am satisfied that in the long run this scheme will give us the right solution to a part of the problem. Neither the Remploy factory programme nor the Grenfell programme provides a complete solution to the problem of unemployment in South Wales. That is why we have proceeded with the general programme in excess of what appears to be the actual requirement.
There was a complaint that too many of these light factories are coming to South Wales. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot say disabled men should be employed on light work and, in the next breath, complain that factories doing light work are coming to South Wales. What is the use of asking for more basic industries when we cannot man up the basic industries which we have and upon which our whole economy depends? If we put more basic industries into South Wales it will mean that there will be a decline in the number of men in the pits and in tinplate. We must try to maintain some sort of balance. We must not look gift horses in the mouth.
A number of my hon. Friends have referred to the pneumoconiosis problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty referred to the 6,000 pneumoconiosis sufferers who had gone back into the pits, and complained that if these men became worse they could not get any increase in their compensation. I am authorised to say that my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance has consulted the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council on this matter and is willing to make regulations as soon as certain points have been discussed between the two sides in the industry.
These regulations will enable these men who go back into the pits and suffer a recurrence of pneumoconiosis to get industrial injuries benefit. Therefore, that deterrent to men going back and doing what they can will be removed. I am sure that that will be regarded as very substantial progress.
Mr. Emrys Roberts: Will that apply to the slate quarries as well?
Mr. Ness Edwards: I ought to have notice of that question, because this is a matter that applies to the mining industry. If it comes under the general industrial injuries regulations—that is, unless it is an industry scheme—I imagine that this would apply, but if the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question to the Minister of National Insurance my right hon. Friend will undoubtedly give him the right answer.
A number of questions were raised which I shall not have time to answer. Reference was made to the evil of pneumoconiosis in slate quarries. I have paid some visits to the slate quarries. I think the owners of the slate quarries should have improved the conditions under which the men work. I was shocked to see the men working in rough sheds. When I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minitry of Labour I used what influence I had to try to get them to improve the conditions.
Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Has the right hon. Gentleman any statement to make about the Rees Report? We have now waited for many years for a Government pronouncement.
Mr. Ness Edwards: I believe that is a matter which should be put to the Minister of Works although I am not sure. However, it does not come within my purview and I have no note about it. When I was at the Ministry of Labour I paid some visits to the quarries. I believe that under the auspices of the Ministry of Fuel and Power a new method for extracting the dust has been devised. My hon. Friend complained that because of the shortage of steel it was not possible to get the equipment. I will certainly take that matter up with my colleagues to see that every opportunity is given for the quarries to introduce these new methods and, I hope, conquer the fear of pneumoconiosis among the slate quarry workers.
Another matter to which I wish to refer is the difficulty of the physical rehabilitation of South Wales. It was referred to by the hon. Gentleman for Wolverhampton, South-West, who spoke of the old pattern of the population being where it was because it was attached to the mining industry and docks and roads being ancillary to the mining industry. What we have tried to do is to superimpose upon the economy of the development area this

317
new set of factories. This has brought into existence completely new needs. There is a need for new roads. I was glad to see the consensus of opinion of the House that the road to the Midlands ought to be priority number one, that it ought to be considered even before the road from the South to the North. I welcome that commonsense approach to this problem. I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will pay attention to the sentiments that have been expressed and will now proceed with greater speed with the widening and extending and developing of that road.
Mr. G. Thomas: And the Severn bridge.
Mr. Ness Edwards: The Severn bridge involves steel, and that will be a difficulty for some time.
In the time at my disposal I have tried to cover most of the points raised. I will write to hon. Members about those I have not touched upon, letting them have such information as they have sought. Despite all that remains to be done, I think hon. Members and the country have to decide which is best—the Wales they knew between the two world wars or the Wales of today.
The test of good government is to be found in the homes and lives of the people. There is no section of the Welsh population which has not benefitted by the great progress made in the six years. Each one can test this for himself. Which is best for the old people, the parish and the workhouse or what has been established for them today? Which is the best for the widow, what she knew between the two world wars—the relieving officer—or the independence she has today? Which is the best for the sick man, the club and the parish and the workhouse infirmary or the treatment he gets today?
Sir H. Williams: When he can get it.
Mr. Ness Edwards: Then there is the injured man, either in the mining industry or elsewhere. The average compensation was 27s. no matter how large his family. Which is best, that and public assistance or what he gets today? Which is the best for the children, what they got between the two world wars—"Daily Mail" food parcels, second-hand clothing, the Prince of Wales fund—or what they get today?
318
Let me give one example. In 1938 we had 45,000 in secondary schools. In 1950 we have 102,000 in secondary schools. There is the opportunity. I would ask the miners: Which they would rather have—what they knew between the two world wars, when their average wage was £2 16s. 5d.—with all the talk of victimisation, fighting the scab unions, the hooter blowing for a stopped day or the guaranteed week with an average wage of £8 3s. and holidays with pay today?
One could talk about the farmer and the farmworker and the young women who now have a chance to find a job in Wales instead of trekking to London to work in cheap domestic service. The only industry in Wales which is not thriving to-day is the pawnbroking industry. Wales has something to sing about in the progress now being made.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
Mr. Mikardo discharged from the Select Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. A. Edward Davies added.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

CONWAY BRIDGE
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Sparks.]
9.59 p.m.
Mr. William Elwyn Jones: In the debate earlier in the evening we have been discussing communications in South Wales. In the short time at my disposal I desire to discuss the road communications of North Wales and to draw the attention of the House to the condition of Conway Bridge. This is the bridge which links the main route of traffic coming from the counties of Flint and Denbigh and Lancashire—
It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Sparks.]
Mr. William Elwyn Jones: The Conway Bridge links the main route of traffic from the counties of Flint, Denbigh and Lancashire with the counties of Anglesey

319
and Caernarvon. The bridge is one of Telford's bridges and is now 150 years old. In its day it has served the people of North Wales exceedingly well, but by now it is quite inadequate to carry modern traffic. The bridge belongs to the Conway Corporation, who are the Conway Bridge Commissioners; they acquired it in 1878. They have always employed a firm of consulting engineers to make regular inspections of the bridge and its condition.
In 1933 the bridge engineer and the firm of consulting engineers decided that the time had come for the bridge to be strengthened and enlarged. Unfortunately, the statute under which the Conway Bridge Commissioners operate did not permit them to erect a new bridge, and so an approach was made to the then Minister of Transport with the request that the Commissioners should be allowed facilities to promote a Bill in the House to give them statutory powers for the construction of a new bridge. The then Minister indicated that it was a matter for his Department and that he was prepared to undertake the task of building a new bridge across the river.
Plans and specifications have been prepared. Protracted negotiations have taken place between the Conway Corporation and the Minister of Transport, and by now the plans and specifications for the new bridge have been completed. The time has arrived for tenders to be invited and for the contract to be placed; that is the position at present. I understand that the difficulty is that the Minister has no funds at his disposal with which to carry out the project.
I want to offer to the Minister one or two observations why this matter should be regarded as one of special urgency. As I have indicated, the bridge was considered to be inadequate as far back as 60 years ago. It is much more inadequate today. There is only one-way traffic over the bridge and during the summer months there is serious congestion on the road, which is a most important traffic route and carries some thousands of commercial vehicles and tourists on their way to the seaside resorts of Caernarvonshire and Anglesey.
During last summer there were serious congestions at both ends of the bridge. I was involved in a hold-up myself for
320
at least an hour to an hour and a half, and this kind of thing occurs constantly. The bridge which was designed to carry the traffic of 1826—pedestrians, horses, animals, carts, and so on—is totally inadequate to carry the modern traffic of 1950. This inadequacy of the bridge to carry modern traffic is the first point I want to make.
The second point is that it is dangerous. Tests have been made, and in consequence it has been found necessary to place certain restrictions upon the traffic which crosses the bridge. A white line has been placed five feet from the edge of the bridge on the sea side. This has been done by the Commissioners at the request of the Ministry with a warning notice that traffic crossing the bridge should not go over any part of the bridge which is within the white line. That is one step taken to reduce the danger of crossing the bridge.
The second step was to reduce the weight of vehicles allowed to cross the bridge. This has now been reduced to 7 tons 15 cwt. laden weight. These restrictions materially affect both commercial and passenger carrying vehicles which go to Caernarvonshire and Anglesey. They have a detrimental effect on the industrial development of North Wales. We have been discussing the economic prosperity of North Wales and this is an important factor in that respect.
May I give an instance of the way in which this restriction is injuriously affecting the economic prosperity of one part of the County of Caernarvonshire? I am informed that the Penmaenmawr Granite Quarries have been given notice by the Commissioners that only vehicles under a certain weight may cross the bridge This affects the production costs of the company and may affect the prosperity of that industry. This company employs a large number of men at Penmaenmawr and it would be regrettable if the inadequacy of the bridge were to affect their livelihood. Another way in which the restrictions affect prosperity is in regard to passenger vehicles. Double decker buses are not allowed to cross the bridge and during the summer months, the House will appreciate, there is very serious congestion caused to tourist traffic to the Caernarvonshire coast.

321
The third point is that the most modern traffic passenger vehicles are not able to use the bridge. I understand that the new regulations prescribe a width of 8 ft. for modern vehicles. I trust the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. I am informed by the Crosville Motor Company, the main passenger company operating in North Wales, that they will experience considerable difficulty in manœuvring their vehicles across the bridge. I am informed that a bus fitted with a frame 8 ft. wide, which is the new width regulation, can only go through the bridge with very considerable difficulty. The actual width of the entrance at road level is 9 ft. 6 in., leaving only 9 in. on either side. The walls have been widened to give an aperture of about 10 ft., five feet high, but even then it is a very tight squeeze. As a temporary measure I understand the company are asking the Commissioners to give permission to paint white lines on the roadway so that the front wheels of 'buses can follow them to make sure of getting through the bridge without accident. It is an intolerable state of affairs that there should be only this margin of a few inches for a vehicle to go through under the new regulation.
Finally, it is a toll bridge and this in this year of grace 1950 is an anachronism. Passenger vehicles and commercial vehicles make such a large contribution to the Road Fund, and should not be called upon to pay additional toll in this way. A toll bridge really is an intolerable anachronism in 1950, and it should be abolished as soon as possible.
I believe that the Minister of Transport is very well acquainted with this bridge. I am certain he will agree that the facts that I have given to the House are strictly accurate. I am, of course, aware of the difficulties of finding sufficient money for this kind of project, and that funds which my right hon. Friend has at his disposal for new works are strictly limited. I would say with as much emphasis as I can that the Government must now face the fact that the roads of this country as a whole are now becoming so bad that this position cannot possibly be held much longer. I ask him to exercise his influence with his colleagues in the Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in particular, to ensure that a more adequate sum is provided with which to carry out new road
322
works, and in particular to carry out this project, which has been too long delayed.
This project cannot be allowed to remain in abeyance much longer without doing irreparable damage to the system of communications in North Wales. The appeal which I am now making is supported by all the local authorities in North Wales, about 40 in all. It is not a local but a national matter. I ask my right hon. Friend to treat it as being a matter of the gravest urgency, and to seek the necessary powers to enable him to invite contracts immediately in order to construct a new bridge. It has been suggested that a temporary Bailey bridge be erected across the river. I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider that project. But it is only a palliative. The need is for a new modern bridge to carry the modern traffic which runs along this important artery of communications in North Wales.
10.12 p.m.
Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I rise to express briefly, but most strongly, my support for the plea which my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. William Elwyn Jones) has made. I do so for a variety of reasons: first, that until the last General Election this bridge was in my constituency; secondly, during my carefree childhood I frequently risked my life, in common with the other children in the neighbourhood, climbing the sides of this bridge. During the last Parliament I led a deputation from the Conway Bridge Commissioners to the Ministry of Transport, where we put the case before the then Parliamentary Secretary who is now with the Admiralty. Although we were received with a good deal of sympathy we did not get very far. I hope that my hon. Friend has better success than I had. As we have heard, the bridge was constructed by Act of Parliament. I hope that it will not need an Act of Parliament to repair it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Conway has said, when the bridge was constructed there was very little heavy traffic, it was a matter of pedestrians and cart horses. With the coming of vehicular traffic, however, the bridge has from time to time had to be strengthened and has had a footbridge added to it for pedestrians. The nub of the matter is that as far back as 1933 the consulting engineers reported that the time had arrived, from

