Sitting of 10 July 1952

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GOVERNESSES BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  KINGSTON UPON HULL CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (by Order)
  Read a Second time, and committed.
  LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    New Industrial Projects, Aberdeen
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that last year 28 new industrial projects were licensed for the City of Aberdeen; how many have been established so far; and when the remaining industries will be established there.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): Two industrial projects were licensed last year in the Aberdeen area and a total of 22 new projects and extensions have been licensed since the end of the war. Out of this latter figure, 20 have been completed while the two licensed last year are still under construction.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the President aware that the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), in its latest Report on unemployment and industry in the Aberdeen district, recommends that steps
    1494
    should be taken to stimulate basic industries and to establish new industries to prevent unemployment? Will he consider that authoritative Report with a view to taking action on the lines that it recommends?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly consider the Report carefully. The hon. and learned Gentleman may like to know that unemployment in Aberdeen is less now than it was two years ago.

    Coronation Souvenirs
    Mr. Doddsasked the President of the Board of Trade what precautions he is taking to ensure that Coronation souvenirs will be of a reasonable standard; what arrangements he is making for manufacturers to send samples for consideration; and from what date he is permitting souvenirs to be sold to the public.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: A Coronation Souvenirs Committee has been appointed by the Council of Industrial Design at my request and a Coronation Medal Panel by the Royal Mint, Federation of British Industries and the Council of Industrial Design. Their object is to promote a high standard of design in souvenirs made by British manufacturers for the Coronation. Manufacturers have been invited, through the Press, to submit their designs to the Committee and Panel respectively.
    In answer to the last part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) on 19th June.
    Mr. Dodds: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that today many people treasure Coronation souvenirs of the past, and will he see that a high standard is maintained and that the public are not fleeced by get-rich-quick merchants?
    Mr. Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that manufacturers are already plagued by a hundred-and-one conflicting regulations regarding these souvenirs and that if we have many more panels and bodies to which we have to submit designs there will be no production in time for the Coronation?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No regulations are concerned in this matter. This is merely for the assistance of those industries who might choose to use these panels.

    Motor Tyre Prices
    Mr. Shepherdasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the price rings in the motor tyre industry; and whether he has considered referring these arrangements to the consideration of the Monopolies Commission.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I will bear this in mind in considering matters for reference to the Commission.

    Japanese Cloth
    Mr. Russellasked the President of the Board of Trade the value and quantity of finished cotton cloth imported from Japan in the first five months of 1952.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Imports from Japan of finished cotton cloth in January to May, 1952, amounted to 1,864,000 square yards valued at £473,000.
    Mr. Russell: Is not this finished cloth in competition with our own textile industry? Does my right hon. Friend think it wise to import finished cloth as distinct from partly finished cloth or raw materials, in view of the plight of the textile industry?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: These imports resulted from contracts for cloth for the Services which the Ministry of Supply placed in Japan before the end of July, 1951. It is only fair to the previous Government to say that at that period Lancashire was unable to accept the orders.
    Mr. Rhodesasked the President of the Board of Trade how many square yards of cotton grey cloth and rayon grey cloth were imported into this country from Japan during the period from the end of the late war to 31st March, 1952; and how many yards of this cloth have been exported in the same period.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Imports of grey cotton cloth from Japan from 1945 to the end of March, 1952, amounted to 489 million square yards. Imports of artificial silk cloth of all kinds from Japan in the same period were 17 million
    1496
    square yards, of which at least 13 million square yards were grey cloth.
    No separate statistics of exports of the processed cloth are available. With the exception, however, of an amount estimated at about 23 million square yards imported since 1949, partly to supplement home supplies and partly for the defence programme, all Japanese grey cotton and rayon cloth has been imported for re-export after processing, and the re-export condition has been strictly enforced.
    Mr. Rhodes: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that none of the cloth which is held here now will be allowed into the home market?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: It is held subject to the re-export conditions I have set out in the answer.

    Foreign Bricks
    Mr. Patrick Maitlandasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to prevent foreign bricks being imported for housebuilding when stone is available.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I do not think that it would be practicable or desirable to relate imports into the United Kingdom of bricks to the availability of stone. Imports of bricks amount to less than one-sixth of 1 per cent. of home production, and I would remind my hon. Friend that we could not hope to go on selling large quantities of manufactured consumer goods to Western Europe if we were to restrict our imports from them more than our balance of payments situation makes absolutely necessary.
    Mr. Maitland: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply and appreciating the balance of payment problem, may I ask whether he is aware that recently an order for about £40,000 worth of bricks went to Belgium from the City of Dundee when there was enough stone to hand in a declining industry which would have met the need?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The import of bricks is a minute fraction of home production and it would be impracticable to relate licences for the import of bricks to the possible availability of stone somewhere in the country.

    West Indies Citrus Industry (U.S. Subsidy)
    Mr. R. Robinsonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the growing competition from the United States of America which is being experienced by the West Indies citrus industry; that the export of citrus products is subsidised by the United States of America; and whether, under the terms of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, he will ask for a discussion on the limitations of these subsidies.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am aware that the export of citrus products to certain markets is subsidised by the United States Government, but I have no evidence that the subsidies are injuring the interests of the West Indies citrus industry whose markets at present lie in countries which are restricting imports from the dollar area for balance of payments reasons.
    In these circumstances, I do not consider that anything will be gained by taking acton under Article XVI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. If, however, my hon. Friend has specific evidence of injury to the West Indies' industry and will supply it to me, I will consider it.

    General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Japan)
    Mr. Russellasked the President of the Board of Trade the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the intended application for membership of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade officially announced by the Japanese Government.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to a recent report in the Press about an intended application by the Japanese Government to accede to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I am, however, informed that they have not yet decided whether to apply.

    Anglo-Argentine Negotiations
    Mr. F. Willeyasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in the trade negotiations with the Argentine Government.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: There have been further exchanges of view, but there has
    1498
    inevitably been delay in making progress during President Peron's inauguration of his second term of office and as a result of ministerial changes in the Argentine Government. I expect further meetings to take place shortly.
    Mr. Willey: While sympathising with the right hon. Gentleman in his difficulties, may I ask if he will now do his utmost to get negotiations going, because the meat being supplied under the protocol has now been shipped?
    Mr. Osborne: May I ask whether the delay in negotiations with the Argentine this year is greater than last year?
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that the difference between last year and now is that the present Opposition are not now continually nagging as the then Opposition were last year?

    Land, Sunderland (Building Project)
    Mr. F. Willeyasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress is being made regarding the proposed trading estate on the north bank of the Wear at Sunderland.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I should not be justified, in present circumstances, in acquiring and developing further land in advance of firm requirements for approved building projects.
    Mr. Willey: While not pressing the right hon. Gentleman so far as that, may I ask if he will ensure that all the preliminary work is completed short of the steps he has mentioned?

    Carpet Exports (Restrictions)
    Mr. Prydeasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the unfavourable conditions with which our exporting carpet manufacturers are being confronted by the Governments of Holland, Western Germany and the South American countries; and what action will be taken by his Department to bring this discrimination to an end.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am fully alive to the difficulties confronting exporters of carpets in the markets to which the hon. Member refers. These difficulties, however, consist for the most part of quota restrictions or high tariffs which apply also to our competitors and I have

    1499
    no evidence of discrimination against this country. My Department will continue to press for the removal of these restrictions.
    Mr. Pryde: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in South American countries they do not produce as many machine-woven carpets as one factory in the West of Scotland and the discriminatory tariffs are there to protect hand-woven carpets? Will his Department continue to press for better trading conditions for our people because, as the exchange value of the sol is very much against us, our people are in a most disadvantageous position?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: While I will certainly do all I can to press for the removal of these restrictions on our trade, I should point out that the restrictions themselves are not of a discriminatory character in the sense that they do not discriminate between us and other exporting countries.

    New Zealand Orders (Exchange Facilities)
    Mr. Osborneasked the President of the Board of Trade what communications he has had with the Federal Reserve Bank of New Zealand for the granting of the necessary exchange for payment of Roods ordered prior to 1st April, 1952; and if he will make a statement on the New Zealand orders to this country that are being delayed owing to lack of exchange facilities.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The United Kingdom Trade Commissioner in New Zealand is in touch with the Reserve Bank in New Zealand on this question. The Reserve Bank have stated that exchange will be made available for firm contracts entered into before 1st April, 1952. They have also stated that, if there is not enough exchange available to cover out-standing orders immediately, allocations would be spread. It may thus be that those United Kingdom exporters, whose customers cannot get immediate release of exchange this year, may have to wait for payment.
    I have no information about the volume of orders with United Kingdom exporters which might be affected in this way.
    Mr. Osborne: While appreciating the great difficulty of the New Zealand
    1500
    traders, may I ask the Minister if he has any idea how long these delayed credits will have to be spread?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I cannot say, without notice.

    British Equipment, South Africa (Delivery Delays)
    Mr. Osborneasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the South African Minister of Transport has cancelled orders in Britain and placed them elswhere because of the long delays in delivery by British firms, including 40 electric units promised for early 1951, 15 electric motor coaches promised for November, 1950, and locomotive boilers ordered for early 1950, none of which has yet been delivered; and if he will make representations to the South African Government to see if these orders cannot be retained in Britain if immediate delivery can be guaranteed.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am aware of the statement of the South African Minister about delays experienced in receiving equipment, ordered by the South African Railways from the United Kingdom, but I was not aware that the orders referred to in the Question have been cancelled.
    Mr. Osborne: Since the statement was made in the responsible British Press that the Minister had made the statement in the South African Parliament, may I beg of the President to look into the matter again to see if these orders can be got back to this country because it is of great importance for our people in connection with the importation of foods?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Yes, Sir, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply is examining the matter as one of urgency to see what was the cause of delay and whether any improvements can be made in future.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: Has it been established that these delays did, in fact, take place and that the statement of the South African Minister of Transport is correct?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: There have undoubtedly been some delays.
    Mr. Jennings: Will my right hon. Friend look into this, as a very serious situation is arising, and see whether he

    1501
    can facilitate the matter? Surely my right hon. Friend should consider, with his colleagues, what can be done.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That is being done.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how far the re-armament programme has contributed to the delay? In view of the statement by a noble Lord in another place this week will he see that exports are given super-priority?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That is a wide: question.
    Sir W. Smithers: Does my right hon. Friend realise that when a Government interferes with business it loses much trade for Britain? Will he do all he can to remove barriers to trade and take off controls as soon as possible?
    Mr. Nally: Is the Minister aware that the original statement upon which this Question was based was made in the South African Parliament a considerable time ago, in fact, last month? Would he not agree that where statements are made by people in authority in Commonwealth Governments, and Questions are asked about them by his hon. Friends, it would be advisable if he could tell us whether the statements so made were accurate or otherwise?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: We have only now received details of the statement made by the Minister and we are looking into it as a matter of urgency.

    Cosmetic Imports
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the President of the Board of Trade what, to the latest convenient date in 1952, was the total value of cosmetics imported into the United Kingdom; and of this total, how much came from Empire sterling countries and how much from dollar sources.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Imports of cosmetics into the United Kingdom during the five months, January to May, 1952, amounted to £17,600; of this, £400 was imported from sterling Commonwealth countries and £5,900 from dollar sources.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him to give consideration to the possibility of a greater proportion of cosmetics coming from
    1502
    sterling sources, thereby reducing the trade with dollar sources, from which a lot of cosmetics come?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Imports from dollar sources come in almost entirely under the Token Import Scheme, which represents only a very minute fraction of our imports from that area. On balance, as I think has been agreed by all who have examined the subject, it is a useful thing to have.

    Australia (Capital Goods Market)
    Mr. Stokesasked the President of the Board of Trade what priority is being given to the export of capital goods to Australia essential for the purpose of increasing the supply of primary products, especially food, to this country.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The Government have repeatedly emphasised the importance of such exports and I have every reason to believe that exporters attach great importance to the Australian market for capital goods.
    Mr. Stokes: Will the President say in what way? Is he aware that the import of such essential things as agricultural machinery is being given as much as seven years' delivery? How does he expect an increase in primary products from Australia, especially of food, unless agricultural machinery gets top priority?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The amount of machinery imported is within the control of the Australian Government, who are operating a restriction scheme by administrative controls. That is a matter within the control of that Government.
    Mr. Stokes: But that reply does not answer my question. Is the President aware that as much as seven years' delivery is being offered, and is he satisfied that agricultural machinery is being exported to countries which are capable of giving us the biggest return?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The right hon. Gentleman presided over a meeting of Commonwealth Supply Ministers, and I am bound to say that no priority such as he is now seeking emerged from that inquiry.
    Mr. Stokes: That still does not answer my question. Whatever may have been my faults in the past—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear]—certainly—I want to

    1503
    know what the President is doing now. Is he aware that seven years' delivery has been offered for agricultural machinery? What is he doing to put that situation right?
    Mr. Osborne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the first lot of crawler tractors produced in this country is just being shipped off to Australia and that Australia is getting top priority for this agricultural machinery?