323
the point of view of human safety, for the bridge to be strengthened and enlarged.
As the Act which vested the bridge in the Conway Bridge Commissioners did not empower them to take the necessary steps, the Minister of Transport was consulted. The Commissioners were informed that it was the intention of the Minister to build a new bridge, and also a new arterial road in conjunction with the bridge. Since then a lengthy correspondence has ensued, the only result of which has been that we have been repeatedly informed that the matter is a No. 1 priority, but that nothing can be done until the economic position is better. The matter now stands there.
I should like to make the following points. First, we in that part of the country believe that the bridge is unsafe, if my right hon. Friend is unable to help us on the major point, I hope that he will be able to say something about that. There is considerable misgiving and concern locally. Secondly, there is no doubt at all that this bridge, in its present condition, is a veritable bottleneck affecting the passage both of road haulage and omnibuses, particularly now that the 8 ft. span rule is in operation. There is a bottleneck between the agricultural area of North-West Wales and the industrial area of Flintshire, Wrexham and Lancashire, which we feed at least with milk and with most of the lamb which we produce.
That vital traffic is slowed down in such a way as to add to the costs of the manufactured articles coming into North-West Wales and the foodstuffs which are exported from that area. It has been pointed out before, I believe at Question time, that many lorries have to make a 21 mile detour to avoid this bridge which is far too narrow and fragile to carry that sort of traffic. I earnestly hope that the Minister of Transport will take up this matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and try to do something about this vital problem.
10.17 p.m.
Mr. Emrys Roberts: I add my support to the plea put forward by the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. William Elwyn Jones), who has done a useful service by raising this matter. I know this bridge very well. It is in my native country, and I think that I have
324
paralleled the exploits of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) in climbing it in days gone by. This bridge is not only of importance to the county of Caernarvon. It is of importance to the transport and communications system of North-West Wales as a whole. It is thoroughly unsatisfactory that the bridge should have been in this condition for 17 years. It is high time that the problem was tackled. I know that that is the feeling of local authorities outside Caernarvonshire, and I hope that the Minister will take cognisance of that fact.
10.18 p.m.
Mrs. Eirene White: I should like to support the plea which has been put forward, because my constituency is a point of entry for a great deal of the North Wales traffic, particularly industrial and tourist traffic, to which reference has been made. As the Minister knows, there is congestion along the North Wales trunk roads, but no traffic problem is more serious than the one we are discussing. It affects the speed of traffic along the North Wales coast. It adds very much to costs and causes delays. We in North Wales hope very much that the Minister will be able to give a favourable reply to the debate.
10.19 p.m.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): It is appropriate that at the conclusion of a debate on Welsh affairs we should direct our attention to a specific matter affecting Wales. I am the first to acknowledge that the Conway Bridge is an important link between Lancashire and the North Wales coast. We are faced with a difficult problem, because, in the nature of things, there are no suitable alternative routes to take the place of the one over this bridge. The case which my hon. Friend the Member for Conway has submitted is in no way exaggerated, and I do not intend to dispute in any way any of the arguments which he has put forward. My only regret is that the financial circumstances of the moment, which he himself has referred to and has recognised, do not permit of me giving a favourable reply.
I do not dispute in any way that this bridge is in a relatively poor condition, although I do not think it can be closed as being unsafe for traffic. This property, as my hon. Friend has indicated, belongs

325
to the Conway Corporation, and, of course, the Conway Bridge Commissioners are the executive authority of the Conway Corporation, who are responsible for the safety of the bridge. If I may refer to the immediate difficulty, which my hon. Friend has mentioned, in regard to the new regulations that permit the use of 8 ft.-wide buses, I would point out that it is within my province to restrict or prescribe certain areas or roads where they should not be used if the width of the bus is likely to create dangerous traffic conditions.
We are concerned with an important trunk road from Chester to Bangor. As my hon. Friend has recognised, the Ministry of Transport brought the whole of the plans for this new bridge to the point where we are in a position to ask for the necessary contracts whenever the funds are available. It is a rather ambitious scheme. It proposes to eliminate the level crossing near Llandrindod Junction, provide a modern bridge over the Conway and by-pass Conway town. I think that this is very necessary, because on many occasions I have had to wend my way through that particularly difficult bottleneck. It will provide a new link road through a tunnel under the public highway. To construct the bridge alone, quite apart from the ancillary work, will cost approximately half a million pounds.
The Caernarvon County Council and other local authorities have pressed upon me the desirability, if we cannot provide the funds for the full scheme, to construct at least one deck of the bridge. That would cost £350,000. As I repeatedly pointed out, if we could undertake any of these schemes alone it might be possible to find the necessary funds, but I want to remind my hon. Friends that as late as 23rd November, when the Prime Minister was asked whether it was possible to provide additional funds out of the Road Fund, the Lord President of the Council made this statement.
"My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister regrets that, in present circumstances, it is not possible to allocate to the roads as large a share as we should all wish."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1950; Vol. 481, c. 338.]
Hon. Members have accepted that authoritative statement from the Government, and we cannot contract out of that for any specific project.
326
I quite agree, however, with my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon that we cannot continue indefinitely, in the face of the development of modern transport, to allow our roads to be in the condition in which they are today. The fact is that, whereas before the war we were spending between £60 million and £70 million a year on our roads, today we are only able to allocate just under £50 million for that purpose. If we take the increased cost of such work since before the war, that means that, relatively, we are only spending between £25 million and £30 million today compared with £60 or £70 million before the war. In practice, that sum only permits the maintenance of our existing road system at not more than about 70 per cent. of the standard at which we used to maintain it before the war.
In these circumstances there are not the necessary funds available with which to undertake any new construction work. Apart from eliminating a limited number of exceedingly black or dangerous spots on our roads where the accident rate is exceedingly high, and maintaining the essential communications, there are no further sums available for new construction of this description.
As I have indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for Conway who, I think, is fully justified in emphasising to Parliament, to the Government and to the public the danger of this state of affairs, while Parliament accepts the general policy that has been laid down, it is not possible for me to give any undertaking that I can find the funds for work of this description. I regret it, but there are many other similar schemes that deserve equal consideration.
However, I promise my hon. Friend that this matter will engage my earnest attention, and I would leave the House in no doubt that at the earliest possible moment when funds are available we at the Ministry of Transport, recognising the urgency and importance of this task, will bear it in mind as being one of the first to receive consideration.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes past Ten o'Clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Factory Inspectors
  Factory Inspectors
  Wales and Monmouthshire
  Wales and Monmouthshire
  Disabled Men (Dental Mechanics)
  Disabled Men (Dental Mechanics)
  COST OF LIVING
  COST OF LIVING
SCOTLAND
  Industry, East Kilbride
  Industry, East Kilbride
  Physiotherapists
  Physiotherapists
  Lewick Harbour
  Lewick Harbour
BRITISH ARMY
  Deceased Soldiers (Dependants' Gratuity)
  Deceased Soldiers (Dependants' Gratuity)
  Troops, Korea
  Troops, Korea
  N.A.A.F.I. Service (Overseas)
  N.A.A.F.I. Service (Overseas)
  Coal Miners
  Coal Miners
  Lying Time
  Lying Time
NATIONAL FINANCE
  U.S.S.R. (Debts)
  U.S.S.R. (Debts)
  Duty-Free Goods
  Duty-Free Goods
  Leather Goods (Tax)
  Leather Goods (Tax)
  Bills (H.M.S.O., Belfast)
  Bills (H.M.S.O., Belfast)
  Troops, Korea (Tobacco)
  Troops, Korea (Tobacco)
  International Agencies (British Gifts)
  International Agencies (British Gifts)
  Employees (Christmas Gifts)
  Employees (Christmas Gifts)
  CIVIL SERVICE (SALARIES)
  CIVIL SERVICE (SALARIES)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Monopoly Commission
  Monopoly Commission
  Copper Wire Exports
  Copper Wire Exports
  Bankruptcy
  Bankruptcy
  Rubber Exports
  Rubber Exports
  Carpet Retailers (Profit Margins)
  Carpet Retailers (Profit Margins)
  Perambulators
  Perambulators
  German Pencils
  German Pencils
  Raw Materials (Export)
  Raw Materials (Export)
  Horticultural Products (Tariffs)
  Horticultural Products (Tariffs)
  Anglo-American Film Agreement
  Anglo-American Film Agreement
  Honey Imports
  Honey Imports
  Film Finance Corporation
  Film Finance Corporation
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  Housing Estate, St. Paul's Cray
  Housing Estate, St. Paul's Cray
  Harlow (Building Workers)
  Harlow (Building Workers)
  Stowmarket
  Stowmarket
  Gas Works, St. Albans (Extension)
  Gas Works, St. Albans (Extension)
NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Widows' Pensions
  Widows' Pensions
  Weekly Earnings
  Weekly Earnings
  Retirement Pensions (Application)
  Retirement Pensions (Application)
  Casual Earnings
  Casual Earnings
  Insurance Fund
  Insurance Fund
  Clerical Assistants, Blackpool
  Clerical Assistants, Blackpool
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Home Canning (Tinplate)
  Home Canning (Tinplate)
  Eggs
  Eggs
  ROYAL NAVY (DARTMOUTH SCHEME)
  ROYAL NAVY (DARTMOUTH SCHEME)
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Sewage Schemes, Hertford
  Sewage Schemes, Hertford
  Mental Hospital Patients (Injections)
  Mental Hospital Patients (Injections)
  Tuberculosis and Fever Hospitals (Nurses)
  Tuberculosis and Fever Hospitals (Nurses)
  Handbill (Cost)
  Handbill (Cost)
  COUNTY COURT REGISTRARS (SALARIES)
  COUNTY COURT REGISTRARS (SALARIES)
AGRICULTURE
  Farm Drainage and Water, Flintshire
  Farm Drainage and Water, Flintshire
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The EARL OF DROGHEDA on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  2.36 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in moving the Motion that stands in the name of my noble Leader, Lord Addison, I should like to express on behalf of noble Lords who sit on these Benches and, at the special request of my noble Leader himself, their regret at the reasons which have led to the placing of this Motion on the Paper. It is due to the postponement of the Motion which Lord Woolton was to have moved to-morrow. We hope that the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, whose illness has caused the proposed alteration, will prosper and will soon be well, and we look forward to a debate on that Motion in which he can take part. We agree that it would seem undesirable at this moment to enter into a debate on the subject without his presence.
  Moved, That leave be given for the Viscount Swinton's Motion (now standing for Thursday next) to be advanced to to-morrow.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  ENGINEERING NIGHT SHIFTS
  2.37 p.m.
  LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government the approximate numbers of employees in the engineering industry who are working on day and night shifts respectively, and what is the proportion of engineering machinery standing idle at night.]
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I regret that this information is not available, and to obtain it would involve a detailed inquiry throughout the engineering industry.
  LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, while I can hardly thank the noble Lord for a very intelligent reply to my Question, I would ask him whether or not it would be possible to get this information, and also to find out whether the Government have any scheme by which machinery through-out the country can be run to its economic capacity. I appreciate that the noble Lord is in rather a difficulty over this subject, but I hope that something will be done in the direction I have indicated.
  LORD SHEPHERD:I can only promise to report to the Minister concerned the remarks made by my noble friend opposite. Then, at an appropriate time, I think we can arrange through the usual channels for an opportunity to be given the noble Lord to put down a further Question to which we hope to be able to reply.

  RESTORATION OF PRE-WAR TRADE PRACTICES BILL
  2.40 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD KERSHAW:My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a short Bill designed mainly to remove certain anomalies which have arisen in connection with the operation of the Restoration of Pre-War Trade Practices Act, 1942. It has been prepared in the light of advice given by the National Joint Advisory Council, and its objects have the support of the British Employers' Federation, the Trades Union Congress and the nationalised industries which are represented on that Council. It might perhaps be convenient to the House if I gave two examples of the trade practices dealt with under this Act. The first was the long-established recognition that certain trades and operations were exclusively the province of men. Women were admitted especially in engineering and transport, and in other industries as well. Another example is that of what was termed "dilution of labour." Unskilled and semi-skilled men were allowed to work on what had always been regarded as skilled jobs. It is to the credit of the unions concerned that they have taken no steps to return to their pre-war conditions and practices.
  The Restoration of Pre-War Trade Practices Act, 1942, imposed certain

  719
  obligations upon employers to restore within two months of the end of the war period and to maintain for eighteen months from the end of that period trade practices which obtained before the war period but which were departed from during that time. The Act also provides that these obligations may be waived or modified by means of a written agreement between the employers and the appropriate trade unions. This provision for waiver or modification remains unaffected by the present Bill. For the purposes of the Act, the war period was defined as the period beginning with September 3, 1939, and ending with such date as the Minister of Labour might appoint, not being later than the date on which the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, expired. In fact, no date for the end of the war period has so far been appointed, because of the abnormal circumstances of the post-war period, which, in the view of the Government, have made it necessary in the economic interest of the community to postpone a return to pre-war trade practices departed from during the war.
  I ought to emphasise that with the agreement of both sides of industry, steps have therefore been taken each year since the war, under emergency legislation, to extend the end of the war period for the purpose of the Act for a further year, the present date for the end of the war period being the tenth of this month. There are a number of disadvantages in this procedure. In the first place, the continued postponement of the appointed date year by year through emergency legislation is not a satisfactory method of dealing with the statutory responsibilities imposed by the Act. It is much better that any action which may be taken in regard to an Act carrying such important implications for both sides of industry should rest on a more satisfactory basis than that of temporary legislation. This is a view which commands the full support of the National Joint Advisory Council. There is, however, a still weightier objection to the practice of extending by emergency legislation the war period for the purposes of the Act. The effect of the action taken year by year is not only to postpone the coming into operation of the obligation to restore pre-war trade practices departed from during the period of hostilities, but
  720
  also to apply the Act to departures from pre-war practices which, have occurred since the close of actual hostilities. This is, of course, because the war period for the purposes of the Act is being continually extended by the annual use of emergency legislation. This was never the intention of the Act, which was meant to deal only with departures taking place during the actual period of hostilities, and it is not a position which commends itself to either side of industry.
  In the light of this situation, the National Joint Advisory Council was consulted. They unanimously recommended that two things should be done. In the first place, the Council suggested that steps should be taken to empower the Government to fix, at an appropriate time in the future, the date when the obligation to restore pre-war trade practices should come into operation. This would mean that instead of there being, as at present, a dead line date before which the Minister of Labour must fix the appointed day, it could be fixed at any appropriate time. This would obviate the present necessity of relying on periodical emergency measures to extend the period within which the appointed day shall be fixed. It goes without saying that the appointed day would be fixed only after full consultation with both sides of industry. It should be noted in passing that only one appointed day will be fixed for the whole range of industry—that is to say, there is no possibility of there being different appointed days for individual industries.
  In the second place, the Council advised the Minister to take powers to exclude from the operation of the 1942 Act all departures from pre-war trade practices which have occurred since the end of actual hostilities, thereby, in effect, confining the application of the Act to departures which took place before August 15, 1945. This would avoid the anomalous position arising from the artificial extension of the war period for the purposes of the Act beyond August, 1945. Careful consideration was given to the Council's advice, as the measures which they proposed seem to offer a practical and acceptable solution of the difficulties which are arising in connection with the Act. The Government, accordingly, decided to introduce the present Bill which is designed to give effect to these proposals

  721
  by making certain amendments to the Restoration of Pre-War Trade Practices Act, 1942.
  There are only two really effective clauses in the Bill, and I will just refer shortly to them. The main part of the Bill has been drafted in the form of a re-enactment with modifications of subsections (1) and (2) of Section 1 of the Act of 1942. This method, I am sure your Lordships will agree, is clearer and less confusing than the alternative of presenting a number of minor amendments which might make it difficult to follow what the Bill really does. The essence of the Bill is contained in Clause 1 (1) which re-enacts with modifications the provisions of Section 1 (1) of the 1942 Act. The effect of these modifications is to do two things. First, they provide that the date to which the obligations under the 1942 Act as amended will be related will be a date appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Minister by an Order in Council. The draft of this Order will have to be laid before Parliament. It had originally been intended that the draft Order should be subject to the negative Resolution procedure. Following the de-bate in Committee in another place, how-ever, my right honourable friend has agreed to an Opposition proposal that it should be subject to affirmative Resolution. It is also intended that the National Joint Advisory Council shall be consulted before any such recommendation is made by the Minister.
  Secondly, the subsection as amended will confine the obligation to restore pre-war trade practices to cases where the pre-war trade practice has been departed from during the period from September 3, 1939, to August 15, 1945. In a limited number of cases affecting munition factories operating before the outbreak of the war, the 1942 Act provides that the war period for the purposes of the Act commences on April 30, 1939. This provision will remain unchanged by the amending Bill. Thus, subsection (1) of Clause 1 deals with both points agreed by the National Joint Advisory Council. The effect of this amendment then will be that a firm which was in operation before the war and which during the period of hostilities departed from its pre-war trade practice will, within two months of a date to be appointed by His Majesty, have to revert to its pre-war trade practice unless a
  722
  written agreement to the contrary is made with the appropriate trade union under Section 2 of the 1942 Act, which is unaffected by this Bill. This obligation will remain even though some further change in the firm's practice has been made since August 15, 1945. If, how-ever, the firm did not depart from its pre-war trade practice for the first time until after August 15, 1945, there is no obligation under the Act.
  The points covered by subsection (2) of Clause 1 are corollaries of the steps taken in subsection (1) of that clause. Subsection (1) deals with firms which were in existence before the war. Subsection (2) is concerned with firms which were set up after September 3, 1939. There are two cases here. The first, that of firms which were set up after August 15, 1945, presents no great difficulty. The purpose of the amendments is to limit the operation of the Act to events occur-ring during the period of hostilities. Subsection (2), therefore, removes from the scope of the Act undertakings or branches of undertakings which began to be carried on after August 15, 1945. There remain to be dealt with in sub-section (2) those undertakings which began to be carried on between September 3, 1939, and August 15, 1945-that is, during the period of hostilities. The 1942 Act provided that these undertakings should be under an obligation within two months of the end of the war period to introduce, or permit the introduction of, such trade practices as obtained before the war in undertakings or in branches of undertakings which were carried on in circumstances most nearly analagous to those of the undertaking set up during the war. The Bill does not modify that principle. All it docs Is to provide, as a matter of consistency, that if the analagous firms departed from their pre-war trade practices only for the first time after August 15, 1945, and by virtue of subsection (1) of Clause 1 of this Bill are therefore under no obligation to restore the pre-war trade practice, then the war-time firm will similarly not be under an obligation to adopt pre-war practice. This puts the war-time firm as nearly as possible in the same position as the analogous firms and seems the fairest and most sensible way of dealing with the matter.

  723
  The rest of the Bill deals with the position in Northern Ireland and provides conditions analogous to those we have in respect of England, except that the Order will not be an Order in Council. Finally, may I be permitted to express the thanks of His Majesty's Government, in which I feel sure your Lordships would like to be associated, to the National Joint Advisory Council for their advice and assistance in this important matter? Your Lordships may like to record your appreciation of the statesmanlike approach to the solution of the problem by the trade unions concerned. In opening, I described the Bill as a short Bill. When one studies the Bill, its tremendous and far-reaching implications begin to be realised. By this single short Bill the employers and the trade unions have demonstrated in a typically British way, quietly and unostentatiously, the determination of British industry to allow nothing to interrupt the efforts to strengthen our peaceful economic development, and if, unhappily, further demands upon industry are imposed by external circumstances, this Bill is a simple but courteous indication to the world that the nation will respond to those demands with the same unity and determination as were manifested in the difficult and dark days of a decade ago. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Kershaw.)
  2.55 p.m.
  LORD ALTRINCHAM: My Lords, this is a short Bill, but as the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, has said, it is an extremely important Bill. I have no hesitation in saying that it has the wholehearted support of this side of the House. The noble Lord explained its main provisions. My own feeling about the Bill is that it is better not to try to explain too much: the more one attempts to explain the provisions, the more obscure they become! What is certain is that the Bill carries out the intention and desire of us all. This desire and intention is not properly re-presented by the title "Restoration of Pre-war Trade Practices Bill." The purpose of the Bill is rather to validate the non-restoration of pre-war trade practices, and, as we hope, to arrange conditions in industry which will help to ensure that these practices are never restored.
  724
  I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, that the appreciation and thanks of Parliament are due to the trade unions, to the employers' organisations and to the National Joint Advisory Council for the part they have played in the introduction of this Bill and for making it a measure agreed by all sides of industry. It was right that the Government should seek the best way of honouring the pledge which Parliament gave to industry when the 1942 Act was introduced, and I am sure there will be general agreement that the Government have found the best way of doing so on the advice of all parties concerned. This Bill was completely agreed by all Parties in another place, and there will certainly be no controversy about it here.
  Your Lordships will all agree that the nation's gratitude to the trade unions, and to all concerned should be deep, not only for making this Bill possible, but also for the manner in which they collaborated in setting aside pre-war trade practices during the emergency of the war. It was a remarkable example of what the British people will do when they are stirred by danger at their gates. The sacrifice involved was very real: it was the sacrifice of rights built up over three and four generations, and deeply treasured by those who had either fought for, or inherited, those rights. In the case of the engineering unions, these trade practices were abandoned before the war, in 1937. That was of immense value to the nation, when peril darkened and deepened, and the gratitude of this House and of Parliament is due to those who made that patriotic sacrifice. I think your Lordships will agree that it is a heartening record to remember, now that the menace of war is once again overshadowing us and when new demands may have to be made upon our industries. It shows that the British people may be trusted to manifest their good sense, their public spirit and their unity when common danger threatens us all.
  There is one important Amendment to be made to the Bill at a later stage, and that also has been agreed. It is the substitution of the affirmative Resolution for the negative Resolution procedure when an Order in Council is laid before Parliament. I was very glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, that that pledge which was given in another place

  725
  is to be honoured in this House, and I presume the Amendment will be moved in Committee.
  LORD KERSHAW: Yes.
  LORD ALTRINCHAM: I am sure that that will be an improvement, and that the Amendment will be welcomed in all parts of the House.
  The debate in another place showed that the main feeling aroused by this Bill was the hope that it might never be required and would never be invoked. We in this House certainly share that hope to the full. If I may be allowed to comment on that aspect of the Bill for one moment, I think we should ask ourselves this question: What can the political and Parliamentary groups in this country, as apart from the industrial groups, do to contribute to the realisation of the hopes which are enshrined in this Bill? Our main hope must, I think, depend on the development of the theme on which the noble Marquess, my leader, has often spoken to this House—namely, closer collaboration between both sides of industry and, if possible, better representation of the working man in the conduct of industry. I agree with that idea, and I absolutely share his views upon that matter. I hope that we shall get closer and closer to a realisation of those views.
  Apart from that collaboration, there are other things which we can do our best to secure. Those of your Lordships who have lived closer to industry and the trade unions than I ever have will probably agree that restrictive practices have been due, in the main, to two motives. One is the protection of craftsmanship, the desire that the quality of craftsman-ship and the status of the crafts should not deteriorate; and the other, of course, is fear of unemployment. In regard to the protection of craftsmanship, the motives and practices, as in all human arrangements, are no doubt mixed; some are good, and some are less good. Those that are good are truly concerned with the quality of craftsmanship and the status of the crafts, and those, I suggest, we should do our utmost to honour and endorse. I say that because I believe it is vital at the present time, when the principle has to some extent been questioned, to sup-port the principle of the wage differential for craftsmanship.
  Appeals have been made—which I deprecate—that in an emergency the
  726
  unskilled man should be allowed to raise his wage almost to the level of the skilled man, in order that the total level of wages should not rise. I hope that that loss of differentiation will not be developed in this country, because it seems to me that the status of craftsmanship is absolutely vital to that national quality in industry which is an asset oil immense value to our exports to the world. If the wage differential were to be ironed out, then I believe that the effect on craftsmanship, more particularly on the young entrants —and, therefore, ultimately on our national reputation for quality—would be very deleterious. The challenge to the status of the value of craftsmanship would in any case be bound to revive the feeling that restrictive practices must be resorted to once again. Therefore, I hope that the wage differential as a principle will not be challenged in this difficult industrial period which we are about to enter. On that principle, I say with conviction that my sympathies are wholeheartedly with the craft unions, and I devoutly trust that Governments and Oppositions, and the whole of the political world, will do nothing to undermine their case.
  As to the fear of unemployment it is certainly the most rooted and most widespread of the causes of restrictive practices—the blocking of entry to apprenticeship, "go-slow" methods, and so on. It is vital to assuage that fear. It is very difficult to assuage that fear at this moment, when one of the main factors in Party controversy and Party propaganda is the allegation that one Party is not interested in employment and would welcome unemployment for its own sake. That is being said all over the country. It is not true. It is a profoundly dangerous and unpatriotic thing to say at the pre-sent moment, because it can lead only to fears and restrictions on the part of labour at a time when we want production to the greatest possible extent. I am refraining from making any kind of Party comment in this speech, but I am sure that noble Lords opposite will agree with me that this a point to be remembered at this time. If men of weight in the political world go about saying that of course unemployment is inevitable if one Party which holds almost the same number of seats as the other is by any chance returned to power, then the effect on industry at a very critical moment is bound