    German and Spanish Salt
    Mr. Russellasked the President of the Board of Trade what quantity of manufactured salt was imported from Germany and Spain in the first five months of 1952; and the purpose for which it was used.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Manufactured salt is not separately distinguished in the trade returns, but total imports of salt from all sources in the first five months of 1952 amounted to £71,522, of which £49,049 was from Germany and £15,824 from Spain. Over 98 per cent. of imports were fishery salt.
    Mr. Russell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of this fishery salt seems to have spread inland, for which purpose it was presumably not intended? Is it necessary to import any manufactured salt at all, apart from fishery salt? Cannot our manufacturers supply all that we need, and for export?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I understand that the main demand for this fishery salt comes from the herring industry, which shows a marked preference for it. We should hesitate before we question their choice.

    Softwood
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Secretary for Overseas Trade, as representing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, if, in view of the opinion of leading merchants and organisations in the softwood section of the wood trade, that the supply of softwood is in excess of demands, he will remove all controls in the buying and selling and use of softwood.
    The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. H. R. Mackeson): No, Sir. Our balance of payments difficulties make it necessary to restrict the import, and therefore the
    1504
    use, of softwood, practically all of which comes from non-sterling sources.
    Sir W. Smithers: In spite of controls, have we not now plenty of softwood? Why not remove all the controls?
    Mr. Mackeson: In our present balance of payments situation that is not yet possible. I would remind my hon. Friend that softwoods cost us dollars and gold, and that hardwoods come from the sterling area.
    Mr. Nally: On a point of order. Would you give us some guidance, Mr. Speaker, about the terms in which this Question is framed? It says:
    "To ask the Secretary for Overseas Trade, as representing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster,"
    by which is presumably meant that had the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster been in this House the Question would have been addressed to him instead of to the Secretary for Overseas Trade. As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has now a number of duties that have been imposed upon him, the latest being complete responsibility for the co-ordination and supervision of the public relations of Government Departments, would you be kind enough to tell us how we should frame our Questions on public relations?
    Mr. Speaker: It is for the Government to arrange which Ministers shall answer in the House for noble Lords. The hon. Member's Question should be addressed to the Leader of the House or to the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Nally: Further to that point of order. As there is here a new form of wording, about which some elucidation is desirable—
    Mr. Speaker: It is not a new form of wording. I have been familiar with it for many years.
    Mr. I. O. Thomas: In view of the repeated opposition of the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) to controls, would it not be appropriate if the Minister inquired of him what would be likely to happen if all his controls were put out of action when he is playing the organ at his local parish church?

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Ministry of Supply Auctions (Credit Restrictions)
    Mr. Patrick Maitlandasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to make clear to the banks that they should ease credit terms for those who wish to bid at auctions of industrial equipment and surplus stores held by order of the Ministry of Supply, when conditions of sale require immediate cash payment of at least one-fourth of each successful bid.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): No, Sir. Each application for credit must be judged upon its own merits by the banker concerned, bearing in mind, among other considerations, my right hon. Friend's request to the banks, which he announced in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Maude) on 7th December, last.
    Mr. Maitland: While thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask whether we are to understand that a person who may wish to bid at a Government sale of surplus material may legitimately apply to his bank for credit, in the light of the Question which I have asked and the answer which has been given?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is a matter between the potential bidder and the bank.
    Mr. P. Roberts: Is my hon. Friend aware that the policy of restricting credit is having a frustrating effect upon consumer-goods sales? Is it likely that the Government will make a statement in the near future about the restriction of credit and the order to the banks?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My right hon. Friend has already indicated the general request which he has made to the banks. If my hon. Friend has any particular question in mind and will let me know it, I will gladly look into it.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that his reply is ambiguous and that the banks have instructions that there is a policy of credit restriction? May I support the request from his own, side to give encouragement at these sales to people who are re-equipping their industry for the benefit of production in this country?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: A general request—not instruction—has been made to the banks which they will interpret in their own good sense in any particular case.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Now that financial priority has been changed from the defence programme to the overseas balance of payments, is it not of first-class importance that reconsideration should be given to the instructions which were given to the banks in December last in order to see whether those instructions are now in conformity with the present policy of the Government?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think the request of my right hon. Friend to the banks covers both contingencies and if my hon. Friend will look at that again I think he will find that it is satisfactory in the circumstances.

    School Requisites (Tax)
    Mr. Morleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to enable a local education authority to obtain a rebate in respect of Purchase Tax paid on equipment and materials supplied for use in educational establishments.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.
    Mr. Morley: Will the Financial Secretary ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, whose past great services to education we all appreciate, whether, when framing his next Budget, he will consider the abolition of Purchase Tax on school requisites?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the hon. Member is aware, there are great administrative and practical difficulties in such a proposal.

    Bonded Grey Cloth
    Mr. Rhodesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many square yards of cotton grey cloth and rayon grey cloth were held by importers in this country under bond at 31st March, 1952.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. Rhodes: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that his Customs and Excise officials are present when a bale of manufactured cotton goods from Japan is

    1507
    opened, and that returns are made by the finishers when those are processed? I do not see why we cannot have the figures.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Those returns are made as at the date either of the importation or of release from bond, but they do not involve the striking of a balance of quantities at a particular date.

    Sugar and Wheat (Mutual Security Aid)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will request the United States Government to include Cuban sugar and Canadian wheat in the grants in aid to be received under the Mutual Security Act; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State for Economic Affairs (Sir Arthur Salter): The 300 million dollar economic aid from the Mutual Administration has already been fully committed and over 200 million dollars of the money has been recovered. There is no question, therefore, of including additional items such as sugar or wheat. My right hon. Friend does not intend to make a further statement at present.
    Mr. Osborne: As there are about 1½ million tons of unsaleable sugar in Cuba and we still have rationing over here, would the Minister bear it in mind in future so that the surplus could be brought to this country and we could then end sugar and sweet rationing?
    Sir A. Salter: If my hon. Friend is thinking of appropriations in respect of a later year, say 1952–53, I would point out that the appropriations have only just reached their final legislative stage in America and that we do not yet know the views of the American administration as to which items are eligible. However, I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.
    Mr. Dodds: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the sugar is there now and that in this austerity period housewives would like it now? Is he further aware that the sugar, which could be sold for sterling to be spent in this country, is available for just over 1d. a 1b.? Will he have a word with the President of the Board of Trade and help to get a new pact?
    Sir A. Salter: As I have pointed out, the money in respect of this year has already been fully committed. There is no margin left for use for this purpose.
    Mr. Dodds: But will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with his right hon. Friend and try to get a new pact now for sterling, not for this money?

    Defence Equipment (Deliveries to Belgium)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of defence equipment has been sold to Belgium.
    Sir A. Salter: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the arrangements which my right hon. Friend announced on 2nd July, for reducing the United Kingdom deficit in the European Payments Union. The deliveries to be made to Belgium from the United Kingdom under these arrangements amount to £8,929,000.
    Mr. Rankin: Can the Minister tell us what defence equipment is being sold to any countries and to what value?
    Sir A. Salter: I could not answer that question without notice.

    Coronation Commemorative Coins
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a special issue of 5s. pieces will be minted for the Coronation year.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to a Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Major Anstruther-Gray) on 29th May.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Financial Secretary bear in mind that the Festival of Britain issue of 5s. pieces last year was both lucrative and popular, and that if he adopts this suggestion it will provide an acceptable and worthwhile Coronation souvenir out of which he will make money in more senses of the word than one?
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Will my hon. Friend consider the issue of a distinctive set of all coins, because this would have a definite export value apart from anything else?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If my hon. Friend will refer to the answer to which I referred the hon. and gallant Member, he will see that the matter is under consideration.
    Mr. Follick: Is the Minister aware that in many parts of this country the 5s. piece is looked upon as being decidedly unlucky and that many people refuse to accept it? Further, in the event of an entirely new currency being minted, there is difficulty in distinguishing between a 4s. piece and a 5s. piece.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: All relevant considerations will be borne in mind but, speaking for myself, I regard the possession of any piece of currency as lucky.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the minting of the 5s. piece for the Festival of Britain earned a large profit for the Treasury?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir.

    Insurance Contributions (Tax Reliefs)
    Miss Wardasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated gross cost to the Treasury of the Income Tax reliefs in respect of National Insurance contributions.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: With the new rates of contributions it is estimated that the cost of the Income Tax relief in respect of National Insurance contributions (other than employer's contributions) will be £34 million in a full year.
    Miss Ward: In view of the fact that so many people get their insurance benefits at reduced rates, will my hon. Friend consult the Minister of National Insurance to see that those who cannot have these benefits at reduced rates have something done for them, and thus end the monstrous discrimination against the poor which was imposed by the Socialist Government under their Act?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is another, though no doubt important, question.
    Miss Ward: Will my hon. Friend consult the Minister of National Insurance; otherwise, I shall have to give notice of raising it on the Adjournment?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not require a threat from my hon. Friend to say that I am always delighted to discuss anything with my right hon. Friend.

    Marshall Aid (Refund)
    Mr. Hollisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Her Majesty's Government made a refund of $1,000,000 of Marshall Aid during the last quarter.
    Sir A. Salter: The refund was made because the European Co-operation Administration provisionally reimbursed us for expenditure on oil at a higher price than that permitted under their price regulations.
    Mr. Hollis: I am not quite certain that I fully understand even now. Why was the higher payment made in the previous quarter? Why was not the payment made at the right rate?
    Sir A. Salter: All these reimbursements are, in the first instance, provisional. They have ultimately to be accounted for to the United States accounting authority, and at times there are adjustments of this kind. That does not mean, however, that the one million dollars in question will be finally lost to Britain.

    Quilts (Tax)
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is in a position to announce any change in the Purchase Tax chargeable on quilts, with particular reference to blanket-quilted quilts, in view of the representations that have been made to him.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has been into this question very carefully but is of the opinion as a result that no case has been established for treating quilts differently from other goods under the D scheme. The cheaper varieties are now free of tax and the more expensive bear a tax which is not excessive in relation to their cost.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this will cause very real disappointment to many firms all over the country who are waiting upon this decision to decide whether to carry on business, and that it will have a serious effect upon employment in certain factories in some of the old distressed areas?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member's view is, I think, a trifle pessimistic.

    Postal Charges (Purchase Tax)
    Mr. Crouchasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, in an invoice rendered to Mr. T. N. Hitchings, pharmaceutical chemist, Shaftesbury, Dorset, by Messrs. Parke Davis and Company, Hounslow, on a consignment of pills of the nett value of 2s. 8d. Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have charged 2d. Purchase Tax on a postal charge of 7d.; and what his Regulations lay down in respect of the imposition of Purchase Tax on postal charges.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The law is that the wholesale value on which Purchase Tax is chargeable includes the cost of delivering the goods to the buyer, whether by post or otherwise. This point will be considered by the committee which my right hon. Friend proposes shortly to set up to consider the Purchase Tax Valuation Rules.
    Mr. Crouch: Is my hon. Friend aware that the setting up of this committee will be welcomed by traders and that as a result of this Question I have received letters from all over the country protesting against this very unfair and unjust tax on something that is already taxed?

    Scottish Banknotes
    Mr. J. Taylorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the waste of time and money caused by the issue by each Scottish bank of its own design of notes; and if he will introduce legislation to require that a standard form of note should be issued by Scottish banks.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The answer to both parts of the Question is, "No, Sir."
    Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister not think it is rather ridiculous that we should have these seven different kinds of £1 notes? Does he appreciate that, according to the most conservative estimate I can obtain of the number of man hours wasted by the employees of Scottish banks in separating these notes for the Exchange, 2 million man hours are lost per year? Would it not therefore be sensible to encourage
    1512
    the production of one kind of Scottish £1 note?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that Question time, immediately before a Supply Day on Scottish affairs, would be an appropriate occasion to announce the termination of rights enjoyed by Scottish organisations for over 100 years.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that it is important, before this perhaps quite wise economy is made, to make sure that it does not result in the closing of a large number of branches of Scottish banks which depend upon the issue of the Scottish £1 notes?
    Mr. Lewis: Can the Financial Secretary arrange to have the evidence produced by my hon. Friend circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will give sympathetic consideration to that request.
    Mr. Assheton: Would not my hon. Friend think it very boring if we all had the same kind of tie?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Stokes: It would be worse if we all had the same kind of face.