  727
  to be most grave. I think we who are outside these hustings controversies are entitled to say that in this House. I will not dwell on that point any further.
  I have said enough, I hope, to indicate the importance of patriotic Party moderation at this terribly critical moment in this all-important sphere. Indeed, I endorse wholeheartedly what the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, said in his concluding sentences about the Bill. He said that it was short but very important; that it enshrined the typical British way of dealing with these ancient practices, which may not be to the national interest; and he hoped that the Bill would never have to be invoked. We share that hope, and we are prepared to collaborate to the uttermost to see that it never is.
  3.9 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lords on these Benches I would express my cordial support of this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, has said, the importance of this measure is far beyond the degree of public attention that it has evoked. It has evoked little public attention because it is a non-controversial Bill. This is a subject, however, that might have inspired the most bitter controversies, because it deals with a subject which in times past has aroused great interest and, indeed, passion. That it should not have done so now is due to the fact, as the noble Lord has said, that the Joint Advisory Council of employers and employed have gone into this matter very thoroughly and, while making some suggestions for amendment, have cordially endorsed the provisions of the Bill. I would join in what the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, has said as to the feeling of this House (as was the case in the other House) of gratitude to the Joint Advisory Council for their action, and, in particular, gratitude to the trade union side, because it is they who might have been adversely affected by legislation of this character. On this subject they have shown great responsibility and recognition of the need for restraint, and they have thereby rendered a service to the nation as a whole in time of economic difficulty and international stress.
  In reading the reports of the Joint Committees of both sides of industry which
  728
  have been investigating the conditions in the United States, we must all have noticed with great interest that again and again unanimous reports have made it clear that in the United States the practice which used to prevail so largely here, and which has also prevailed there, of having trade union restrictions in order to defend what appeared to be the interests of the workers, has largely disappeared. That is one of the main reasons why the productivity rate of the United States is so much higher in many trades than it is here. It has been made clear, also, that the abandonment of such restrictions in America has not had the effect of lowering the standards of living of the working people, . but has, indeed, been one of the factors that has enabled those standards of living, on the average, to surpass our own. In those circumstances, it has been the course of wisdom for labour in this country to agree not to require the precise restoration of whatever restrictions may have been in operation before the war but to recognise that the withdrawal of those restrictions may have been—perhaps un-expectedly to some people—a blessing to labour, as well as to the nation as a whole.
  We also concur in the Amendment, which has been brought about at the in-stance of the Opposition in another place, requiring an affirmative Resolution for the sanction of Orders in Council rather than a negative Resolution for their rejection. That is quite in line with the plea that has been made from these Benches more than once, when we have been considering the liberties of the subject and the right Parliamentary methods to control what might be excesses on the part of the Executive. For that reason, as well as for others, we cordially support the passage of the Bill.
  3.12 p.m.
  LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lords who have spoken. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, has been careful to point out, that the skilled workers made a great sacrifice in permitting some of these practices—I do not like to call them "restrictive" practices, because they are not all restrictive. The great anxiety of most skilled workers associated with this matter, as Lord Altrincham aptly said, is that they want to maintain the value and quality of their work. There were, and probably there are to-day, a great

  729
  many anomalies resulting from this situation, all acting, as it were, against the skilled worker. Notwithstanding that, it is gratifying to know that they are prepared to carry on, at any rate so long as the country is in its present situation, with the condition of things as they are at the moment.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  REINSTATEMENT IN CIVIL EMPLOYMENT BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read la; and to be printed.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL
  3.15 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION(LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, I need not detain the House for very long over this Bill, which I trust can be regarded as non-controversial. It enables the Public Works Loan Commissioners to make cash advances to local authorities for public works up to £500,000,000, provided that the aggregate of such loans actually made, and of commitments to make further loans of the same nature, does not at any time exceed £850,000,000. These maxima are to operate for the period from the passing of this Bill until the enactment of a further measure for similar purposes.
  The last Act, which this Bill proposes to replace, came into force on December 16 of last year, and authorised advances up to £500,000,000, with a limit of £680,000,000 on advances plus commitments. By the beginning of November of this year, advances amounted to some £240,000,000, of which practically three-quarters—namely, £172,000,000-was for housing. In addition, commitments amounted to something over£230,000,000, giving a total of £570,000,000 lent and committed, out of the total of £680,000,000 allowed. At the present rate at which approvals are running, the saturation point would be reached in January. That is why we have the present Bill. The figure for actual advances in the present Bill is, therefore, the same as before, £500,000,000, but the ceiling for
  730
  advances plus commitments is increased from £680,000,000 to £850,000,000. I hasten to say that there are two reasons for this increase, which I hope will satisfy the House. First, local authorities are now able to plan their programmes further ahead than previously, which means that they submit more comprehensive and far-reaching schemes to the Commissioners. Secondly, local authorities are now pre-paring to carry out a higher proportion of schemes which take a longer time to carry out. School building, for instance, features more largely in these programmes than previously, and generally speaking a school takes two or three years to build, whereas most housing schemes are completed sooner than that.
  I should like to assure your Lordships that the increased figure in the Bill does not imply any sudden expansion of investment by local authorities. The effective regulator of such investment, as the House is aware, must be the capital investment programme which is applied in practice to these schemes by the granting of authority to commence actual physical work. This means that local authorities can borrow from the Commissioners only with the sanction of the appropriate Department, and with the consent of the Treasury. The Bill, therefore, is only an enabling Bill, and docs not necessarily involve the expenditure of the maximum amounts provided. The sums specified are the best estimate we can make of what may be required, with a small margin in hand, before it is convenient to bring in another Bill. I hope and believe that the Bill can be regarded as non-controversial, and I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Pakenham.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  SUPERANNUATION BILL
  3.20 p.m.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  EXCHEQUER AND AUDIT DEPARTMENTS BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order), and: passed.
  SOLICITORS BILL
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
  DANGEROUS DRUGS (AMENDMENT) BILL
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
  PENICILLIN (MERCHANT SHIPS) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  EUROPEAN PAYMENTS UNION (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

  THE SHIPPING INDUSTRY
  3.23 p.m.
  LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM rose to call attention to the Shipping Industry; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it will be agreed on all sides of the House that the shipping industry has worthily maintained its reputation for efficiency, when it is realised that practically all the losses incurred during the war have now been replaced by new tonnage. Unfortunately there is, however, already a dark cloud looming up upon the horizon and day by day getting more dangerous: I refer to the difficulties of replacement of old tonnage. Those difficulties are due to the fact that owing to the penal nature of existing taxation shipowners are unable to build up sufficient depreciation funds. It is not too much to say that this taxation represents in fact an annual capital levy on one of our most important industries —an industry which provides one of our greatest invisible exports, of a value, I believe, of something like £100,000,000.
  The cost of replacement of ships is now approximately three times what it was before the war, and depreciation allowed by the Inland Revenue is on only the original cost of the ship. This allowance is quite insufficient to permit the ship-owner to set aside a sum which will cover replacements at present-day costs. In fact, one well-known tramp ship company which at present owns some twenty-five
  732
  ships has estimated that if taxation remains at its present level and other fac-tors remain approximately the same, by 1965 their fleet will be reduced to twelve ships. That is a very serious matter. I suggest that this calculation must apply more or less to the whole of the British mercantile marine. It is certainly causing grave disquiet in the industry, and I hope also in the mind of His Majesty's Government.
  I would remind your Lordships that the shipping industry is in a different category from other industries. A manufacturing concern can renew its plant gradually and the unit of production remains, but a ship is obsolete in twenty or twenty-five years and must, of course, be replaced entirely. It is quite a different proposition from that of a manufacturing industry. I suggest that if our shipping industry is to be capable of trading successfully on the world's trade routes and of maintaining our most important invisible export, it must be capable of replacing its worn-out ships. I wonder how many people realise that there are already now in ser-vice some 2,000,000 tons of obsolete ships which should be replaced as soon as possible. I think it is true to say that at the present time there are some 100 berths in the smaller shipyards on which keels of merchant ships could be laid, but which are at present empty. This is causing unemployment, not only of craftsmen in the industry but of those workers and people in the factories and workshops who provide the fittings for the ships. It is true that the larger shipyards are fully employed in building large tankers for the carriage of oils, molasses and so on, but I can assure your Lordships that the smaller yards are badly in need of work and that very few passenger ships or tramp ships are being built at the present time.
  The question is, what relief can be given to the shipping industry to replace its worn-out tonnage? It is true that provision for a certain form of allowance for depreciation known as an initial allowance was introduced in the Income Tax Act of 1945. I would point out, however, that this additional allowance for depreciation really only brings forward the ordinary annual allowance, and the total allowance, therefore, is not increased. As against this initial allowance, the shipping industry suffers from what is known as a

  733
  balancing charge, which was also introduced, I think, in the Income Tax Act, 1945. This charge places a real burden on the shipping industry and has the effect of revising the total of the depreciation allowances given over the life of a ship. If a ship is sold for more than her written down value, the excess is taxed either in one sum at the current rate or, if the ship is replaced, then over the first twelve years of the life of the new ship.
  Of course, it may well be argued that before an owner decides to dispose of a ship he can calculate the consequences of such a sale and what his tax liability will be, but I would point out that the balancing charge applies not only to sales but equally to insurance recoveries on ships which are lost, and it is really a most important point. Replacement costs now run at something like three times the original figure and, of course, the owner is bound to base his insured value on the cost of replacement. It follows, therefore, that where a ship is lost, a large percent-age of the insurance recovery, which should all be invested in a new ship, is bound to be taken in taxation. Surely His Majesty's Government do not intend that taxation should have that effect? I should like to suggest to His Majesty's Government that they should seriously consider putting this situation right by abolishing the miserable balancing charge in respect of ships lost by either marine or war peril.
  I should now like to put forward certain suggestions to deal with the main factor of depreciation and replacement of old tonnage. I wish to suggest to His Majesty's Government that the undistributed profits in the industry should be permitted to be retained in order to build new ships, provided that if the money is not so spent the full tax will then become payable. In fact, there should be a formula of "Build or pay." I have little doubt that unless some relief of this nature is quickly given to this great industry, our mercantile fleet will decline in efficiency, a result which will, of course, have a great effect not only on our trade but on our measures of defence. It might be thought by some people that, in view of the somewhat high freights being realised at the present time, the shipping industry should be capable of carrying out the replacement of ships or worn out tonnage from profits. I should like for a
  734
  few moments to indicate to your Lord-ships what proportion of every pound of gross revenue goes to profit in a shipping business. In the case I have in mind, 8s. 10½d. from £1 of gross revenue is absorbed by wages, salaries, pensions, contributions to superannuation and State insurance; 3s. 10½d. by bunkers, stores, maintenance and other materials; 4s. 5½d. for marine and other insurance, port charges and general disbursements, and 1s. 2d. for normal depreciations. This leaves a net profit of 1s. 7½d. in the pound, of which 10½d. goes in taxation, 2d. in additional depreciation not allowed for in taxation, and 4d. in dividends, leaving 3d. in the pound to be retained in the business.
  LORD STRABOLGI: What class of ship is that?
  LORD TEYNHAM: That is a coastal ship. With this very slender margin of profit, there is obviously no room for the ever-recurring increases in the cost of wages, salaries and materials which, as your Lordships know, day by day are becoming a greater burden on the industry. What is most important is the re-placement of worn-out tonnage. The shipping industry is also considerably concerned at the unnecessary continuance of certain restrictions against the proper transaction of their business. I would refer to the restriction on the sale of obsolete tonnage to foreign buyers, which was introduced for war-time purposes. This restriction is still in operation, and the owner is allowed to sell to overseas buyers only ships which are fifteen years of age and over. Permission to sell below that age is restricted to owners who are prepared to put the proceeds of the sale into a blocked account from which they can draw only for the purpose of replacement by way of new building or for meeting the cost of modernising existing vessels. I would suggest that, now that the losses sustained during the war have been re-placed, the shipping industry should be allowed to manage its own business, and that this restriction, which certainly is having no beneficial effect on the industry at the present time, should be removed. In fact, it has had an adverse effect on the shipping industry curing the last few years.
  I should like now to draw your Lord-ships' attention for a few moments to the