    British Salesmen (Currency Applications)
    Colonel J. H. Harrisonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications during 1951 were made by British salesmen for extra currency overseas; and to how much this amounted.
    Sir A. Salter: No statistics of applications made are available; but about 87,500 applications for currency for business purposes were granted, totalling over £9 million.
    Colonel Harrison: Does not my right hon. Friend think that this is a very small percentage of our export sales? Would he do everything possible to encourage a greater number of salesmen to go abroad and offer our goods all over the world, as we depend so much on the export trade?
    Sir A. Salter: I think that reasonable arrangements are already made, and I do not know that business abroad is, in fact, being restricted in the way my hon. and gallant Friend suggests.

    Inter-Parliamentary Union (Grant)
    Mr. Lewisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the object and purpose of the Treasury grant to the Inter-Parliamentary Union; and what action he takes to see that the money granted is used in accordance with the objectives and purposes stated.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: To help the United Kingdom branch to play its part as a member of the Union in its work of promoting personal contacts and discussion between members of different Parliaments.
    As regards the second part of the Question, the branch's accounts are open to inspection by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
    Mr. Lewis: Have the Treasury any representatives on the executive committee to see that whatever undertakings are carried out by the Inter-Parliamentary Union the position is such that Members from each side of the House get equal opportunities?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I very much doubt whether that is a matter for Her Majesty's Treasury, but in any event it does not arise out of this Question.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Is not the best way for Members to get fair opportunities in the Inter-Parliamentary Union to attend the meetings of the Union and take a full part in its affairs?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir.

    Gold (Valuation)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that 75 per cent. of the world's gold, excluding the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, is produced from the sterling area; and what steps he proposes to take to obtain a revaluation more in keeping with its true value.
    Sir A. Salter: Yes, Sir, and I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the second part of my hon. Friend's reply of 19th June.
    Mr. Stokes: The Minister has got into the habit of doing that and his answer is completely unsatisfactory. Is he aware that the declared value of dollar gold has not changed since the early days of the war, that costs of production have gone up, that the price of everything has
    1514
    multiplied three or four times, and that the absurdly low value of gold in dollars acts very deleteriously on the sterling area?
    Sir A. Salter: I am aware that the dollar value of gold has not increased over a number of years, a longer period than the right hon. Gentleman suggested, but I am not now clear whether he is suggesting that he would like the sterling value of gold to go up irrespective of its value in other currencies, or its value in all currencies to go up, or its dollar value. If it is the first I should certainly disagree with him, and if he means the third, that, of course, is not primarily a matter for this country.
    Mr. Stokes: In view of the fact that we produce 75 per cent. of the gold of the world, surely the Government can take some initiative in this matter. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only reason why the United States will not agree to the dollar value of gold being increased is for fear that it might increase Russia's purchasing power?
    Sir A. Salter: No, Sir, that is a very inadequate explanation of the position. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the price of any commodity depends not only upon the sellers but also upon the buyers.
    Mr. Stokes: Can the Minister explain why the value of dental gold, which is much less fine than monetary gold, should be double the value of monetary gold, and why the whole of the finer quality gold should be put in a hole under Fort Knox and the whole of the gold of lesser quality put into people's teeth?
    Sir A. Salter: I really cannot see what that argument has to do with the Question. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the dollar price of gold is a matter upon which the United States is primarily concerned.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: We had better get on. This is a very wide subject.

    Import Reductions
    Mr. Jayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the 10 per cent. cut in the value of United Kingdom imports in 1952, compared with 1951, to become effective.
    Sir A. Salter: The right hon. Member will have observed from the published Trade Returns that, in the first four months of this year, the cost of our imports was higher than in the corresponding period of 1951, but that the difference declined substantially each month. In May imports were about £18 million below those of May of last year. This trend is expected to continue.
    Mr. Jay: As it was an essential part of the Chancellor's policy that there should be a 10 per cent. cut in imports this year, is it not a serious matter that in the first five months imports have been running at the same level as the average for last year? Can the Minister assure us that we are really going to see some effects from this policy?
    Sir A. Salter: The figures I have quoted show that some effect is being seen, that there is a rapid improvement, and that the trend is expected to continue. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend, in using the figure of 10 per cent., was, of course, comparing 1951 as a whole with 1952 as a whole.

    LOUGHBOROUGH COLLEGE (STATUS)
    Mr. Follickasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has yet given consideration to the petition put forward over two years ago by the hon. Member for Loughborough to raise the status of Loughborough College in such a manner as to allow it to award the degree of Doctor of Engineering and to put it on a par with the Charlottenburgh Technological High School and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I can find no trace of any such petition, but shall be glad to see a copy.
    Mr. Follick: Is the Minister aware of the tremendous importance to this country of the reputation of Loughborough College, one of the greatest engineering teaching establishments in the world? People come to Loughborough College from Abyssinia, the Near East and Central America, and is not—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not abuse Question time by making a
    1516
    speech. If he has a supplementary Question to put, I shall be glad if he will put it.
    Mr. Follick: Is the Minister aware that by giving this right to Loughborough College he would be putting it on a par with Charlottenburgh and Massachusetts and giving this country great advantages in the engineering world?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That may well be so, but what the hon. Member asked me was whether I had considered a petition. My answer is that I have not seen the petition, but if the hon. Member will send it to me I will gladly consider it.

    DE-RATIONING (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
    Miss Burtonasked the Prime Minister whether the recent statement of the Minister of Food that a decision as to de-rationing depends upon how much the people who do take up their rations would consume if the commodity were not rationed represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): I am informed that my right hon. and gallant Friend did no more than stress the argument that before any food can safely be de-rationed, supplies must be adequate to meet the likely demand when it is off the ration.
    Miss Burton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that according to the Press, that was not exactly what the Minister of Food said? Is the Prime Minister aware that people are much more concerned that everybody should be able to take up their rations rather than how much more the better off can have?
    The Prime Minister: All these are matters which might well form the material of a debate upon the topic in the course of our Parliamentary proceedings.
    Miss Burton: Will the Prime Minister answer my Question? Is this the policy of the Tory Government?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think it is a good thing to try to embark on controversial arguments on large issues at Question time.

    ATOMIC BOMB (EXPLOSION)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Prime Minister if he can state the approximate date on which the first British atomic bomb will be exploded.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Sir W. Smithers: When the day is fixed, will the Prime Minister arrange for a number of fellow travellers, including Members of this House and of the Church, to be on the site? If he likes, I will send him a preliminary list.
    The Prime Minister: I am well aware of the widespread interest that is taken in what I may call the utilitarian employment of nuclear energy, but I think it would have to be administered on a bi-partisan basis.
    Mr. Isaacs: In that event, would we not run the risk of being blown into "Smithereens"?
    The Prime Minister: Every step will be taken to provide against unnecessary loss of life.

    KOREA (SOCIETY OF FRIENDS' LETTER)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister what was the nature of his reply to the letter sent him by the Society of Friends calling for fresh initiatives to stop the fighting in Korea, to bring this war to a speedy end, and to lay the foundation of a true peace in the Far East.
    The Prime Minister: I have taken due note of the letter referred to by the hon. Member, which has been acknowledged.
    Mr. Hughes: Would not the Prime Minister think of taking the advice of the Society of Friends? There is a big volume of public opinion in this country that wants a new initiative for stopping the war in Korea.
    The Prime Minister: Some of that might have been thought about by the partisans, with whom the hon. Gentleman associates his opinions, before they invaded, by an act of deliberate aggression, South Korea.
    Mr. Hughes: I have never been associated with any of these partisans.
    Mr. J. Hudson: In view of the long record of the Society of Friends in relation to questions of peace, would not the right hon. Gentleman consider their claims quite irrespective of any other views that are put forward in the matter? Could he not give further consideration to the quite genuine appeal that they made to him to make new efforts to settle the difficulties in the Far East?
    The Prime Minister: No one would be more pleased than Her Majesty's Government if matters in the Korean Peninsula came to a peaceful conclusion, and nothing that we have done has in any way hampered that. But we have been attacked. Our Allies are bearing nine-tenths, or it may be nineteen-twentieths, of the burden in sustaining that attack; and I do not think that we should try to plead the case as if we were the guilty party or our Allies were the guilty party. Nothing would please us better or would be more in British interests than that all this matter were wound up, but nothing would be more fatal to British interests than that we should fall out from the line having definitely taken our decision with the full authority of both the great parties in the State.

    GOVERNMENT OFFICES (CLEANING)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he is making for the cleaning of Government offices by contract instead of direct labour.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: We are now discussing with the Staff Side of the National Whitley Council whether any improvement can be made in the efficiency of the present arrangements for cleaning Government offices. These discussions include consideration of the relative advantages of direct as compared with contract labour. I would ask the hon. and gallant Member to await the outcome of these discussions.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Financial Secretary bear in mind that the "Mrs. Mopps" of Whitehall are seriously disturbed by the recent manoeuvres of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter, and that there is a long standing agreement, dating back to 1938, which provides that there shall be no alteration

    1519
    in the present arrangements except after consultation with the union of which these excellent ladies are members?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. and gallant Member may have heard that in my answer I said we were discussing this matter with the Staff Side.

    HISTORIC HOUSES (PRESERVATION)
    Mr. Colegateasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is proposing to take to implement the recommendations of the Gowers Report on Historic Houses.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Her Majesty's Government fully appreciate the need for action to preserve houses of outstanding historic and architectural interest. In present circumstances the financial resources which can be allocated for this purpose must be very limited, but the Government are carefully considering how best they can be employed.
    Mr. Colegate: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be legislation on this matter at an early date? Is he aware that there is a rapid deterioration of these houses?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I can give no assurance as to legislation.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Financial Secretary aware that this is a matter which has caused considerable concern in all parts of the House, and that during the Budget debates of last year I gave, on behalf of the previous Administration, an undertaking that we would introduce legislation in the autumn to carry out certain proposals which I then outlined? Can he tell us whether the Government adhere to those proposals, and what their policy in this matter is, because this matter has become extremely urgent?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I fully appreciate the importance of this matter and of the right hon. Gentleman's comments, from which I do not dissent, but I do not want to add to the answer that I have already given, namely, that we are carefully considering how best to employ the limited resources which can be made available.
    Sir E. Keeling: Is my hon. Friend aware that houses which are among the greatest British contributions to civilisation are rapidly deteriorating or are even being pulled down because there is nobody to maintain them?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I fully appreciate the importance and the urgency of this question.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that no amount of financial stringency can justify the neglect of quite irreplaceable treasures and that that is the view of all sections of this House? Can he give the House an estimate of the number of houses which have been destroyed during the eight months in which the Government have tried to make up their minds?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Member will put down a Question I will answer it, and if the information is available I will give it to him.
    Mr. Vane: Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind that apart from the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) referred to, there is a much simpler method of trying to make it possible for many of these houses to continue to exist, and that is to assess them for Income Tax under Schedule D instead of Schedule A?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is another, though I agree important, matter.
    Mr. Colegate: I beg to give notice in view of the vague nature of the reply that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    WORKS OF ART (EXPORT)
    Lieut.-Colonel Hydeasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when the report of the committee at present considering the export of works of art will be published.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When the report has been received the question of its publication will be considered.
    Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: Is my hon. Friend aware that this committee has been sitting for over a year, that many people are interested in its conclusions, and that it is about time it came to a decision?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I fully appreciate the interest in the work of this committee, but my right hon. Friend would, naturally, prefer to see the report before saying what can be done.
    Mr. Lewis: Can the hon. Gentleman say when he is likely to receive the report?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.

    AGRICULTURAL LAND (USE)
    Mr. F. Macleanasked the Minister of Agriculture what active steps he is taking to ensure that the limited area of agricultural land in this country is neither used inadequately nor misused through incompetence.
    The Minister of Agriculture (Sir Thomas Dugdale): I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement that I made in the debate on 12th June.
    Mr. Maclean: Does my right hon. Friend recognise a quotation from one of his own speeches, and would he not try to give a more definite answer than the one he gave the last time?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I do not think that this is an occasion to go into a question of this sort, but I can assure the House that since the statement was made I have heard very encouraging reports.

    HORTICULTURE
    Captain Duncanasked the Minister of Agriculture how he proposes to help horticulturalists to adjust their production to consumer demand; and whether he will give an assurance that it is still his policy that horticulturalists should be encouraged to grow enough produce to supply the whole British market.
    Sir T. Dugdale: I have never advocated encouraging British horticulturists to attempt to supply the market with all the produce for which there is a demand; some kind of produce, such as oranges and bananas, cannot be grown in these islands, and others, such as tomatoes, only within a limited season. The demand for horticultural produce is subject to changes which depend on the weather and the mood of the consumer and are beyond the control of the Government.
    1522
    As far as imports are concerned the case for higher import duties submitted by the National Farmers' Unions is at present under consideration, and I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given by the President of the Board of Trade to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) on 3rd July.
    Mr. Mitchison: The answer is a lemon.
    Captain Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1947 the growers of certain soft fruits were told they should be encouraged to grow as much as they could so as to supply the whole of the home demand? As they are now more than doing that will my right hon. Friend therefore make a new statement of policy so that they can be assured of a suitable amount of acreage and a stable market?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I am not responsible for statements made in 1947, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Food and I are in close consultation on this problem.
    Mr. G. Brown: Is the Minister aware that in 1947, and many times afterwards, these growers were advised to stabilise their acreage and not to increase it further, to avoid the difficulties now referred to?
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
    Mr. WOODBURN: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, whether his attention has been called to the refusal to Miss Euphemia Cowan of permission to land in South Africa, in order to visit a friend of five years' standing, after all arrangements had been cleared by her with the South African authorities before sailing; whether he will make a statement on the circumstances and reason for the refusal; and, in view of the accepted relationships of travel between South Africa and ourselves, whether he will take steps to ensure that no British subject is so treated in future.
    Mr. Woodburn: May I ask, through you, Sir, if the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations may reply to Question No. 91? At first sight it may appear as if this was a question of the technical exclusion of a person from Africa, but in a telegram from the girl

    1523
    she says that in addition to being asked whether she had sufficient money she was asked whether she knew if there was a definite colour bar in connection with South Africa. I would like to get the matter cleared up.
    Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member must await the reply he will receive as a Written Answer. I can only allow Questions not reached to be asked after Oral Questions if the Minister asks my permission before Question time on the grounds of public interest.

    ANGLO-IRAQI FINANCIAL AGREEMENT
    Mr. Gaitskell(by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any statement to make on the recent financial negotiations with the Government of Iraq.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): Following the discussions which have taken place in London during the last month, I have this morning signed an exchange of letters with Iraq. These letters state that Iraq's financial relationship with this country will continue to be on the basis of common membership of the sterling area.
    The present Financial Agreement concluded in 1947, under which arrangements were made for the release from time to time of sterling from Iraq's blocked balances, expires on 14th July. Her Majesty's Government have now felt able to agree to the release of the remaining blocked sterling—some £23 million—which, they have been assured, it is the present intention of the Government of Iraq to continue to hold as part of the cover for Iraq's currency. In view of Iraq's prospects of earning additional sterling under the recently concluded Oil Agreement it is most unlikely that the sterling in question will be drawn upon in the foreseeable future.
    At the same time, agreement has been reached in principle for the setting up of suitable machinery for the regular exchange of views and information on financial and economic questions, and for the informal discussion of such problems as may arise from time to time. The House will, I am sure, be glad to hear of the friendly manner in which these
    1524
    negotiations were conducted, and will be well satisfied to note this agreement.
    Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Chancellor whether he expects, as a result of this agreement and of Iraq continuing as a member of the sterling area, that Iraq is likely to make any call on the sterling-dollar pool, and, if so, how many dollars are likely to be involved?
    Mr. Butler: I cannot give an actual calculation of such a sum, but I am assured, in regard to these balances, that they are not likely to be drawn upon for the reasons I have given. I am also assured, from contact with the statesmen who have represented Iraq in these discussions, that they are likely to be not only a valuable but a co-operating member of the sterling area.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 14TH JULY—Supply (20th Allotted Day)—Committee.
Debates on:
Closing of Museums and Art Galleries, until 7 o'clock.
National Parks and Access to the Countryside.
Motion to approve:
National Assistance (Adaptation of Enactments) Regulations.
TUESDAY, 15TH JULY — Second Reading:
Civil List Bill.
It is hoped to complete this by about 6.30 p.m.
Report and Third Reading:
Pensions (Increase) Bill.
Committee and remaining stages:
Customs and Excise Bill.
This is largely a consolidation Measure.
Second Readings:
Isle of Man (Customs) Bill.
Prison Bill [Lords].
Costs in Criminal Cases Bill [Lords].
The two last named are consolidation Measures.
Motions to approve:
Agriculture Act (Part 1) Extension of Period Order.
Agricultural Lime Schemes (Extension of Period) Order.
WEDNESDAY, 16TH JULY—Supply (21st Allotted Day)—Committee.
Debate on Civil Aviation.
THURSDAY, 17TH JULY—Supply (22nd Allotted Day)—Committee.
Debate on Colonial Affairs other than the Question of Central African Federation.
FRIDAY, 18TH JULY—Private Members' Motions.
This is the last of the days set apart for Private Members' Bills and Motions.
Perhaps I may be allowed to add this. The present Session has nearly run its normal length and the Government hope that the House can adjourn for the Summer Recess, after essential business has been completed, at the end of the month or early in August.
The Transport Bill has only just been published and hon. Members will wish to have adequate time to consider its detailed proposals. It is not intended, therefore, that it should be read a Second time this summer.
It is considered preferable and for the convenience of the House that Committee stage should follow Second Reading after a normal interval, and not nearly three months later. The Government will therefore proceed with the Transport Bill next Session, when it will be the first business to be dealt with in the autumn immediately after the new Session is opened.
Mr. Attlee: I am sure that everyone will be glad that the Transport Bill is not to be proceeded with this month. May I, however, ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has read the extremely good leading article in "The Times" on this, and if so, whether it would not be for the convenience of the House and the country if he dropped this deplorable Bill?
Mr. Crookshank: I think that is one of the most partisan observations I have ever heard.
Mr. Attlee: I always understood that "The Times," whenever it can, gives
1526
general support to the Government of the day. It cannot in this case.
Sir D. Savory: Can my right hon. Friend find time for the consideration of a Motion, signed by a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, requesting the Government to support the United States delegation to the United Nations in asking that the unanimous verdict of a special committee of the House of Representatives on the Massacre of Polish officers in the Katyn Forest be brought before the General Assembly? This committee's report shows, on irrefutable evidence, who are the authors of the Katyn murders and the massacres at Kharkov and on the White Sea. Would he not, out of sympathy with the relatives of the 15,000 murdered Polish officers, provide an extra day for the consideration of this Motion?
Mr. Crookshank: I noticed the Motion, but I am sorry that there is no Government time that I can give for it.
Mr. S. O. Davies: May I support the appeal made by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Sir D. Savory)? I hope that the Government will be able to find time not only to discuss the Motion which appears on the Order Paper but the Amendment to it in my name. I am sure that many hon. Members on this side of the House will wish to ventilate the question of atrocity-mongering behind which the Government's foreign policy finds occasion to hide.
Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate it now; that is evident.
Mr. G. R. Strauss: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is proposed, as suggested in usually well-informed organs of the Press, to publish shortly a White Paper on the steel industry and the changes which the Government propose to effect in that industry?
Mr. Crookshank: No, Sir. I could not say.
Mr. Strauss: Does that mean that the Government have not made up their mind whether to publish it or that no such White Paper is in contemplation? Can we have a little more light on the subject?
Mr. Crookshank: No. Sir.
Mrs. Braddock: Keep it dark.
Mr. Shinwell: Is it intended to make any statement on military operations in Korea before the Recess?
Mr. Crookshank: I will make inquiries about that. I am not informed at the moment.
Mr. Shinwell: That is hardly satisfactory. Does the Leader of the House understand that it has been customary in the past 18 months or two years to have regular statements on military operations in Korea, which were demanded by the then Conservative Opposition, and that we are entitled to have a statement before the Recess? I hope he will agree.
Mr. Crookshank: All I said was that I did not know, that I was not informed at the moment; but I will see—and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take note of this—that what the right hon. Gentleman has said is considered in the proper quarters.
Air Commodore Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend discuss through the usual channels whether time can be found as part of a Supply Day to discuss the Motion on the Order Paper suggesting the removal of the Dean of Canterbury from his office?
Mr. Driberg: Would the right hon. Gentleman handle that matter with very great caution, since, by putting down the Motion on the Order Paper, the hon. Members concerned have, in their innocence, blundered into an important constitutional point affecting the relations of Convocation with this House?
Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate Motions which are on the Order Paper under the guise of supplementary questions on business. I ask hon. Members to confine their inquiries strictly to matters of business.
Sir R. Acland: As it was, I think, in December last that the right hon. Gentleman indicated that there would be value in discussing the situation in Malaya, and as it is certainly not more settled now than it was then, is there any chance of its being discussed before the Recess?
Mr. Crooksbank: I do not know what will be discussed on Thursday when the Vote of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies will be put down.
Mr. Langford-Holt: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, in the event of the House having to sit beyond 4th August, it is intended to sit on the following Monday which, it may have escaped his notice, is a Bank Holiday?
Mr. Crookshank: I realise that there is a Bank Holiday early in August. I cannot go further than to say that we hope to complete business either at the end of the month or early in August.
Mr. J. Hudson: When the Leader of the House referred to the completion of essential business, did he mean to include all the Bills now going through their various stages on the Floor of the House or upstairs? Is everything included in the term "essential business"? What did he mean by that?
Mr. Crookshank: It means what is considered essential at the moment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [19TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  SUPPLY

    CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1952–53 AND NAVY ESTIMATES, 1952–53
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a further sum, not exceeding £60, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with Industry in Scotland for the year ending on 31st March, 1953, namely:

    Civil Estimates, 1952–53 and Navy Estimates, 1952–53

    £

    Class I Vote 26, Scottish Home Department

    10

    Class VI, Vote 1 Board of Trade

    10

    Class V, Vote 7, Ministry of Labour and National Service

    10

    Class VI, Vote 22, Fisheries Scotland

    10

    Class IX, Vote 1, Ministry of Supply

    10

    Navy Estimates, Vote 12, Admiralty Office

    10

    Total

    £60

INDUSTRY IN SCOTLAND
3.46 p.m.
Mr. Hector McNeil: The Vote that we have before us for the Scottish Home Department covers a very wide field indeed. It is most tempting to enter into it. However, I hope that I shall not succumb completely to the temptation. I shall try to keep to some of the main topics, although I have no doubt that the debate will range widely.
I understand that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will reply to the debate. Even if we do not necessarily agree with the hon. Gentleman, we must at any rate congratulate him on his versatility. I believe that this is his third appearance on three different subjects within three days. That is certainly a distinctive Parliamentary performance.
I do not think that hon. Gentlemen on either side would disagree with the proposition that the industrial health of Scotland steadily improved during the 64 years in which we had the fortune to have a Labour Government in this
1530
country. That is not a matter of argument; it is a matter of arithmetic, and there is an abundance of arithmetic on the subject.
However, I wish to say, as would my hon. Friends, that the Labour Party would not attempt to claim all the credit for the changes which have been displayed in those 6½ years. Organisations like the Scottish Development Council, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Industrial Council and vigorous and patriotic Scotsmen, both in London and New York as well as in Scotland, have made substantial contributions. But without in any way detracting from the credit, I must affirm that the Government of which I had the honour to be a Member had a substantial credit in that transaction.
There is an abundance of figures. Perhaps the most obvious is that 228 of the 554 factories built for new enterprises between 1946 and 1950 were built by the Government or their agents and leased or sold to these new industries. Only 53 separate new factories were built by what we normally call private capital in that period in Scotland, and the size of these 53 factories was on the average smaller than the average for the 228 factories to which I have already alluded.
I do not make that primarily as a party point. I offer the figures to the Committee because they have some relevance to the argument which I hope to develop. It will be conceded, too, that in that time Scotland not only improved in the gross number of people who were thereby afforded employment but benefited by the substantial variation in the types of employment and production. None of us, of course, even when we were in office, would have found any reason to be complacent, and, indeed, resolutions passed by the Scottish Trades Union Congress last year drew attention to many gaps which still remained to be filled if we were to have a healthy and flexible industrial structure in Scotland.
I repeat—I hope for the last time—that Labour as a Government, with the help of these public-spirited people, made an improvement in Scotland to which the present Government, although I agree that their time has been short, have so far made no comparable contribution at all.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): It is not so.
Mr. McNeil: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the point, I shall be delighted to engage with him about some of the contractions in Scottish industry which the Government have deliberately forced upon Scotland during their period of office. The Scottish picture at the moment is not as reassuring as it was in that previous period. Of course, no one of us has any satisfaction in that except the Government, whose policy, in many of its implications, has been that there should be a contraction of production and trading in Scotland.
I do not want to suggest that the improved pattern of Scottish industry is necessarily and basically harmed by the Government's policy, but there is a degree of unemployment and there are patches of unemployment which the Government, presumably, have deliberately created and which some hon. Gentlemen opposite were good enough to tell us before the election they wanted to see created. There are some quotations available which could be used, and which I should be delighted to use again.
The general policy of the Government, of course, must have been designed in the expectation of a contraction of production. The raising of the Bank rate, the comparative restriction of credit facilities—these are deliberately designed measures, presumably, to curtail production of various kinds, which must, in turn, produce unemployment and reduce the amount of available purchasing power at any one time.
As has been admitted by representatives of many Scottish organisations which cannot be called part of the Labour Party, these measures are already having very appreciable effects upon Scottish trade, and I confess that my anticipations are that they will be even worse. When I pressed the Under-Secretary of State to give us some assurance upon an allied subject last week—the Bank rate—he, perhaps quite properly but nevertheless unmistakably, was distinctly evasive on the subject.
I shall not attempt to relate this—because it has already been done—to the shutting down of overseas markets, but the shutting down of the Australian
1532
market has already had a marked effect upon the production of consumer goods, notably some of our more recent productions in Scotland. The over-all unemployment figures, as I think will be conceded, are disturbing. I do not suggest that they are alarming, and they are certainly not alarming in the context of the figures which we have previously experienced in Scotland, but they are disturbing, not only in their dimensions, but in their tendencies.
A year ago at this time, we had an unemployment figure of 42.3 per thousand. Today, according to the newspapers, we have a figure of 68.5 per thousand. That means a comparative increase between these two comparable months of 25,000, or, to put it another way, the comparative increase between these two months is rather more than 50 per cent., of the original figure and that is certainly a disturbing proportion.
Moreover, the Committee will appreciate that even these figures probably do not disclose the exact gravity of the situation. We have to make a calculation upon the figures affecting short-time working before we can arrive at the literal degree of unemployment in the country. I should like to say to the Committee that my figures of short-time working in the three main industries affected are not necessarily accurate. Again, they are newspaper figures, although I have had some assistance from some of my hon. Friends who have been collecting them.
I am told that, in the textile industry in Scotland, there are no fewer than 10,000 people on short-time working; in cotton, no fewer than 7,000 on short-time, and possibly as many as 8,500; and, in jute, no fewer than 7,000, and possibly even 10,000. These are very considerable figures which mean that, in addition to this unemployment figure of 68.5 per thousand, we have to add something like another 25,000 workers on short-time.
I should like the Under-Secretary of State, when he replies, to try to tell us—none of us imagines that any miracles can be pulled out of the hat—what precisely the Government propose to do in relation to this developing situation, and, in particular, we should like to be satisfied that, in regard to the Government contracts which the Government have assured us are being hurried forward to meet such a situation as this, and