  735
  competition of German shipping in the short sea trades, which has been giving rise to concern in the industry. It would seem that German shipowners, both as regards operating and as regards building, are in receipt of financial assistance of one kind or another which they can set against their operating losses. In fact, in one short sea trade the German lines are in-creasing their sailings far beyond requirements. One line is advertising two sailings per week, and another one sailing every five days, whereas according to the know-ledge of the competing British lines the cargoes scarcely justify one sailing per week. I suggest that German shipowners are perhaps unwisely dissipating part of their resources to the detriment of British shipping, and in a manner contrary to the spirit of the Washington Agreement. Your Lordships will recall that under the terms of that Agreement, signed by the United States, this country and France, Germany was allowed to build merchant vessels for coastal trade adequate for the requirements of European and German recovery. They have already 60 per cent. of the total tonnage which they had in 1939. I fully realise, and I am sure all your Lordships realise, the necessity for the rehabilitation of Germany and her short sea trade, but I would suggest to His Majesty's Government that there seems to be a case for reviewing the development and activities of German ship-ping in relation to funds which are being made available to that country. I am sure it was never intended that German ships should be put in an advantageous competitive position with British tonnage or, in fact, with ships of any other flag.
  There is one other matter with which I should like to deal for a few moments, and that is, the demand from various quarters for additional shipping services in the Caribbean area and Bermuda. There have been many complaints that not only the passenger service but also the cargo capacity is inadequate, and that if this country does not take the initiative the trade will fall into the hand of a foreign flag. There is, of course, a great deal of truth in those complaints. I would remind your Lordships of the report on the West Indian shipping services published in 1948 by the Commonwealth Shipping Committee. That report recommends that a passenger service shall be provided between the United Kingdom and the
  736
  Eastern Caribbean, the ships to have accommodation for sixty to seventy-five persons and a speed of not less than six-teen to seventeen knots. It was further suggested that that passenger service might be provided in conjunction with provision for the carriage of fruit from that area. In making that recommendation, the Committee drew attention to the high cost of the tonnage required and to the possibility that special measures of assistance in the early stages might be necessary to encourage the shipowners to provide such a service. In fact, an examination of the evidence given to the Committee by shipowners with special know-ledge of the trade shows that to build and operate the suggested service would not be an economic proposition, and Government assistance of some kind or another would undoubtedly be necessary. I would add that trade between this country and the West Indies is not alone in that respect. I hope His Majesty's Government will look into the question at an early moment, before the trade has been wrested from us and is being carried in foreign bottoms.
  I have endeavoured to cover various matters which are disturbing the shipping industry. On the one hand, His Majesty's Government urge the industry to keep up a steady flow of orders for the shipyards, at the same time denying the industry the funds to be able to do so. I maintain that it is essential, especially at the present time, to put before the country the position of the shipping industry in the clearest possible terms, and to leave no doubt in the minds of anyone that the Government is seriously disturbed at the prospect of diminishing fleets, of the con-sequent diminishing revenue from in-visible exports, and what is more import-ant at the present time, of a probable contraction and weakening of our life-line of defence. I hope that His Majesty's Government will give the whole matter early and serious consideration. I beg to move for Papers.
  3.40 p.m.
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, first on bringing up a matter of such wide importance, and, secondly, on the very clear presentation of what, I feel, is a very good case. All taxation, of course, is bad, and any taxes that we ourselves have to pay are penal. In this particular

  737
  case of depreciation, with which the ship-owners are concerned, I think the complaint is justified. The noble Lord is very optimistic if he thinks he will elicit any information from the Government spokesman in your Lordships' House, be-cause I am afraid that the reply will be— and it could not be otherwise—that this would be anticipating the Budget. All I can hope is that, before the Budget is completed and ready for presentation in another place, this matter will be amended.
  I should like to support what Lord Teynham has said on that particular point, especially with regard to the amount of depreciation for replacements. I hope that the noble Lord was exaggerating, inadvertently, because he rather surprised me by speaking of the number of idle shipyards that could be building smaller ships on smaller building slips. I under-stand that there is a tremendous boom at the present time in the price of ships all over the world—an astonishing and, in fact, unhealthy boom, which will bring its Nemesis, as most of these booms do. I wonder whether the idleness of building slips for smaller vessels is due to steel shortage, because there is a tremendous boom in steel as well, and a very hard sellers' market. It may be that that is hampering the use of the smaller ship-yards. But if what Lord Teynham has said is not an exaggeration, I hope that the Government will take steps to see that these smaller shipyards are employed. With regard to the noble Lord's remarks about the importance of the mercantile marine, we must all agree with him that its strategic importance cannot be exaggerated. Without a strong mercantile marine we have no chance whatever of surviving in case of war. That is common ground to all of us.
  Secondly, of course, shipping is a very important invisible export and a great earner of hard currency, and anything that can be done by any Government to see that the British mercantile marine is prosperous and flourishing should be done. Whatever Party are in power, they have a paramount duty to see that the shipping industry is prosperous and growing. In that respect I join issue with the noble Lord on the very great things that have been done in making good the ravages of the Second World War. He did not quote the actual figures, but if your Lordships will forgive me I will
  738
  quote them now. For this purpose I take the whole Commonwealth together. In 1939, the British Commonwealth shipping totalled, in round figures, 18,608,000 tons. By the end of 1947 (these are the latest figures I have) the total was a little over that—namely, 18,611,000 tons. That shows that the industry is stable and back to its pre-war tonnage, and as a great many of these ships are, of course, new and faster than those in use before, the situation reflects great credit on the industry.
  LORD HAWKE: If I may be forgiven for interrupting the noble Lord, is not the noble Lord confusing what are now virtually two different industries, the tanker and non-tanker fleets? The tanker strength has increased and the other has not.
  LORD STRABOLCI: I have with me the figures, broken down. The figures cover the whole of the ocean-going tonnage, leaving out tugs, fishing vessels, small coastal craft and so on. This is the deep sea-going mercantile marine taken as a whole.
  The position in the United States is very remarkable. That matter was not referred to by Lord Teynham, but it creates an extraordinary situation. In the United States there has been a fourfold increase since 1939. In that year the United States tonnage, again in round figures, was 8,722,000, and it is now no less than 33,213,000. Those figures are largely accounted for by the tremendous building of Liberty ships and war-time cargo vessels, but there is a fourfold increase. Another point worth noticing is that, whereas the British Common-wealth mercantile marine deep sea-going shipping tonnage is a little above the pre-war strength, the world total has grown by 14,000,000 tons or thereabouts. Before the Second World War the world total was 61,426,000 tons; at the end of 1947 it was 75,291,000 tons. The remarkable thing is that, in spite of this extra 14,000,000 tons of shipping available for the trading nations, and in spite of the fact that there is a great deal of restriction on trade at the present time—as I think, un-necessary and foolish restriction—freights are rising all over the world, and the price of old and new ships is going up. If we carry out anything like the Colombo Conference programme, if we develop the Asiatic areas economically and increase

  739
  their trade and improve them as markets, and if we get rid of these absurd restrictions on trade with various parts of the world, then the existing shipping will not be enough to carry the trade which will present itself. In such circumstances, I presume that the boom in shipping will go on for some three, four or five years, at least.
  When the shipping available has caught up with the needs and demands of freight, however, then, as always happens in the shipbuilding industry, which depends only on one customer, the shipowner, we shall face the inevitable slump. I think it is very much the duty of any Government in office at the present time—I know this matter is very much in the mind of my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, and I dare say of my noble friend his Parliamentary Secretary—to see that there is a programme thought out ahead to cushion the impact of this slump, and to prevent a repetition of what happened in the 'thirties in this country, when we had a terrible slump, with consequent unemployment and the closing down of the Jarrow shipyard, and all the other horrible things that happened. That ought not to be allowed to happen again. But unless plans are made in advance, I am afraid that, when the present boom in shipbuilding comes to an end, that is just what will happen.
  Of course, one remedy put forward is the nationalisation of the shipbuilding, ship-repairing and marine engineering industries. I must confess that in my view there is a very strong case for that action; but there is no case for the nationalisation of the shipping industry. I think my view on that matter is shared by nearly all my colleagues in the Labour Party. It has never been our programme, at any rate in the last decade, to nationalise the shipping industry. It has to be flexible. It has to be of a nature to catch markets, and that sort of thing, and it can be done successfully only by private people who are in the business for private profits. Therefore I think the case for nationalising the shipping industry goes by default. But there is certainly a case for nationalising the shipbuilding, ship-repairing and marine engineering industries, so as to prevent a recurrence of the appalling events which happened in 1930.
  I said just now that any Government should do what they can to help the
  740
  British shipping industry, and that, of course, is the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. There are two obvious ways in which the industry can be helped to-day, apart from a policy which should aim at breaking down trade barriers, lifting blockades and so on, instead of in-creasing them. One is by tempering the wind to the shorn lamb in the matter of taxation, which we have had very ably explained by Lord Teynham, and on which again I support him; and the other way is by improving the harbour facilities round our coasts. A great deal has been done to our deep-water harbours in recent years by way of improvement, but a great deal remains to be done. The loading facilities in very many of the more important harbours are not completely modern, and many of the other requirements have not yet been supplied. Of course, this is a matter of capital, labour, and materials. Under the Trans-port Act of 1947 the duty of supplying these requirements is laid on the British Transport Commission. I am not criticising that body or complaining. A great deal has been done, but a great deal remains to be done. Improving and, there-fore, cheapening our harbour transport facilities will do a great deal to maintain the prosperity of our shipping industry and will benefit the whole country.
  Nothing has been said so far in this debate about the men who man British ships. I must say a word or two about them. Your Lordships, especially those of you who know something about sailors, will not be surprised to hear that they have grievances—grievances about pay, about working hours, about all sorts of administrative matters, about leave and so on. I had intended to lay those grievances briefly before your Lordships, and I had so warned my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who, I believe, will reply to this debate, but my advisers tell me that a meeting of the Joint Maritime Board is to be held in about two days' time, when some of the more important of these grievances are coming up for adjudication. The work of the Joint Maritime Board has been an extraordinary development and it has proved extremely successful. It has brought peace in the industry, and has led, by negotiation, to a great improvement in the lot of British

  741
  seafarers. When one remembers the kind of people with whom the unions have to negotiate, the British shipowners, of whom it may be said, without any reflection upon them, that they are amongst the hardest bargainers in the world— some people would say they are the hardest-hearted, certainly they are the hardest-headed of business men—I think the working of the Board has been a remarkable example of what can be accomplished by good leadership on both sides and by careful negotiation. Not only has that brought peace to the ship-ping industry, to a very large extent, but it has also vastly improved the conditions of life aboard ship—especially aboard the newer vessels—for our British seamen. As a consequence, we are now attracting a very fine type of young lad to the sea service. That is all to the good.
  For the reasons which I have given, I do not propose to go into details of the grievances of seamen, I only ask my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth to note that they do exist and that some of the complaints are very well founded: and I am sure he will agree with me in hoping that the Joint Maritime Board will remedy them. I dare say there will have to be give and take, but I hope that the main claims of the men will be met. One thing which is being asked for is an improvement in wages. I do not think anyone can quarrel with that. Seamen have felt the results of the depreciation of the pound because, naturally, they have to spend a certain amount of their money abroad; perhaps they spend more abroad than most ordinary citizens. Their families have also had to suffer, like everybody else, from the general increase in the cost of living. I believe that their demands are not unreasonable, and I hope that they will be fairly met. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, for bringing forward this Motion. It was time that the shipping industry was again brought to the notice of your Lordships. I am certain that Lord Teynham speaks for all of us, and I echo what he has said to the effect that no subject is of more importance to the national well-being, and that the shipping industry requires the constant care and assistance, where it can be given, of any Government holding His Majesty's Commission.
  3.54 p.m.
  VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN: My Lords, my interest in this subject, which I must declare to your Lordships, is that I am and have been for many years actively engaged in owning and managing ships. I should like to join with Lord Strabolgi in thanking Lord Teynham, both for bringing forward the Motion and for the terms in which he has done so. I think that perhaps one of the most noteworthy features of the shipping situation to-day, not only in this country but in the world, is that in spite of the remarkable replacement of war losses, to which noble Lords have referred, there are not at this moment enough ships to go round. If, as is undoubtedly the case, freight rates are rising, it is because the demand for tonnage exceeds the supply. That is due to a number of factors, and that situation did not, I think, exist even so recently as the summer of this year.
  As your Lordships well know, the conflict in Korea has resulted in a great deal of stockpiling of raw materials and the like, most of which have had to be carried over very long distances by sea. One result, at any rate, has been that tonnage which earlier in the year was concentrated on one or two routes has now become extremely widely distributed. When, there-fore, as happened on November 21, His Majesty's Government found it necessary to go into the market to charter tonnage to convey a large quantity of coal—mostly I understand from the Eastern seaboard of the United States—to this country, they went into it at a time when the majority of the world's tonnage (for this is a world question, as much as a British question) was actively engaged in carrying cargoes between places, most of which were very distant from the places at which an immediate concentration of tonnage was required.
  It is therefore fairly obvious that if the tonnage required is to be obtained, considerable expense will be involved. You cannot face with equanimity an under-taking like a ballast passage across the North Atlantic in winter, if you are a ship-owner or a seaman. At best it is extremely uncomfortable, and at worst it is positively dangerous. Since cargoes to the United States are already for the most part catered for, it is clear that a great deal of tonnage will have to be induced to go long distances entirely in ballast in