1533
which have already been placed in Lancashire and Yorkshire, Scotland is being similarly treated. If the hon. Gentleman can give us a proportionate figure, if not an absolute figure, we shall be in a better position to judge whether we are being proportionately and fairly treated in this matter.
I now turn to some of the more basic features of Scottish industry and, of course, in any such approach we inevitably turn to steel, which at present is our basic worry, as the Report itself shows. The Report sets out the essence of the problem very distinctly. On page 31, in paragraph 142, it says:
"The production of steel in Scotland was 13 per cent. less in 1951 than in 1950, compared with a decline of less than 4 per cent. in Great Britain as a whole."
I understand that the hon. Gentleman who will reply had some remarks to offer to another Committee on the subject, but he will note that the annual production 1951 is down compared with the previous year. Moreover, he will note that it is down disproportionately to the general contraction in Great Britain. The contraction is 13 per cent. in Scotland, which is rather more than three times the average contraction for the whole of the country.
I am told that, apart from the absolute shortage of steel, Scotland is also comparatively short of steel when comparison is made with the available supplies for the rest of the country. In other words, Scotland is not getting its fair proportion. That must be an immediate Governmental responsibility. We are very glad indeed to see that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Supply, whose worries and occupations we all understand, has done the Committee the courtesy of being here. The task of seeing that there is a just distribution is apart altogether from the overall question of production. That is plainly a governmental responsibility.
I am told that this comparatively unfair distribution is primarily due to faults in relation to the system of priorities. I am told that the priorities do not command, as they were designed to do. I have some quotations on the subject. There has been a good deal of correspondence. I should like to quote remarks by Lord Bilsland which were reported in the "Glasgow Herald" in March. At a
1534
meeting of the Scottish Council, Lord Bilsland said:
"…that, on the evidence available from major engineering concerns in Scotland, they believed that the total number of licences issued in the United Kingdom exceeded the productive capacity of the steelmaking industry. The situation was aggravated by the fact that the output of the Scottish steelmakers had been reduced to a greater extent than that of the steelmakers in the South by the very large fall in scrap imports."
I shall come to the second point in a minute.
I made inquiries of the Scottish Council last week and I was told that, on the evidence available to them, that situation has not yet been repaired. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that the allocations will be physically met with steel and also that the Scottish consumer will be given a reasonable allocation from the available supplies.
The absolute shortage is due to the fact that the Scottish steel industry has been more dependent upon scrap than has the industry in the South, and, in consequence, it has been short of the blast furnace potential to deal with the ore, if the ore were available, to maintain our figure at its previous level. I am told, too, that there is no likelihood of the scrap again becoming available in the proportions that we enjoyed before 1950. I should think that is a fairly reasonable assumption, since that great flow of scrap depended upon the Japanese and other markets which no longer make that surplus available.
If we are to meet this unbalance in the Scottish steel industry, it is plain that what is needed is an increase in our blast furnace capacity. I am not an expert in this subject but, again, there has been a good deal of correspondence about it and there has been a Committee on the subject. I am told that the experts agree that what is needed are four additional modern blast furnaces. I know it is planned that one of these should be installed by the Colville group, but that will still leave Scotland needing three modern blast furnaces in addition to the Colville one, two to be in operation and one as a standby, the weekly capacity being about 4,000 tons.
After the information which the Leader of the House gave us immediately after Question time, the outlook is a little better, because the Government's

1535
intention to proceed with the de-nationalisation of steel is not quite as plain as it was before, and I am sure the whole Committee will hope that the Government will add wisdom to discretion and abandon the proposition altogether. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Gentleman wish to say something?
Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: I merely dissented from the right hon. Gentleman's hope that the whole Committee agreed with him, for it certainly does not.
Mr. McNeil: I am glad that the hon. Member is expressing a voice upon the subject. I believe the Committee will agree that this is a reasonable proposition. If the Government are determined, despite the fact that they have no mandate so to do, to restore the steel industry to private hands, I am certain the people of Scotland will expect an undertaking from the Government—the Committee will hope to get it from the hon. Gentleman who is to reply—that, before such a radical step is taken, an assurance will be exacted from the private industry in Scotland that this additional blast furnace capacity will be made available.
We have seen developing this year a situation affecting almost every sector of the Scottish economy. As long as there is a Governmental responsibility for the development as well as the operation of the steel industry, we can be reasonably assured that this minimum additional capacity will be made available. In Scotland we have not been quite as fortunate as they have been in Wales. We were hoping when we were in office that we should see a comparable development in Scotland and in the rest of Great Britain. However, if the Government are determined in this rash fashion to part with that control, I repeat that the Committee will expect, and the people of Scotland will eventually demand, an assurance that the additional capacity is safeguarded.
There are two allied problems. One is that of berthing and discharging facilities if we are to raise the capacity of the blast furnace sector of the industry in Scotland. At present the only large mineral depot on the River Clyde is that at Faslane Dock, which has a capacity to handle roughly 1 million tons of ore per annum If we get the additional blast furnace
1536
capacity, the berthing and discharging capacity will have eventually to rise to about 2,500,000 tons annually. I understand that there have been negotiations between the ironmasters, the Clyde Navigation Trust, and, of course, British Railways. These negotiations are well developed to provide additional modern discharging facilities.
If the Government are going to match their rashness about steel with a comparable rashness in relation to transport—and we now have a Bill before the House—the Committee are entitled to expect an undertaking from the Joint Under-Secretary of State, on behalf of the Government, that the fulfilment of the results of these negotiations will not be prejudiced by such intentions as the Government have towards our Docks and Inland Waterways Executive or towards the British Railways structure. If the Government are going to dismantle the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive and if they are going to dismantle the structure of the railways, I do not know how the hon. Gentleman would set about ensuring that these additional facilities now agreed upon would be proceeded with. But it is a reasonable and modest request that the Committee should be so assured.
On this point I should like to say finally that the Committee will not be divided upon the necessity to give such a scheme—for blast furnace capacity and additional berthage—a high priority both physically and from the Treasury point of view. If it were to be judged primarily or solely upon defence claims, it would have a very high priority, and if we add to that the economic claims of Scotland the Government should have no difficulty in persuading the Treasury, the Ministry of Supply and the Board of Trade that blast furnace capacity should be quickly created and should be matched by the necessary additions in discharging and handling capacities.
Naturally, as I have already stated, this comparative shortage of steel has affected all our heavy industry and has inevitably affected shipbuilding and marine engineering to some degree. The figures are given in paragraph 151 of the Report on Industry and Employment in Scotland, 1951. The Report states:
"Owing to the difficulty of obtaining adequate and balanced supplies of steel, particularly during the second half of 1951, the output

1537
of new merchant tonnage throughout the United Kingdom was somewhat less than had been hoped. Scottish yards completed 490,943 gross tons of new merchant ships,…"
That is a very impressive performance, but still only 36.5 per cent. of United Kingdom output, compared with 534,375 gross tons, or 39 per cent., of United Kingdom output in the previous year, 1950.
Unless the Minister of Supply is able to help us out immediately in steel, and unless this additional capacity is made available quite quickly, then, of course, however heavily the yards are booked—and we are all happy to know that the yards and marine shops are very heavily committed indeed—they will not match previous performance and will be in danger of losing orders.
There are two other matters upon which I should like to comment. Some developments in shipbuilding which affect the Clyde are by now pretty obvious. There is, for example, the development towards the bigger tanker. The tanker which has a capacity of 32,000 or 32,500 tons has a very broad beam indeed, the kind of beam which we on Clydeside used to think would emerge as the feature of an aircraft carrier, and that is already placing certain difficulties in the way of the river.
I am not able to say so emphatically, although I have reasonable industrial support, but there will develop probably quite quickly a limit in fitting-out and overhauling capacity on the River Clyde for this type of ship. Also, quite plainly, there will be a deficiency in dry-docking facilities for this type of vessel. There are none on the River Clyde and we have to go to the other coast; and then only by the courtesy of the Admiralty can that deficiency be overtaken.
This great development, in relation to the whole development of discharging facilities, of the building up of this great nexus of the oil industry and ancillary chemical industries at Grangemouth is of incomparable importance to our country. If we cannot match it with basin and dry-docking facilities, quite plainly it will not suffer immediately, but it must be a matter of some worry. Certainly if we have the misfortune to be involved in war, both of these features would be a very great worry indeed.
In my division we are used to the Admiralty's ability to improvise, and they
1538
depend very greatly on the ability of Clydeside people to improvise against such emergency. Nobody will quarrel with the Admiralty in the role of fighters, and no one under-estimates the Government's difficulty in finding capital at this date. But at least I hope that we shall have a survey made and that, without security risks, information will be published eventually upon basin and dry-dock capacity in relation to these bigger ships on the river. I do not think I have any right to expect the Joint Under-Secretary to give me an undertaking off-hand on such a subject, but I hope he will be able to promise us that he will look kindly upon the need for such examination.
There are two other long-term considerations to which I should like to refer and which, in principle, I should like to develop to some length if I were not already aware that I am boring the Committee. The two other long-term considerations which worry me, as they must worry hon. Members in all parts of the Committee, are these: What are the prospects of additional industry for Scotland and what industries should we seek; and secondly, how well are we geared or machined to ensure that we make the best use of such possibilities?
Despite our successes in the war years and later, in which many people shared, there are some gaps quite plainly discernible in our new structure in Scotland. For example, one about which many people have been worried and are talking, about which I remember my right hon. Friend displayed concern, is the lack of industrial development in East Fife and the Lothians. That must take place if we are to have the necessary head of mining manpower available in these two districts.
These are the two great developments in our country, and if they do not come off a tremendous slice will drop off from Scottish production. They must come off, but we cannot expect the miner to go there, and certainly not to stay there, unless there are other industries available for the other members of his family. I am not going to accuse the Government of exclusive responsibility for that failure. I should prefer to say that it is one of the things on which I felt I failed when I occupied the right hon. Gentleman's office. It is a problem which all Scotland will have to face, and to which we must

1539
find quick answers if we are to escape something like disaster.
The questions about the new types of industry are wide and yet obvious. What we want to know is: Are we securing the type of industry most appropriate for Scotland, the type of industry most likely to succeed in Scotland, and the type of industry most likely to enable Scotland to make the maximum contribution, not only to Scottish development, but to British resources and British wealth?
For a time our country was so badly handled in the years between the wars that we were prepared to grab at any kind of industry. Our people were so glad to get work of any kind that scarcely any other consideration came into our minds. But now we are getting round to looking at the results of our grabbing, much of it happily being very satisfactory, and we are beginning to have a little time in which we can look ahead to our subsequent development.
Our worries and our ideas are not now the concern of any one party or class. We are all talking about them. I hope that many hon. Members have had the fortune to read what I thought was a most excellent lecture by Professor Cairncross of Glasgow University and Professor Meier of Chicago University upon new industries and economic development in Scotland. I shall not attempt to summarise it for the Committee, although I am very tempted to do so. They look at the failure of Scotland to hold on to the old industries, such as the airways and automobile industries, and they come to conclusions about why we failed to hold on to them.
They are quite certain that it was that failure to hold on which was more responsible for our comparative failure in economic development than any absence of resources. They go on to look at the new available industries, such as chemicals, plastics, synthetic fabrics, industrial microbiology, and so on, giving a list of those which they think have an application to Scotland. Then they look at the chances of holding these, and there are just two quotations which I should like to give, after which I shall not bother the Committee further. They come to two conclusions and say:
"Both in terms of design, staff and of production capacity, precision engineering is inadequate in Scotland to meet the needs of the
1540
engineering industry as a whole and this deficiency acts as a brake on electronic and similar types of development …To take full advantage of technical progress, a firm must contribute to it; without itself engaging in research, it can hardly keep abreast of changes in technique, much less outstrip its competitors. For this reason, the possibilities that have been reviewed above can be realised only by firms that set out to make the fullest use of scientific knowledge, and have a staff competent not only to use, but to add to, that knowledge."
That is pretty sharp medicine for us in Scotland, but I am certain that it is an appropriate draught.
The saddest and most expensive of our exports has been the continuous exporting of our fine technicians, of our scientific and research workers. Why we have not held them is a long story, but we have not done so. The corollary is that if we are to develop an appropriate pattern of new industry in Scotland—and the responsibility rests not only with the Government or industry, but with all of us—we must ensure that there are sufficient openings for technical education; we must ensure that there is a closer development between these technical education institutions and industry; and we must ensure that there are teams or staffs built up for research and design in these new industries.
There is the allied question—and I promise the Committee that after this shall proceed no further—of whether, as Professor Cairncross and Professor Meier say, we have the administrative staff to develop what they call an industrial strategy about what industries we want and what assistance we should give to develop what has already taken place internally. I confess that when I was in the right hon. Gentleman's shoes this was a problem that worried me a great deal, and I never felt I had managed to get to grips with the subject. I felt that if I had had five years in that office I might have done. I expect the right hon. Gentleman is already sharing comparable regrets because, through no fault of his own, he will not be there all that time either; this Government will have gone long before that.
It is a very hefty problem. We have available a great diversity of organisation. We have the Scottish Council, to whom I have repeatedly paid tribute publicly, and to whom I want now again to pay tribute, for their part in this development. Then there is the Board of Trade regional office, about which I

1541
am not so enthusiastic. I am not here criticising the personnel; I am merely saying that it is very difficult to ascertain the precise functions of that regional office, and much more difficult to understand what are their powers, if indeed they have any.
There is also the Council of Industry, which does a splendid job in patching up and sorting out various messes as they occur industrially. There is the Scots T.U.C., which I do not think is fully employed in relation to this task. There are also the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, and I sometimes doubt whether they are fully employed on that same task.
There is, of course, the grossly overworked wing of the Home Department of the Scottish Office, which has to try to achieve co-ordination and sometimes has to jump in at the deep end, not very certain as to what its powers are but, I am glad to say, very determined in its anxiety to put things right.
I should not wish to overload what I suspect is the sometimes overloaded Scottish Office with additional work, and I should certainly be very chary of doing anything to destroy the tradition and technique which the Scottish Development Council have built up in this task of securing new industry for Scotland. I am fairly certain, however, that we are getting near to the point where more responsibility and more direction will have to be merged in some central organisation. I do not think that anyone but the Government can do the job.
I do not know whether it should be done in the Scottish Office. I do not know whether the answer is not to provide some other organisation, having a very close connection with the Government and in this respect with the Scottish Office. I think we shall have to find an answer of that kind if we are going to develop an industrial pattern in relation to the seizing of appropriate new industries and extending those new industries which are already established.
There is in our country at the present time a great vitality and a great opportunity for us to re-establish ourselves if we have responsible direction and if we have an efficient and tidy instrument for the purpose. I hope that that vitality will not be dissipated in nostalgic squabbles.
1542
We once had a reputation for being exceedingly good at metaphysics and theology. I shall not be so rash as to suggest that all our problems will solve themselves in material terms alone, but I believe that this vitality, energy and determination should be canalised to meet Scottish industrial problems. I believe they can be and I believe that the Government cannot escape the obligation to give leadership and to provide such facilities.
I repeat that I was not able to do it in the short time I was in office, and in this one regard I shall not be over-critical of the Government if they do not produce an answer in six or 12 months. I shall not be so benevolent about other things to which I and my right hon. and hon. Friends intend to refer.
May I plead with the Joint Under-Secretary of State to say a little more than is said in his Report about my dearly beloved peat, reference to which appears I think, on page 52.
Mr. Robert Boothby: Dearly beloved what?
Mr. McNeil: Peat. The hon. Member may be sure that I shall never claim his herring for myself, although the hon. Member knows little about kippers and less about their cooking. But that is by the way. In his Report the right hon. Gentleman gives a good account of this development, but I am impatient and I scarcely apologise for my impatience. This is a great opportunity, but perhaps many of us have exaggerated hopes on the subject.
Research is a funny business and takes its own pace if the scientists and engineers are left to look after it. If the right hon. Gentleman and his many hon. Friends between them would do a little kicking on this subject, the Committee would be indebted. If the Joint Under-Secretary of State would tell us a little more about the matter at this stage, I should be very grateful.
4.35 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): I should like to congratulate the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) upon the broad and pleasing manner in which he has introduced this subject. No one could complain that at any point he chose to make unnecessary party capital

1543
out of the situation. We do not object to his taking such credit as he thinks is his due for the good things that happened from the end of the war until he was, happily, removed from office a short time ago. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to all his share of the credit, especially when he is so generous—and I was delighted to hear it—about the work that was done and the assistance that was given to him by the Scottish Council and the many other bodies, which are examples of the voluntary co-operative enterprise that we have in Scotland today.
I shall try to deal with the points which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned in their order. But perhaps I should begin by reminding the Committee that this is the sixth White Paper we have had on industry and employment in Scotland, and the first since the present Government took office. Previous White Papers were debated on the Floor of the House in 1948 and in the Scottish Grand Committee in 1949 and 1950. These White Papers are a well-established method of examining the general situation in our country.
It is a sort of annual stocktaking which all of us enjoy and which it is our duty to undertake. Many of the specific subjects mentioned in the Report, as the right hon. Gentleman realises, have already been discussed by the Scottish Grand Committee within recent weeks. We have had the questions of the Highlands, hydro-electricity, fisheries, agriculture, education and housing discussed already. I do not think that the Committee would expect me to go over those subjects again, although of course we are always ready to answer any questions which are raised about them.
This is a chance to review the whole field. The White Paper is a factual document. It would never do for it to be anything else but a factual document, and I hope it will remain one. It is not the place for putting over party views and policies. It does not attempt to forecast. The right hon. Gentleman finished by searching into the future, and I agree with him about the desirability of doing so, but that is not to be found in the White Paper. It does, however, describe events that are happening.
1544
Scottish Members are concerned primarily with the welfare of Scotland, just as Scottish public opinion is concerned to see that Scotland receives fair treatment within the limits of available resources, and looks to Scottish Ministers to see that Scottish interests are safeguarded. I think it will be agreed in this Committee—although not always outside—and by all responsible persons that the economic destinies of Scotland simply cannot be divorced from those of the United Kingdom as a whole, and that the economic development of Scotland must be seen against the broader background of the common task confronting us and our friends south of the Border of making ourselves solvent and able to defend our British way of life. What matters most is that the contribution which Scotland makes is that which fits in with that of the other partners in this United Kingdom, so that we all gain thereby.
I was very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for doing me the courtesy of advising me of some of the points which he intended to raise. I hope I shall be able to respond by giving some of the information for which he asked.
There was an improvement in the industrial life of Scotland after the war. New industries were introduced and a variation of industries was brought about. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman would not claim that that was just something that happened after the war. The truth is that that improvement and the variation of the types of industry began long before the war. The Scottish Development Council was set up in the early 1930's for that precise purpose. I was in at the very beginning of it. I have an almost parental feeling about it, and I am glad that that body has grown up to be such a considerable institution, after doing so much in Scotland in association with different Governments.
When the right hon. Gentleman suggests that, in the short time that we have been responsible for Scotland, we have deliberately created unemployment and destroyed the heaven upon earth that he and his hon. friends created, we must part company, temporarily only, I hope, with the right hon. Gentleman. To blame us, as he seemed to do, for the closing of the Australian market was the last straw.
Mr. McNeil: I did not blame the Government, but it was a straw which does show which way the wind blows.
Mr. Stewart: Even there, the right hon. Gentleman, like some of his hon. Friends, is quite clearly of the belief that it is the raising of the Bank rate that is causing all the trouble.
Mr. McNeil: Not all of it.
Mr. Stewart: Well, a large part of the trouble. In the last Scottish housing debate it was made a major point by the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that my right hon. Friend had run away from the point and had refused to explain it properly. Let me try to explain it. I shall do so with some diffidence, as I do not regard myself as a great expert in these matters. I have fortified myself with the views of the experts of the Treasury.
The raising of the Bank rate is only one of a complex of measures taken by the Government to restore—not to destroy—our economic position and in particular to contribute towards a solution of the problem of the balance of payments. These steps are aimed at relieving pressure upon our internal resources, thus making it easier to transfer reserves from satisfying domestic demands to satisfying the need of exports. Increased restrictions on foreign borrowing have been imposed, with an immediate impact upon our balance of payments.
The Committee may like to know what has been the result so far as we are aware, of the raising of the Bank rate at home and abroad. If we can all feel reasonably satisfied that it has done good, it will be some relief, but the full effect had not yet been seen, and will not be seen for some time to come.
It is quite clear that abroad the results have been immediate and most striking. In particular, the raising of the Bank rate to 4 per cent. in March resulted in an immediate improvement of foreign confidence in sterling. We have all benefited, and Scottish trade has benefited from it. There are very few families in the country who do not benefit by the strengthening of the position of sterling abroad.
The internal effects are necessarily slower to show themselves, but it is already clear that the new monetary policy has had a great effect upon borrowers and lenders. The combined effect
1546
has been to produce the first reductions in commercial bank advances for many years. There is evidence that the increase of activity in various branches of trade and industry is helping to increase productivity and to transfer resources to places where they are most needed.
In the time of the last Government, was it not a constantly repeated assertion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that our resources were being swallowed up in the wrong places and that something had to be done to remove those resources to spheres where they would best serve the nation? The purpose of raising the Bank rate was to make that change possible. I assure hon. Members that that was one of the purposes, and it has had an effect. Though we cannot claim that this policy has proved a complete success internally, it has proved an immediate and powerful asset to us abroad and I am quite convinced that in due course its beneficial effects will become apparent.
The right hon. Gentleman started to talk about industrial development. We are in a situation where we require to conserve our industrial resources. We cannot go on building this and that. We have to choose. Despite this situation, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, more than 2½ million square feet of factory space were completed in 1951. I am returning him the compliment by saying that at the end of the year the total amount of factory space under construction was 1½ million square feet more than a year earlier.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what we were doing. In the first quarter of this year the figures have increased still further. The Bank rate does not seem to have interfered with them. At the end of March, 1952, the amount under construction was more than 7½ million square feet. That is a substantial piece of work that is going on in Scotland now.
Mr. Thomas Fraser: The Bank rate only went up on 11th March.
Mr. Stewart: One important new firm have come to Scotland in that time—Glaxo—and acquired premises at Montrose. Another company, Metropolitan Vickers, already having a factory at Motherwell, are taking another Government factory at Germiston in Glasgow