  743
  order to bring back coal to this country. Not only that, but the time when His Majesty's Government have come into the market has coincided almost precisely with the time when several other European Governments have done the same thing.
  There appears at the present time to be something like a coal shortage through-out Western Europe. My information is that between November 21 and to-day, His Majesty's Government have chartered tonnage to carry about 123,000 tons of coal. They have taken nineteen ships, of which, incidentally, only nine were British. Belgium has come into the market at the same time for no less than 176,000 tons of coal. The Italians are in the market to the tune of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 55,000 tons. The Italians, it is suggested, had intended to obtain their coal requirements from Poland, but I understand that although contracts were entered into and shipping was arranged it was found when it came to the point that Polish coal had gone elsewhere. No doubt your Lordships will readily be able to imagine in what direction it has gone.
  If His Majesty's Government had happened to go into the market about a fortnight earlier, they would have been able to get their tonnage, or at any rate a proportion of it, before this world demand developed. It is most unfortunate that they should have come forward at just the time when so many other nations were doing the same thing. Shipping, and particularly tramp shipping—which, of course, is concerned with the carrying of cargoes of this sort—works on a world market which is surprisingly free from restrictions and which responds extremely quickly to changes in demand.
  At the present moment there is no great supply or source of supply other than the reserve merchant fleet of the United States, which in June of this year—that is to say, before the Korean war developed —amounted to as much as 15,500,000 gross tons, a very formidable reserve. In certain circumstances which we all hope will not come to pass, we should have reason to be extremely thankful for this reserve. We also have to thank the United States for enabling war losses to be made good, for a great deal of this making good was possible only by the
  744
  enormous output of the United States shipyards. I hope that nobody in this country will ever forget the debt we owe to the United States on this account.
  There may be 15,500,000 tons of ship-ping in reserve in the United States, all nicely wrapped up in cellophane, but it is quite a different business to produce these ships on the market for the purpose of relieving a temporary shortage. It would be difficult to man them if they were brought out and came suddenly into the market, whether by the British Government or by anybody else. We cannot expect to find, in a part of the world which has largely been denuded of ton-nage, the ships necessary, and immediately necessary, for this purpose, without paying for the cost of getting them there. It is not altogether fair to suggest, as has been done in some quarters, though certainly not in your Lordships' House this afternoon, that this is a golden opportunity for shipowners, and particularly British shipowners, to "cash in." Taking even a short-term view, the inconvenience of it to the most grasping shipowner very considerably outweighs the advantages. The inconvenience to the world at large must necessarily be very considerable, because if we take tonnage from a market which has by no means too much and apply it to particular purposes, all other countries will have to pay more for the satisfaction of their needs. That is the situation, and clearly there is not very much which can be done about it.
  I would support in the strongest possible terms the conclusion arrived at by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, that if these problems are to be resolved, they can be resolved only by ensuring that the British mercantile marine, so far from declining—and I fear I am able to show that it is declining—should be increasing. Anything which makes it more difficult to replace our tonnage, or which makes the replacement slower, can only be against the short-term, and even the long-term, interests of this country. Reference has already been made to the comparatively venerable age of a large proportion of the British mercantile marine. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, was right in making a distinction between tankers and other ships. Tankers, if I may so express it, are the "C" licence vessels of the great oil interests of the world. They are not available for anything except their own

  745
  job. One cannot charter a tanker and fill her up with coal to be brought to this country. That is elementary common sense. It is probably true to say that the oil companies are perfectly capable of looking after their own interests in making sure that they have a sufficient supply of tankers.
  If we lake the dry cargo tonnage of this country, nearly one quarter is over twenty years old, which is normally regarded as the effective life span of a ship, and nearly one-seventh is over twenty-five years of age. It is clear, there-fore, that in order to maintain the British fleet at all, let alone to maintain it in a condition of real efficiency, a very large replacement programme will have to be undertaken soon, and will have to continue for some time. This makes me rather doubtful whether we should be apprehensive of the slump in shipbuilding which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, fears. Of course, there are changes in fashion and demand in shipbuilding, and from time to time there well may be yards which do not happen to be equipped to build the particular type of tonnage for which there is a demand. But I think it is unlikely, at any rate for some years to come, that we shall see anything approaching the slump in shipbuilding which we saw from time to time between the wars.
  I do not want to go over again the arguments, which have been admirably advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, about the difficulty of finding money to replace ships at the present time. I would say merely this: since 1946 the cost of building ships has been going up pretty steadily, at the rate of about 1 per cent. per month; it shows no sign whatever of easing off. There is no point in blaming the shipbuilders for that rise. It is a matter largely out-side their own control. When all prices are rising, it would be quite unreasonable to expect shipbuilding prices to stay stationary. Nevertheless, it means that if a shipowner is to put by money to-day to purchase a ship, he will have to put by a great deal more money if he is to have enough to pay for the ship in a couple of years' time, which is about the soonest he will get delivery if he goes to one of the ordinary yards. That seems to me to be a strong reinforcement of the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham.
  746
  But, of course, it is not enough to have ships. As the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said, it is extremely important to be able to use them to the best advantage. Anything which hampers the effective improvement of shipping is a disadvantage at this time, not only to this country, which is likely to be one of the chief sufferers because so much of our trade is with foreign parts, but also to the world at large. Since the war, as there was after the First World War, there has been a considerable increase in the practice of what is known as flag discrimination— that is, treating a vessel of one's own nationality more favourably than vessels of other nationalities. I do not wish to weary your Lordships by recounting the variety and ingenuity of the methods by which this is done. It is not merely a matter of seeing that a ship of one's own nationality gets into a berth first, or even of so arranging matters that she pays lower dock dues. There is the making of trade agreements which provide that cargoes moving between one country and the other shall be carried only in the ships of one or other of them. There is the converting of the foreign exchange controls, necessary for very proper purposes, into an instrument for ensuring that cargoes are diverted to ships of a particular nationality. The same is true of insurance. A number of things of that sort are going on, and until recently they had shown considerable signs of increasing.
  One of them, which I mention with some hesitation in your Lordships' House, has been the rule by which half of Marshall Aid cargoes were carried to Europe in American bottoms, even though there was tonnage of the receiving country available and willing to carry them. It has been said, and rightly said, that if one is receiving a. gift, one should not be unduly critical of the manner in which it arrives. But I have been interested to see a recent report to President Truman by his economic adviser which suggests that the Americans them-selves are recognising that if they enforce that rule they are not only giving a concealed subsidy to American shipowners, which may well be considered desirable by some, but they are also making sure that the tonnage available to the world at large—and more particularly to the

  747
  Atlantic Powers—is less efficiently employed than it otherwise would be.
  That is the real argument, and the fundamental argument, against measures of flag discrimination. They are liable to hurt this country perhaps more than many others, for, as your Lordships probably know, one-seventh of the freights earned by British shipping are earned on voyages which do not touch a port of the British Commonwealth at either end. They are probably as pure a kind of invisible export as one could imagine, and they are obviously particularly vulnerable to attack of this character. I do not think there is a great deal that any British Government can do about it, except to make themselves as unpleasant as possible, in whatever ways are open to them, to countries which persist in this, what I may call, extremely anti-social way of acting.
  What it comes to in the end, so far as the future of British shipping is concerned, is this. British shipping, and particularly British dry cargo shipping, represents a smaller proportion of world shipping now than it was before the war. There are signs that relatively it may be diminishing even further. It is practically certain that, unless a great many new ships can be built in this country within the next ten years, the size of the British mercantile marine will be very noticeably and drastically reduced. It is equally certain that it is becoming increasingly expensive to build those ships. I think it is only fair to say, however, that if the British shipping companies which earn the freights are permitted to spend money on improving, modernising and enlarging the fleets, and so enabling more freights and more foreign exchange to be earned, the industry will be capable in the future, as it has been in the past, of overcoming that particular difficulty. Given a fair run the British mercantile marine has not found itself unable to carry on on its own in the past, and I see no reason at all to suppose that, given always a fair run, and competition on equal terms, it will not be able to do so in the future.
  4.15 p.m.
  LORD RENNELL: My Lords, arising out of the speeches which noble Lords have made, there are one or two points that I should like to take up, really by way of emphasis. The first is that of the replacing of tonnage out of depreciation allowances. It is completely impossible
  748
  to-day for any shipowner to replace obsolete shipping from the depreciation allowances granted. It is comparatively easy to see why that is so. The standard charge for depreciation on ordinary ships is now 6¼ per cent.; that is the allowance which the Revenue make. It was raised from 5 per cent. An allowance of 5 per cent. presupposes for a ship a useful and economic life of twenty years. As a matter of fact, that to-day is optimistic, since experience has shown that ships be-come not only obsolete by becoming worn out but economically obsolete by being no longer suited to the trades in which they are engaged. I think the noble Lord, Lord Runciman, pointed out that there is to-day an increasing tendency to build ships for special purposes and not to have a standard ship which, in theory, is able to serve in any part of the world and do almost anything. The latter is to-day an obsolete type of ship which can no longer really earn its living, and probably cannot earn its depreciation.
  But even supposing that a ship can be used for general purposes, where the allowance is of the order of only 5 per cent. (recently increased by one-quarter to 6¼ per cent.) it is to-day manifestly impossible for any shipowner to replace that ship within its reputed life of twenty years. The reason is perfectly clear. Take the simple arithmetical example (I do not pretend to actuarial accuracy or anything like that) of a shipowner who has twenty ships and who has bought them over a period of years. He has so laid out his programme that he requires one ship a year to replace his ships on an average life of twenty years. The cost of ship-building, however, in the twenty years' span of the life of that fleet, has risen by something between four and five times. An ordinary tramp steamer of a standard type which twenty-five years ago cost £100,000 to build to-day could be re-placed only at a cost of something of the order of £500,000. That means that the average allowance made for the replacement of a fleet during the life of the fleet is substantially below the replacement value of any one of the ships. Moreover, if the depreciation provision for those ships was at 5 per cent. in the early part of their lives (as it was before the allowance was raised to 6¼ per cent.) it is fairly clear, from a simple mathematical calculation, that the amount of accumulated depreciation to-day on the older ships in

  749
  such a fleet would provide only between one-quarter and one-half, but no more, towards the replacement of the ships at modern building costs.
  What follows from that is particularly serious. It means that capital investment in shipping is a disappearing asset, and the company that wishes to continue in shipping has all the time to raise new capital to replace its working outlays. That is the real difficulty with which all shipping is faced, and that is why, at the present moment, with the rates of taxation pertaining to ships, there is little incentive to shipowners to increase the size of their fleets, and probably scarcely enough incentive to keep the size of their fleets constant. Experience furthermore has shown that while these considerations apply to ordinary ships they apply even more strongly to tanker shipping. The life of tanker shipping is, effectively and economically, certainly not twenty years, and the large oil companies and people that specialise in tanker shipping to-day are in point of fact tending to write off the value of their tanker tonnage in seven years. Probably the effective life of a tanker is something like ten to twelve years for a tanker taking mixed cargoes; but a conservative estimate is for its depreciation in about seven years. It follows that if the ship lasts beyond the seven years, having benefited from carrying only non-corrosive cargoes or cargoes that do not damage or depreciate it, there is a great deal of money in it, but little money in a new tanker.
  While on the subject of tankers I would refer to a point that was made by the noble Lord. Lord Runciman—and I think it was really implied in what Lord Strabolgi said, too—that without the merchant fleet and without tanker tonnage the Royal Navy cannot go to sea and cannot stay at sea. That is quite apart from the consequences that would arise to our-selves in the event of a blockade. Your Lordships will be aware that during the last war we enjoyed the benefit of a substantial amount of foreign tonnage, notably, in the case of tankers, Norwegian tonnage. The Norwegians to-day have built a very large tanker fleet, I believe very much larger (I cannot quote the figures, and they are, I think, not relevant) than they ever had before the war. A great many of those ships are in the ser-vice of the Western Atlantic Powers; they
  750
  are in American, British and French ser-vice. As a matter of fact, it was a great piece of luck—and it was due to the. loyal and noble attitude taken by the Norwegian shipowners—that at the beginning of the last war we had the pick of the Norwegian ships. It is by no means certain that in similar circumstances in future we should again be able to get hold of them. Without those ships to-day we certainly cannot carry the oil cargoes which this country needs, let alone go to war.
  A great many of these tankers, more-over, have been built in this country to Norwegian order. It seems to me a short-sighted policy, from the strategic point of view, that we should have built for foreign owners a large amount of tonnage which we had no guarantee of being able to use to our benefit in a time of emergency. I trust that, in future, whatever steps can be taken will be taken by the Government to ensure that what tanker tonnage is built is built for British use. and remains under our control. I say that without in any way wishing to criticise or disparage the efforts of the Norwegians in this or any other trade. They have been very good friends of ours, and I am sure they will continue to remain so. But there are circumstance; of force majeure in which we might not find them able, however willing they may be, to co-operate with us as they have done in the past. That makes our own position, so far as tanker tonnage is concerned, even more precarious than has already been indicated by noble Lords who have preceded me in this debate.
  There are two other points to which I should like to refer, not on the financial or administrative aspect but more from the geographical point of view. One of the most astounding situations in which we find ourselves to-day is that a very large group of British Colonies in the West Indies are served mainly by foreign shipping, because there is no British shipping sold. Whatever the reasons for this may have been in the past—and undoubtedly the difficult economic and financial situation of the West Indies had a great deal to do with it—the fact of the matter is that to-day, if you want to get out to the West Indies as a passenger, and do not desire to fly, or if you want to send cargo out to the West Indies or bring cargo back, the chances are that you will