1547
in order to make heavy electrical equipment. There is still another large project in which there has been much interest—International Business Machines at Greenock—with which the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt familiar. The project has been finally approved, and will be proceeded with as soon as steel is available.
Mr. McNeil: The hon. Gentleman has said that I know something about this project. I had a little to do with bringing it into being.
Mr. Stewart: I was merely being polite to the right hon. Gentleman in Parliamentary language. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will understand.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us something about the factory that did not materialise at Kilbride and which is not going to be built?
Mr. Stewart: I expect the hon. Gentleman knows as much about it as I do. It was hoped that an American firm would establish a factory there, but, for reasons which appealed to them from their own point of view, they decided to move somewhere else and to abandon the proposition. I have heard the suggestion that the Government were to blame for that. I know a little about the matter and I can assure hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the Committee that there is no substance in that suggestion.
If I might express a personal view, it is that we need not break our hearts about it. I say that advisedly, because there are great agricultural machinery firms in Scotland, created by Scotsmen and run by Scotsmen. I know a little about this industry, too, because I was in it until the other day, and I know that it is able to cope with all the advances that the industry may be called upon to make. I do not break my heart over this and I do not think any of us should.
Mr. McNeil: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to give the Committee or any part of Scotland any impression otherwise than that he is greatly distressed at the loss of valuable prospects to the workers of Scotland through the inability or unwillingness of
1548
the Government to facilitate that firm's arrival.
Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman must not say that the Government were responsibile. It was the decision of the firm itself.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Why?
Mr. Stewart: I do not know why the firm reached that conclusion, but it was their responsibility.
May I turn to employment? During 1951 the first signs were already discernible of the difficulties which led to an increase in unemployment towards the end of the year and during the early months of 1952. The trouble started last year. As the right hon. Gentleman told us, steel production fell by 13 per cent. compared with 1950. Clothing output declined last year. These factors, together with the normal seasonal rise in unemployment, were largely responsible for the figure of 75,000 unemployed in February this year. This compares with 70,000 in January, 1951, and 72,000 in March, 1950.
Mr. James H. Hoy: What were the June figures?
Mr. Stewart: I can give the June figures if the hon. Gentleman wants them.
Mr. Hoy: If the hon. Gentleman is going to make a comparison, surely in common fairness he ought to compare the same periods. Will he compare June with June?
Mr. Stewart: I think that is a fair comment. I am not trying to make any point, but simply trying to tell the Committee how the figures have moved. Between February and May of this year the numbers fell to 66,000. There has been an increase in the number of women unemployed, and that has led to the figure rising to 68,500 on 16th June, which is the latest figure.
There has been criticism of those figures on the ground that they do not reflect the number of people on short time. It is a difficult matter. In fact, the June figure includes 13,200 persons who were temporarily stopped on the Monday on which the count was taken and, in addition, it is estimated that there were about 9,600 persons in June who were on short time but who were working

1549
on the Monday. This increase in unemployment must be seen in its proper perspective against the whole background of Scottish industry. The figure of 68,500, which is the most recent figure, represents 3.2 per cent. of the total insured population.
Mr. William Ross rose—
Mr. Stewart: I will give way when I have finished the sentence. This figure of 3.2 per cent. compares with 2.1 per cent. for Great Britain and is lower than—and this is an interesting figure—the figure of 4.9 per cent. for the northwestern region of England.
Mr. Ross: I intervened to give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity of clearing up a misapprehension which may have been created from the way he put the figures. The short-time working figures are not included in the figure he gave, but are additional to it.
Mr. Stewart: I will read this again. If I am wrong, the right hon. Member for Greenock will correct me. I said that, in fact, the June figure includes 13,200 persons who were temporarily stopped on the Monday on which the count was made. In addition, I said, it is estimated that there were about 9,600 persons in June who were on short time but who were working on the Monday. This increase in unemployment must be seen against its proper background, as I have said. The figure which I gave for the North-West of England is an interesting comparison.
The rise in unemployment has taken place largely in the textile industries, as the right hon. Gentleman said, and includes an increase in the jute industry. There is reason to hope that some improvement in that industry may be looked for, but I do not disguise the fact that the jute position gives one some anxiety. I think the Committee knows pretty well what the trouble is. There are various troubles, but the chief of them is that the price of jute has been falling—and the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) is an expert on this—in India and Pakistan.
The Government have been lowering the prices, which I am sure is in everybody's interest, and the total price, therefore, has been declining rapidly. There may
1550
be another fall in a day or two's time. Those who buy in stock have naturally been holding back. The industries dealing with carpets and linoleum and those other great buyers have been holding back week after week and are still holding back. I confess to the Committee that until we reach what is recognised in the trade as a rock bottom price, we cannot be too happy, but from all the evidence which we have, it appears—and I put it no higher—that there is some prospect of improvement.
Mr. John Strachey: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it is very important that the jute industry should feel assured that, as and when the price of raw jute falls, as he has just described, the Jute Control, from the Government end here, lower the price to the industry without there being an interval, because last winter there was such an interval? I do not say that it was the major cause of the difficulties, but I think it was an important cause, and I hope the hon. Gentleman can assure us that that difficulty will be avoided.
Mr. Stewart: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point and I think we are fully alive to it. Indeed, I think he will see in the action taken in the very near future that we have met the point. Although those difficulties exist—and I do not seek to disguise them from the Committee—the picture is not all black by any means. Over most of the field of Scottish industry, employment has been very well maintained. In engineering there is still a large unsatisfied demand for skilled labour, and if this could be met by up-grading, by dilution, by training and so on, the industry would be able to take on greatly increased numbers of semi-skilled workers.
Recruiting for the large Rolls-Royce factory has not yet begun extensively, and it is not expected to do so for several months to come. The recruitment of unskilled workers for training in coal mining, I am glad to say, has continued at a high level, and on 28th June there were over 85,000 persons on the colliery books, an increase of 3,020 since 1st January. I am very happy personally to be able to give the Committee those figures.
The Government are watching the unemployment situation very closely, and on Monday the Minister of State had a

1551
meeting in Edinburgh with the Scottish Council and the Scottish Controllers of the Great Britain Departments, when the whole position was very closely examined. I am coming to the right hon. Gentleman's ultimate point. As hon. Members will have seen the White Paper describes the steep rise in wool prices in the early part of 1951 and the subsequent fall of those wool prices which, in their turn, led to a recession in demand for clothing—this is last year—with an adverse effect both on the spinning and weaving sections of the industry.
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will recollect that in the spinning and weaving sections of the industry there was in his time, last year, the beginning of something of the order of a slump. As hon. Gentlemen will have noticed, several factories were on short time last year—it is mentioned in the Report—and some had actually to close last year. Now in Scotland the present recession—I am talking now about textiles—though it is hard to bear in certain areas—and I am not uninterested, because linen factories in East Fife, though not yet unemployed, are a little anxious—has, I understand, been less severe than elsewhere. Unemployment in all Scottish textile industries on 16th June amounted to 10,724 persons, or rather less than 0.6 per cent. of the total Scottist insured population.
Scotland has, nevertheless, received substantial contracts—
Mr. Hoy: Did the hon. Gentleman say that that figure of unemployment was the figure in the textile industries?
Mr. Stewart: I will repeat what I said. Unemployment in all the textile industries amounted on 16th June to 10,724 persons.
Mr. Hoy: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman has the figure correctly. I have a return here from the Minister of Labour as at 16th June, and it says that unemployment in the textile industries was 14,408. That is a substantial difference for the same date.
Mr. Stewart: I will have that checked up.
Mr. Strachey: Textiles other than jute, is it not?
Mr. Stewart: Yes, I think it is other than jute. We can have that checked up, and I will let the hon. Member know.
1552
Scotland has received substantial contracts under the schemes for accelerating Government orders for the defence programme which the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 7th April, and more will be forthcoming. For example, it has been decided that of orders for £750,000 worth of light linen canvas half shall be allocated to Scotland and half to Northern Ireland; which is not a bad proportion. Other orders remain to be placed for hosiery goods and making-up items, and Scottish firms will certainly have a share of those.
Mr. Thomas Hubbard: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that already the Government have placed contracts with Northern Ireland that cannot be undertaken, while at the same time there are many textile factories in Scotland bursting for such orders? Will he look into that point?
Mr. Stewart: Yes. As the hon. Gentleman will expect to hear, I am aware of that. Due representations are being made. I think that the hon. Member and others of us from the Fife region will be relieved a little in the near future. I hope so.
Now we come to steel, to which the right hon. Gentleman, naturally, paid a good deal of attention; and he asked me what we had to announce about it, and what assurances we could give about it, and so on. Well, I will tell him. During the last few months there have been great anxieties in Scotland, as he knows, on the subject of steel for Scottish industry.
We have to understand that the Scottish steelmakers rely to a large extent on scrap, much of which is imported, and the supplies of which have declined very considerably. The result of that has been that the output of the Scottish steel works has also declined, and Scottish consumers have experienced difficulties in obtaining their full requirements. My right hon. Friend was very soon made aware of the position by representations by the Scottish Council and a multitude of other bodies, and he at once took up the matter with the Minister of Supply. I am talking about the time when we took over—right at the start.
As a result, Scottish steel factories are now receiving over half the scrap imported into the United Kingdom—half the total scrap; that is to say, double the proportion which they received last year; and in the first six months of this

1553
year they received approximately the same tonnage as they received during the whole of last year. I think the Committee will agree that that is a substantial improvement. Scottish steel mills are also being given a substantial share of finished ingot steel received from America, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Gentlemen will be especially interested in that. Following up this increased flow of raw materials Scottish proved steel production rose in June by 1,000 tons a week over the May rate, and it is anticipated that a further similar increase will be achieved in July. That, I feel, will be encouraging, welcome news for the Scottish people.
These, however—the right hon. Gentleman was quite right—are temporary expedients. The long-term solution of the problem is, of course, to reduce the dependence of Scottish steel works on imported scrap. That is a point the right hon. Gentleman made. We agree with him. With this in view schemes have been set on foot to expand pig iron production in Scotland. The blast furnace plants of the Clyde steel works have been improved and extended, and a third large furnace was put into operation in 1947, and an early start is to be made on the installation of a fourth blast furnace the equipment for which has now been ordered—has been within the last few weeks—at a cost of £2,500,000.
To accompany this development a new battery of coke ovens is expected to be begun in December at a cost of about £2 million. This new blast furnace of which I have spoken will be the biggest in the United Kingdom, and will have an output of 350,000 tons of pig iron a year—which is quite as it ought to be, considering the long and distinguished record of the Scottish steel makers. Work has already started at the Clyde steel works, and approval has been given to proposals for the modernisation of the blast furnace ancilary plant at Gartsherrie to enable production there to be expanded.
Now I come to the right hon. Gentleman's point that if we increase all that work we shall need ore, we shall need more shipping, we shall need more transport. Right. These schemes, while increasing Scottish pig iron production, will necessitate the handling of greatly increased quantities of imported iron ore.
1554
As the right hon. Gentleman anticipated, discussions are proceeding between the Scottish steel interests and the appropriate public transport authorities in regard to the provision of additional docking facilities to accommodate the new large ore carrying vessels that will be in service in a year or two.
The right hon. Gentleman said that if we were going to be rash enough to denationalise steel we ought to get some assurance from the private steel enterprises that they will provide the necessary output. I think we have got it. I think that is testimony to the progress being made. Not that we can be complacent or think that this is enough. I am only intimating to the Committee that Scotland is not laggard in this matter, and that we are doing very well. The right hon. Gentleman also said that if we were rash enough to denationalise transport we should have to make sure that proper services would be available. I can tell him that steps are now being taken to cover that very point.
Mr. McNeil: Yes. I am not sure that I am being very fair to the hon. Gentleman, and I apologise if I am not, but I know, as he knows, that these conversations on both sides have gone on very well with the publicly owned undertakings, and my worry and the worry, I am sure, of the Committee is, can he be certain that before the Government part with their assets, for whatever reasons may seem attractive to the Government, they will be given undertakings that all these processes will not be disturbed?
Mr. Stewart: I understand that point. We have, of course, thought about it. I think I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we feel satisfied that that assurance can be given. I am not standing here to make that undertaking, because I am not in a position to do so, but I can say that we do not forsee any dangers or difficulties, and that we can proceed with this change of transport policy without any danger to the steel prospects of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman may not agree with me; but I am telling him what we think.
There is one other point—on shipbuilding. The steel shortage is affecting shipbuilding too. The Committee will have seen the figures in the latest report. In the early part of this year—to the end of May—the total amount of merchant