  751
  have to use a Dutch, French or an American ship. Quite apart from the sentimental aspect of having British shipping running to British ports and Colonies, that situation is one which redounds to our great disadvantage from more than one point of view. Shipping is one of our great invisible exports. We ought to be able to earn our own freights, to carry our own cargoes from our own Colonies to the United Kingdom and vice versa, and not have to pay, as in the case when we use American ships, hard dollar freights to carry our cargoes from our Colonies.
  But there is what I believe to be another and even more serious aspect. Shipping not only earns invisible exports, as they are called, but itself creates in-visible exports, in the form of earnings in insurance, in agency fees, in banking fees and commissions and in exchange. Experience has shown that where a British cargo line calls, there follow all these accessory earning elements, such as insurance, agency fees, and so on, which in the long run are probably nearly as remunerative as the shipping freights themselves. On the other hand, where the freights are carried in foreign bottoms, these other elements tend to go—though I do not say entirely—to foreign markets. Quite obviously, in the case of an American shipping line there is a bias for the agency—probably an American agency of that shipping line—to seek to place the insurance in the American market, and to transact the business arising out of the shipment of those cargoes through American banks. It seems to me, therefore, that so far as the West Indies are concerned—and, after all, they cover these very large and important British territories for which we are trying, not unsuccessfully, to do some-thing, from the point of view of what I think has been called "enlightened self-interest"—we should try to earn as much as we can while helping these Colonies by providing them with shipping and the services that arise therefrom.
  The situation in the West Indies in that respect is much more serious to-day than it has been before. One of the great sources of shipping earnings in the tramp world has been charter freights for carrying bauxite from British Guiana for what might be called the international
  752
  aluminium organisation—the Aluminium Company of America, with its varied related concerns in Norway, Canada, Labrador and so on. I understand that in this bauxite trade approximately fifty ships a year have been chartered, a great many of which are typically British tramp shipping units. If my information is correct, the aluminium group now intends to put a large number of its own ships in this service, which will not only deprive us of these bulk freights but will take the situation into an even more serious sphere. Ships that were carrying bauxite, for instance, from British Guiana to Norway, were for the most part returning empty, or picking up whatever freights they could west-bound from Europe. It is the intention to use these new ships, which are to be built for this bauxite traffic, to cater and compete for such west-bound cargoes, which are already few and far between and are avidly sought by British shipowners. The new element is therefore coming even into the Caribbean, and looks as if it will have a serious effect on what little shipping we have got there.
  To some extent the same considerations apply to the Pacific, where to-day, as your Lordships know, there are practically no British line ships trading. I should say (the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, will correct me if I am wrong) that half a dozen is about the top figure, and it is probably rather less than that. When I say "British line ships," I include British Commonwealth ships, too, because unfortunately the great British ships that used to run from Vancouver across the Pacific to Japan and the Far East are no longer running. It is not possible to get on a British ship from the West coast of America to what we call the Far East, though I suppose to them it is the Far West. Unless he is either lucky or far-sighted, it is practically impossible for a passenger to get from this country to New Zealand on a British line. It seems peculiar, but I believe it is a fact, that when one has dropped as entirely out of a trade as we have out of the West Indies and the Pacific trade, it is not easy to get back without some form of Government assistance.
  Lest the noble Lord thinks that he has a point which he can charge up against me, I hasten to say that I have not yet met a British shipowner—although I dare say such people exist—who has the

  753
  slightest desire to have sufficient contact with His Majesty's Government, either the present or any other Government, as would be involved by receiving a subsidy from them. But it is also probable that there are certain types of shipping which to-day will require a subsidy if they are to get started again. That is notably true, I believe, in the Caribbean inter-island shipping, without which it is not possible in its turn, as I understand it, to run direct cargo or mixed cargo liners from this country. It is not economically possible to have a fast and extensive mixed ship, calling at a sufficient number of ports in the West Indies and getting back here, and the only basis upon which a direct British-West Indies line could be organised, or reorganised, would be to run it on a mixed direct service, with feeder lines on inter-island services. It is probable, as I understand it, that in those inter-island services some Government assistance will be required, for the sake alone of the British Colonies, quite apart from the effect of the present situation on British shipping. As your Lordships know, unless you are prepared to travel either in foreign ships or foreign aircraft, it is practically impossible to move from one British West Indian island to another.
  Those points seem to me to suggest that rather wider consideration must be given to British merchant shipping. If I may recapitulate, shipowners should be enabled to replace tonnage by a scaling up of their depreciation allowances under the Inland Revenue provisions. May I say here that the additional initial allowance is of no value whatsoever for that purpose? It may provide finance to build a new ship. The initial allowance applies to ships and machinery, and to any other plant, but it is no remedy to taxation; it is. as it were, only an anticipation of the depreciation allowance. I believe that a review of depreciation allowances on shipping is long overdue. Secondly, some decision on this question of Caribbean shipping in particular, and Pacific shipping in general, is essential. May I here add that, so far as Caribbean shipping is concerned, I understand that the matter has been discussed between various Government Departments and shipowners for three years, without any conclusion having been reached on the subject. I submit that it is time a decision on the subject was reached.
  4.33 p.m.
  LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I shall not take up your Lordships' time for more than a short period. I have just returned from East Africa and have brought with me many vivid memories and, what is almost equally inevitable, an extremely bad cold. I think we are all indebted to my noble friend Lord Teynham for raising this debate, and for his points, which have been put with such clarity and such force that I do not need to labour them all again. I must preface my few remarks by the customary declaration of interest—that I am a director of a shipping company. I was much impressed by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, when he said that without a strong mercantile marine we have no chance of survival in the event of war. That is an unchallengeable truth with which both sides of the House will agree. He went on a little later—and I could not. follow him in this—to say that a case existed for he nationalisation of shipbuilding, ship repairing and engineering.
  LORD STRABOLGI: Marine engineering.
  LORD TWEEDSMUIR: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I should be more in a position to pass comment on that case had the noble Lord had time to develop it further, but I will not go further with that. In this country we have always depended upon our merchant shipping, and if our merchant shipping were to dwindle in size and importance, so the discharge of our responsibilities in the Empire would be correspondingly preju-diced. To my mind, that will go on being the case to whatever extent the use of air travel is enlarged in the foreseeable future. We have always done a very large part of the world's shipping. We have never had a monopoly, and we are not asking for one now, but we are facing great difficulties. It is for that reason that the burden of the speeches to-day on both sides of the House has been that His Majesty's Government must exert all their authority in the foreign sphere to extend free and fair competition in the international carriage of goods, and, secondly, to allow British shipping to compete on equal terms with the foreigner by removing those handicaps to its recovery from the effects of war.

  755
  As my noble friend Lord Teynham said with such eloquence in his opening speech, we should allow sufficient funds to be available to enable the shipowner to rebuild that which has become obsolete or that which is destroyed. The aftermath of war cut a good deal deeper into our shipping than I think most of the public in this country realise. Something like 50 per cent. of our liner tonnage went, together with something like 75 per cent. of our tramp tonnage. Repair, re-placement and rebuilding have now brought us to round about our pre-war figure—but what a difference! Let no one imagine that we have restored the pre-war position by restoring merely an approximation of tonnage figures, because a great many of these vessels were war-time built and they are extremely un-economic in peace. Also, ships built for one purpose are not readily usable for another. Something like a quarter of our liner tonnage is over twenty years old, as my noble friend Lord Runciman said, and so is one-fifth of our tramp tonnage. This means endless and expensive re-fitting, which can mean spending £100,000 on a cargo vessel, or £500,000 on a moderate-sized passenger ship.
  This aftermath left a very strange alignment of the mercantile fleets of the world. In the Commonwealth, Canada ended the war with four times the ship-ping she had before. The rest of the Commonwealth as a whole has just about its pre-war tonnage. Great Britain, along with Russia, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Holland, France, Belgium and Spain has rather more than half the world's ship-ping, and those other countries are with-in about 100,000 tons of what they had before war broke out. It is true that Greece is 500,000 tons down, while Sweden is 500,000 tons up, but the advance of tonnage in the United States, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said, is considerable. Brazil's fleet is up by one half, Portugal's fleet is double, Argentine's treble, and Panama's quadruple. Also, Germany and Japan are gradually building up their fleets again. My noble friend Lord Teynham said that it was far from his idea to handicap the recovery of these countries, but some review might well be undertaken as to the funds being devoted to this particular phase of Germany's recovery.
  Now the climate in which we operate has engaged the attention of some noble
  756
  Lords who have spoken to-day. Flag discrimination, as my noble friend Lord Runciman said, is on the increase. The trouble with flag discrimination is that it sometimes tempts others to retaliate. He did not give many examples of this deplorable trend, and I will give only one or two. Chile, for instance, insists that cargoes are carried in the ships of the nations who are contracting parties to a bargain, and if such tonnage is not available, those cargoes must be carried in what they call American vessels—a curious projection of the Monroe Doc-trine. The noble Lord, Lord Runciman, said that 50 per cent. of Marshall Aid cargoes from the United States had to go in American bottoms. More than that, 50 per cent. of the United States imports for stockpiling are similarly restricted. The age-old position of the international carriage of goods is being steadily under-mined, and in the climate in which we operate our ships to-day we are up against a great many other things. A great many building subsidies are granted by our foreign competitors, and the losses on nationalised shipping run into very large amounts of subsidies in some of these countries.
  Some have other ways of discriminating. It is very hard to get a berth from the port of Beira these days unless your ship is flying the flag of that country. As far as port and harbour dues go, preference is given to their nationals by the Argen-tine, Brazil and Colombia. Thus, the British shipper of 1950 has to compete with the legacy of the destruction of our vessels in two World Wars, the burden of penal taxation at home, and the competition of foreign shipping buttressed by subsidies, tax remissions. State loans, currency restrictions, and open flag discrimination. It is not an even battle.
  I will not go at any great length into what has been so ably discussed before, such as the question of allowing to the shipping companies sufficient of their funds free of taxation to rebuild and re-place their fleets. For as long as 10s. in every pound is going in the direction in which it is going now, it is very hard for them to keep up in this race. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, mentioned the ship-sales ban by which an owner cannot sell old ships, while there is no ban on the sale of new ones. And, of course, in these days, when it is so essential to replenish our merchant fleet, the cost of replacing ships has become very much higher. As

  757
  the noble Lord, Lord Runciman, said, it advances all the time. My noble friend Lord Rennell has spoken on the important point of tanker tonnage, and the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has spoken on the short sea trade, and both with great detail and great eloquence about the position in the British West Indies which, so far as British shipping goes, is more or less a void. When I was a little younger I once sailed before the mast for one brief trip. I remember a very didactic old seaman saying to me: "It is not the ships; it is the men in them." As a matter of fact, it is both. The quality of one is no good without the quality of the other. Our seamen are superb, but our shipping position is deteriorating fairly rapidly. I am sure that His Majesty's Government must be well aware of the seriousness of these matters and will be able to see exactly how much more serious they will be if this trend is allowed to continue for another ten years or so. My noble friends have made their points with great care. I will not try to elaborate them further, but I trust the Government will give sympathetic attention to what has been said to-day, and that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, when he rises to reply, will find himself able to shed some ray of hope on the position.
  4.45 p.m.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRE-TARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH): My Lords, when I first saw on the Paper a short time ago the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, I congratulated myself that it would fall to my lot to reply to the debate, because I rather pictured myself going hand in hand with the noble Lord down a rose-strewn path with a pæan of praise and congratulation. But I have listened to nothing but unmitigated gloom. The noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, said he hoped that I would shed some light upon this problem. I can assure the noble Lord that, by the time he had finished, the only things I felt like shedding were tears. I suppose that the burden of noble Lords on the opposite side of your Lordships' House has been to get some money out of the Inland Revenue and/or the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When one wants some money, one does not go to see the Chan-cellor of the Exchequer, or one's maiden aunt, dressed in one's finest array with a
  758
  smile upon one's face. I suppose I must put down to that the fact that with one sole exception—the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman—we have had unmitigated gloom this afternoon. I hope that by the time I have finished I shall be able to put a different complexion upon the whole scene.
  The noble Lord's Motion draws attention to the shipping industry. I intend to draw attention to the shipping industry and the wonderful job of work it has done, because I think sometimes that, since 1945, not only we in your Lord-ships' House but people all over the country have been so preoccupied with building up our industries, building new factories, building up our export trade, building houses and everything else, that we have allowed to go by unnoticed one of the greatest achievements of this country since the war—that is, the achievement of the shipping and ship-building industries. I should have thought that noble Lords opposite might have stressed that achievement a little more than they have done; at any rate that is going to be the keynote of my remarks this afternoon.
  I should like to illustrate this wonderful achievement by a few figures—they will not marry up with some of the figures that I have heard this afternoon—showing what really has been done, because figures if they are put in their right perspective can be most eloquent. Before the war, in 1939, we had on the United Kingdom register 3,500 ships—I am not counting the small coasters, those ships of under 500 gross tons. They amounted to 16,900,000 tons of shipping. This was its make-up: 9,600,000 tons of passenger and cargo liners, 3,000,000 tons of tankers, and 4,300,000 tons of tramps. Then came the war, and I am sure that in the minds of all noble Lords there must be ever fresh the wonderful exploits of the Merchant Navy. It is not necessary for me to dwell for very long on how they served this country. I am sure we all remember the vivid and dramatic story of the "Jervis Bay" and some of the Malta convoys. The convoys that were sent to that besieged Island included our best and fastest ships. These ships had to be used be-cause of the diversity of the cargoes we had to send. Think of some of the losses in the convoys that sailed: during one period, fifteen out of forty British ships

  759
  that left this country were lost, amongst them our best, which were hardly replace-able.
  What did it come to when we totted up our losses after the war? On the United Kingdom register alone we had lost 11,250,000 tons of shipping. That was the cost of the war to the Merchant Navy. It left us very depleted. Passenger and cargo liners were reduced from 9,600,000 to 6,600,000 tons, tramps from just over 4,300,000 to 3,900,000, tankers from 3,000,000 to 2,700,000. The total fleet we had then was 13,200,000 tons and our particular loss was in our specialised liner tonnage. So after the war we had to maintain our essential supplies; we had to recover our position in world trade. We had to build our ships all over again. Since 1945, the shipping industry has re-covered, and to-day its total tonnage exceeds our pre-war tonnage of 16,900,000, standing now at 17,000,000 tons. That is the total we have to-day. If that is not a stupendous achievement which reflects the greatest credit upon the shipbuilding industry, employers and workers and the shipowners, I do not know what achievement is.
  Not only has our shipping recovered its pre-war position as a world carrier, but it has made an outstanding contribution to our balance of payments position which the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, mentioned. However, I am not blind to the fact that the post-war building has resulted in a different distribution of types. Our cargo and passenger liners now account for 8,600,000 tons, compared with 9,600,000 tons before the war, but they are more efficient. The post-war ship is faster and carries more passengers, and that tends to offset the decrease in tonnage. We also have less tonnage in medium and small-size tramps of any-thing from 3,000 to 5,000 tons. We have 600,000 tons compared with 1,900,000 tons before the war. On the other hand, the tramp tonnage in the larger sizes has been greatly increased by the war-time standard tonnage built in this country, and by our purchases from America, and at 4,500,000 tons the total tramp tonnage exceeds the pre-war total of 4,300,000. As the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, pointed out, there is plenty of employment for this tramp tonnage.
  Taking our age grouping, which the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and again
  760
  the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, mentioned, the position is not nearly so black as I gathered they wanted to paint it. In September, 1939, about 9,700,000 tons, or about 57 per cent. of our fleet, was represented by ships under fifteen years of age; now we have over 11,500,000 tons, or nearly 70 per cent. under fifteen years of age. That is a very different picture; and new building is steadily being de-livered and is steadily reducing the amount of tonnage in the very old age groups of twenty to twenty-five, or over twenty-five, years. My Lords, in many respects, our mercantile marine is faster now than it was in 1939. In 1939 the speed of 50 per cent. of tramp tonnage over 1,600 tons was below ten knots; the great bulk now is over ten knots. A larger proportion, 10 per cent., has a speed of twelve knots or over, compared with only 3 per cent. before the war. Cargo and passenger liners also show increased speeds. Sixty per cent. of cargo and passenger liner tonnage now exceeds fourteen and a half knots, compared with some 37 per cent. before the war. These are calculations which put a very different complexion on the picture.
  Let us take our tanker position. Before the war, the great majority of our tankers had speeds of less than twelve knots: now, 60 per cent. of them exceed twelve knots. I think our tanker fleet illustrates one of our remarkable achievements. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, if I may use the phrase, in damning with faint praise. British ship-owners have been very quick to seize the great opportunity afforded by the expansion of the oil trade, and a large and increasing proportion of our shipbuilding capacity since the war has been used for tanker construction. Not only have the great oil companies, who together represent perhaps the major tanker owners, been building, but many British independent shipowners have increased their tanker fleets, and some owners whose operations before were confined to the dry cargo trades have now embarked upon the tanker business.
  Some noble Lords know very well that as part of the negotiations with the American oil industry designed to reduce our dollar expenditure on oil, one American oil company has now set up a subsidiary company in this country for the building, owning and operating of tankers

  761
  on the United Kingdom register. As a result of all this, the tanker tonnage on the United Kingdom register is now 3.900,000 tons, compared with 3,000,000 tons before the war. It is still expanding, and may reach a total of 5,000,000 tons by the end of 1953. That is an entirely different picture from what I have described as the unmitigated gloom that has been shed upon the achievements of the shipbuilding industry.
  Ships under construction or on order for United Kingdom owners to-day total some 1,800,000 tons, and the total order book to-day is of the nature of 3,400,000 tons. That does not seem to be a bankrupt industry, scraping the bottom of the barrel for the last dregs of cash in order to build new tonnage. At the present time, with our shipyards working at their present level of activity, we have at least sufficient work to last us to 1952, and perhaps well into 1953. If we take the earnings of our merchant fleet in foreign exchange, they were estimated at £60.000,000 in 1947. They rose to £100,000,000 in 1948, and this figure was exceeded in 1949; and the balance of payments figures so far issued for 1950 suggest that those earnings are still going up.
  I am not going to claim that all this is due to the Government. The Government have helped to facilitate the recovery by removing restrictions, and without flag discrimination, and—Lord Rennell will be pleased to hear—without subsidies. We have no flag discrimination, and we use every endeavour in every international conference where the subject is appropriate to do away with flag discrimination, and to do away with these unfair conditions. We have released the shipping industry from practically every control. We have allowed it, as tonnage has become more plentiful, to seek its cargoes the world over. I think we have done everything in our power to see that British shipping is freed from those controls. I can assure your Lordships that no Department of His Majesty's Government detest controls more than the Shipping Division of the Ministry of Transport, and I am very glad to have the approval and the approbation of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, upon that.
  Lord Teynham spoke of restrictions on the sale of ships, and other noble Lords mentioned the same subject. There is, in
  762
  practice, no restriction on the sale of any ship, so long as it remains upon the United Kingdom register. The only restriction to-day is on the sale abroad of ships not more than fifteen years old. We know very well that building costs are high, and that insurance reserves have been used up. There is still a good deal of obsolescent tonnage to be re-placed, and funds are running short. It was for these reasons that we relaxed the control on the sale of ships, because we knew that this enabled shipowners to get rid of obsolescent tonnage with a view to acquiring better modern ships whilst the market was favourable. And the market has been favourable. It has helped the shipowner to a very consider-able degree, with the result that since we relaxed the restrictions in June last, transfers have been ruining at the rate of about 54,000 gross tons a month, which is roughly the same rate at which ships were sold before the war.
  I do not intend to go into any detailed mathematical calculations on the subject of investment, but it may interest your Lordships to know that since 1945 investment in new ships by United Kingdom shipowners has reached the figure of £300,000,000. That is a sizeable sum, and it does not include the large amounts spent on repairs and maintenance. I will come in a minute to the burden of Lord Teynham's remarks regarding taxation. He asked a question about subsidies for German ships. He must have more in-formation about this than I have. If he will be good enough to give me any in-formation which he has, I shall be grateful for it, because the only information I have is that the German Government are providing certain loans, out of funds arising from United States Aid under European Co-operation, to assist owners to buy ships. We have no reason to believe that these loans constitute an operating subsidy or that they are made available at abnormally low rates of interest. Quite frankly, we should be greatly surprised if the Economic Co-operation Administrator were likely to approve the use of E.C.A. counterpart funds in such a way as to give the ship-owners of any country an unfair advantage over the shipowners of other countries. If the noble Lord has any in-formation about this, I am sure that he will offer us his usual co-operation and let us have it.

  763
  The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, spoke about taxation. All taxation, of course, is said to be too high, and, as he said, that which we have to pay is penal. But matters to which the noble Lord referred are not peculiar to the shipping industry. As he knows, and other noble Lords know, the whole question of taxation of profits is being investigated by the Tucker Committee. Representatives of the ship-ping industry have given evidence, and as their case is before the Tucker Committee it would be improper of me to offer any observations at this stage. I believe that the Report of the Committee will not be long delayed.
  The position in the Caribbean has been referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Teynham, Lord Rennell and Lord Tweeds-muir. Lord Teynham was quite right in saying that this matter was considered by the Commonwealth Shipping Committee. That Committee reported to the Secretary of State for the Colonies in October, 1948. Questions arising out of this Report are essentially questions of Colonial policy, rather than of shipping policy, but upon the receipt of the Report His Majesty's Government invited proposals from the shipping industry for a passenger service. Two companies submitted schemes. These were given most careful and sympathetic consideration, but they involved considerable financial sup-port by His Majesty's Government and it was felt that the extent of this was out of proportion to the benefit which might accrue, having regard to the already substantial financial assistance given by His Majesty's Government to West Indian Governments for other purposes, and to the many other and more pressing calls upon the financial resources available for the development of the West Indies. The firms concerned were informed that His Majesty's Government considered that they would not be justified in providing the funds required under their proposals. But, at the same time, the firms were invited to explore further possibilities. No practical plan has, however, yet been evolved. In the meantime, we have, in collaboration with the Colonial Office, done all we can to alleviate matters. So this really is a matter which touches Colonial policy, and I would suggest that if the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, or any other noble Lords who are interested, are
  764
  desirous of putting any further questions upon this subject, they should address them to the Colonial Office.
  The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in one part of his excellent contribution to this shipping debate, mentioned various matters relating to merchant seamen. I take his remarks as giving me an opportunity of paying a tribute to the merchant seamen, and also to the shipowners. I think that the unions connected with the Merchant Navy are among the best led unions in this country, and the Shipping Federation do not fall short of them. They have combined in the work of the Mari-time Board so as to make it a model. The Government are willing and happy to leave in the hands of the Board all the questions which my noble friend raised, secure in the knowledge that the wisdom of both sides will effect amicable agreement.
  I think I have answered the main questions asked. I am sorry that noble Lords opposite who are more in touch with the British Merchant Service than I am gave such a gloomy picture. I am sure that the British merchant shipping industry, ashore, in the shipyards and afloat, will never fail in its duty. The happy relationship existing between the shipping industry and the Ministry for which I am responsible in your Lordships' House has assured so much progress in the past that I feel it will ensure the progress of the industry in the future. The next time I travel to the Tyne, the Clyde or Belfast, I think I had better take the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, with me. I am sure that it would be a tonic for him to see these great ships being built, to go down the Clyde and see hardly a vacant berth, to see what I suppose is the greatest shipbuilding yard in the world at Belfast and the other great yards on the Tyne. The picture he would see would not be the sorrowful one which the noble Lord would have us believe is to be seen. I have every confidence in our Merchant Navy. I end as I began, by paying the highest possible tribute to the shipping industry, which in war was our fourth arm of defence and which since the war has done so much to carry our exports abroad. I am certain that in any emergency which may be before us the Merchant Navy will do what they have always done—that is, their job.
  5.14 p.m.
  LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I was delighted to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that I had cast him into a fit of gloom, because I hope it will spread to other members of His Majesty's Government and then perhaps the shipping industry may obtain some relief to enable them to replace their worn-out tonnage. I fully support the remarks the noble Lord has made about the wonderful record of the Merchant Navy. He specially mentioned the Malta convoys. I certainly realise what they did, because during that period I was in command of escort vessels with those convoys and with the Russian convoys. The noble Lord confined his remarks largely to shipbuilding and did not refer so much to ship management, which is the real concern of the speakers in the debate this afternoon. The noble Lord has asked me whether I can supply him with further information about unfair German competition, and I shall be pleased to do so. As regards the Caribbean area, I am sorry to hear that His Majesty's Government have turned down two proposals put forward by certain companies, and I hope they will look at that question again. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, referred to the fact that there was a big boom in shipbuilding; but the boom is confined to the larger yards building tankers, and in the smaller yards there is no great boom at all. He also suggested that shipowners should have a programme for building ahead. Shipowners cannot make plans for building in advance if they are not allowed to retain the funds for that purpose.
  LORD STRABOLGI: I supposed that they were.
  LORD TEYNHAM: The noble Lord also referred to the case for nationalising the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry. He may have a case, and perhaps one day we may hear him expound it, but I cannot help feeling that it is not a very strong one. He also referred to the improving of harbour facilities: I think that is a question which requires a debate on its own, and perhaps at some future date your Lordships may wish to discuss it. In view of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I do not wish to press this Motion, but I hope His Majesty's Government will give serious consideration to all the points that have been raised by speakers this after-noon, because the shipping industry is very concerned about the position of replacements at the present time. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  USE OF VETO
  USE OF VETO