1555
shipping on order rose by over 100,000 gross tons. The work now in hand and on order should keep most Scottish shipyards fully employed for three or four years. There has been a welcome increase in the number of passenger, passenger-cargo and dry cargo vessels being ordered.
I can assure the Committee that the shipyards of Scotland are getting a very substantial share of re-armament orders. I am glad that some of the little yards in our fishing areas are sharing in that work, although personally I do not think there are as many orders for East Fife as I would like. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point about the need for a dry dock and the need also for larger accommodation to take these new tankers. However, 32,000 tons is an exceptionally large tanker.
Mr. McNeil: I do not agree. I know that the representative of the Admiralty is here, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that 32,000 tons is no longer an unusual size for a tanker.
Mr. Stewart: What the right hon. Gentleman said was that some part of the Clyde—perhaps it is Greenock—cannot accommodate a 32,000 ton tanker. I am not aware that nowhere on the Clyde can a tanker of such a size be accommodated, but if the right hon. Gentleman has a case to put with respect to a certain part of the Clyde, then that is a special issue, and I do not think he would like me to deal with it now.
The right hon. Gentleman made some representations about dry docks. It may be suggested that dry docks on the Clyde are inadequate. It is true that compared with the Clyde's large shipbuilding capacity the dry dock facilities are less than might be expected, but this is the result of the growth of the industry over many years. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion will, I am sure, be before the Clyde Trust now, and no doubt they will be examining it very carefully.
The right hon. Gentleman finished on a note of inquiry and of imagination. He was searching for the answer to Scotland's long-term future. I was fascinated by the picture he drew, because I share his curiosity and excitement about these matters: He asked: What is our future, what new industries should we seek to
1556
get, what sort of technical staff should we establish, what is our strategy? It is true that coal-mining areas such as East Fife—I speak of territory that I know—have this problem, that while miners may pour into these districts there are not the industries to employ their sons and daughters, and sometimes those miners go back to the areas from which they came. I know that problem. It may be that we can do something about it. I should certainly like to be able to do something about it.
The Cairncross Report—not the one from which the right hon. Gentleman read but the one which was referred to in the papers yesterday—dealt with this matter of development of factories in other parts of Scotland. We have seen those recommendations and we have sent them to the other Government Departments and bodies interested. We have not yet formed conclusions. Many matters are involved. As hon. Members will no doubt have gathered, there are many implications involved and I am not yet in a position to say what we feel about those recommendations.
But I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to agree with me in this: in our search for new industries we must be careful that we do not neglect our traditional Scottish heavy industries. [An HON. MEMBER: "You cannot."] It is all very well saying "You cannot," but there are people in Scotland who are so keen on these new light industries that they would readily move supplies of scarce materials to new industries sometimes at the sacrifice of the old. I hope we shall not lose our sense of balance. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman has raised matters of very great interest.
The part that higher technology can play is of immense importance to us. It will, no doubt, be of great interest to hon. Members to know what is happening now at the Ferranti works. The first stage of the scheme mentioned in the White Paper has been reached whereby the firm will act as a parent contractor to a number of small firms for research and development work on electronics.
The Committee will have noticed the very important statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about higher technological education in the House the other day. I can assure the Committee that we are deeply conscious

1557
of the new age into which we are moving and of the almost indefinable part which technology is going to play. I respond readily to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that this is something in which we might act together.
I have this last word to say in response to the right hon. Gentleman. There is and has been throughout the post-war years great confidence and bouyancy in Scotland—far more than I see in other parts of the country; it is due, I am sure—and I do not deny credit to Government agencies and officials—to this unique voluntary co-operative effort on the part of Scotsmen and women of all grades and classes—industrialists, bankers, trade unionists, and university professors all working together. It has served Scotland well, and I am sure that if we can continue with that spirit and ensure that it exists right down throughout the factories and so on, so that all of us, in whatever walk of life we may be, give of our best, there is no doubt about the future of our country.
5.17 p.m.
Mr. James H. Hoy: I am not going so far as to say that the present situation was indeed alarming. It is almost so, however. The present figures of unemployment do cause us some perturbation in Scotland, and I do not think the Government should be under any misapprehension about that.
We used to be accused of using the inter-war years for the purposes of party propaganda, and indeed we would be quite dishonest if we did not say that as a party and as a people we detested those awful inter-war years when we had such paradoxes as a section of society known as the bright young things spending hundreds of thousands of pounds in frivolous amusement while thousands of our people in Scotland, as elsewhere, were suffering from malnutrition and in many cases semi-starvation.
I do not want to suggest for a moment that we are returning to those days, but we must face the possibility, and in case it should be said that it is only we in the Labour Party who say so, I would remind the Government Front Bench of an excerpt from the Report of the Committee on the Church and Nation to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland this year. It said:
1558
"The prolonged unemployment of the years of the great economic depression has left an indelible impression, and it is a welcome fact that intelligent men are resolved that as far as in them lies neither they nor their fellows shall be subject to such humiliation again."
I think that is a job we have to tackle. I do not want to make any comment on what the Joint Under-Secretary had to say, but I think that he was a little too optimistic when he said that, although unemployment figures had tended to rise, over-all, the position was much better. That simply is not true.
The Ministry of Labour in their returns of 16th June, 1952—less than a month ago—show in the 24 principal industries an increase of unemployment in each one, except mining and the agricultural, forestry and fishing sections. Some of the increases do not amount to very much, but every one shows an increase, so there is that tendency from which we cannot escape, and that is the problem that confronts the country as a whole.
I do not want to be drawn into the argument which the Joint Under-Secretary also produced about dearer money and about the Housing Bill we discussed a day or two ago, because I think I might be out of order. I content myself by saying to the Joint Under-Secretary that, if the Bank rate had not gone up, and if we had not had to face up to dearer money, there would have been no necessity for the Government to introduce that Bill. We, on this side of the Committee, prefer the use of physical controls to financial controls, which bring great harm to large sections of the community, and which, as a consequence, will result in rising unemployment figures in this country. I do not think that we ought to under-estimate just what that action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer means.
Sir William Darling: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the Report, he will learn that the restriction on bank credit was not initiated by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. It refers to both Chancellors of the Exchequer, and the bank credit was restricted not only in Scotland but elsewhere.
Mr. Hoy: I say in reply to the hon. Member that those are two different cases. Certainly, no Socialist Chancellor of the

1559
Exchequer asked that there should be an increase in the Bank rate and dearer money all round. It is true that some discrimination was asked for—I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South will show some discrimination this afternoon by doing me the courtesy of sitting and listening for a change.
This rapid growth in the unemployment figures gives us the second highest rate in the United Kingdom, and I think the Joint Under-Secretary rather underestimated the amount of concealed unemployment. The figures I had from the Ministry of Labour—I am glad to see the Minister here—and I do not doubt them for one moment, show that at June, 1952, in addition to the unemployed there were over 13,000 people recorded on the Monday on which the count was taken as being on short-time employment.
If we want to make the comparison of the total unemployment figure this year with that of last year complete, the Scottish Office must not overlook this fact, which is of fundamental importance, that the figure for unemployment last year in Scotland was 1,765 and the figure this year for the same section of unemployed is 13,166. That is a measure of the concealed unemployment, and no one can deny that these two sections put together mean that there is very much less purchasing power in Scotland at this moment than there was 12 months ago. That is bound to cause a worsening in the economic situation.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling)—and I will not tempt him to rise, because I know that he does not require much temptation—knows that when there is a fall in the purchasing power of the people, the first places where it is reflected is in the retail shops of Edinburgh and elsewhere. Even that must mean a worsening of the situation. This is a problem which is causing us some concern.
Something has been said this afternoon about the Government's policy of dealing with new industries. I want to ask the Government one or two pointed questions about this problem. Do the Government really believe that the saturation point has been reached in regard to the new industrial estates? Do they now believe that we have built sufficient new factories
1560
in these areas? If there is a doubt in the minds of certain people about that in Scotland, there is every reason for it. While I would not dare intrude into constituencies represented by my hon. Friends, I would point out that two cases were raised with regard to East Kilbride by my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Timmons) in the House yesterday, which rather strengthened the suspicion that the Government are not doing all that they might do to have these new factories built, and, what is equally important, to put to the best use the factories that are already there.
If there are other reasons, the Joint Under-Secretary of State should have let us know. If it means that some firm does not want to come, or a reasonable settlement cannot be reached, let the Government be bold enough to say so. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he answers that question, will also be clear and implicit in his reply to the second question: as to why these firms were not encouraged; and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell, if he catches the eye of the Chair, will have something to say on this matter. That suspicion is strengthened by the figures issued by the Ministry of Works.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State this afternoon repeated the figure contained in the Command White Paper. He said that at December, 1951, we had 7 million square feet of factory space under construction, compared with 5½ million square feet in the previous year. If that is true, why is it that—according to the Ministry of Works—while there were 8,800 people in Scotland engaged in the building of new factories, in 1950, the figure has fallen to 5,800 today? That really wants a bit of explaining.
The Scottish Office cannot come here and say, "We are in the process of building 1½ million square feet more than was being built a year ago, and we are at the same time employing 3,000 people fewer than were employed in 1950." If the Joint Under-Secretary thinks that that is not a very good comparison, let me say that the average monthly employment on new factories in Scotland in December, 1951, was 7,300, while at the latest date available, it dropped to 5,800, so that compared with December last year the figure has fallen by 1,500.

1561
Surely, if it means that we are going to have more factories, and if, according to the Command Paper, 57,000 more people could find employment in Scotland, then there should not be a diminution in the number of people employed, but an increase. That is something which the Secretary of State must answer this evening. It is true that there has been a change in the balance of employment because while housing in Scotland occupied 29,900 people in 1950, in 1951, despite the fact that less houses were produced, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) argued, greater preparation was going on and the figure rose to 31,600, and according to the figure at the latest available date it was 34,900.
Sir W. Darling: Houses to let.
Mr. Hoy: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South cannot argue that way. Really he has no argument about housing because, as far as he is concerned, he would pay no subsidies at all and the folk in Scotland would have to go without houses. It would be much better for him to keep out of the discussion. We remember his contribution on housing when he suggested that we should build shelters for the people of Scotland. They will not forget that one. However, I do not want to be diverted from my main argument by interruptions of that kind, even though I know that the hon. Gentleman has sat for five minutes without making an intervention, which in itself is a record which I think we ought to note.
The major change is in the building of hospitals or schools, and surely we are entitled to ask the Secretary of State if this is a deliberate change in policy. If it is, then let him say so. I think we must have some regard to the total number of people registered as building and contracting workers because when we take the figure of 150,000 into account that shows that there must be considerable numbers of building trade workers employed on other work.
I would point out to the Secretary of State that the position regarding the supply of more workers for the building of houses and new factories cannot be improved by the decision of the Ministry of Works, and approved by the Secretary of State for Scotland—or so I was informed by the Ministry of Works—to increase the amount of work that can be
1562
done in Scotland without a licence. It is no use the Joint Under-Secretary of State coming here and saying that there is no labour to do the job when his right hon. Friend is giving power to people to do a greater amount of private work without having to apply for a licence. That question has got to be solved, and if at the end of the year it turns out that the position has worsened I can assure the Secretary of State that we shall place the responsibility for that fairly and squarely on his shoulders.
It is not my intention to deal with the steel industry—there are many of my hon. Friends who are much more competent to do that—but one of the things I must point out is that the figures show how much England and Scotland rely on their trade in metal and engineering products. One has only to remind oneself of the fact that iron and steel manufactures, machinery and vehicles, and so on, accounted for, and do so even today, more than 50 per cent. of our export trade.
Lloyds Bank Review points out that the outstanding expansion is in vehicles, a group which covers shipping and aeroplanes, whose share of exports has gone up to 20 per cent. today compared with 9½ per cent. in 1938. How extremely important it is, in view of the decline in the export of engineering products and consumer goods, that we should nurture this part of our industry.
I think the Joint Under-Secretary of State was right to say that we should look after our heavy industries, but while I agree with that and agree that it is important that they should not get out of balance, we must take care not to repeat the mistake of the inter-war years by making our country totally reliant on those things which had the result that when the depression set in Scotland became one of the blackest areas of the country. Let us get new industry if it is at all possible.
Shipping is extremely important to Scotland and was responsible for £45 million of trade last year. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock will not mind if I say to him that in addition to the West of Scotland some shipbuilding goes on in the East of Scotland.
Mr. McNeil: I am very sorry. There is a distinctive kind of shipbuilding on the

1563
East Coast to which I should have made reference. It is not massive like ours, but it is very distinctive and important shipbuilding.
Mr. Hoy: It is extremely important, and while I would not even at this stage try to introduce a constituency point, I would point out that I have a very large shipbuilding industry within my constituency. I do not really know why I have not introduced a constituency point this evening. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite smiles. I do not know why he should, except that he has just come into the Chamber. I suppose if one has just come in and hears the first point one is entitled to smile.
Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot rose—
Mr. Hoy: I am referring to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and not to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot rose—
Mr. Hoy: No, I am not going to give way on this point. I should have thought that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would have been able to distinguish between himself and his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan), because he is a master of English and should know that if I had meant him I should have said the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and not the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: All wanted to say was that I would not blame the hon. Gentleman for introducing a constituency point. We ought to introduce such points, and, if I am called, I certainly intend to do so.
Lady Tweedsmuir: Hear, hear.
Mr. Hoy: I had hoped this afternoon to take a much larger view. I am sorry that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is so parochial. I cannot understand the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) saying, "Hear, hear." She had the opportunity to do it this morning in Committee, but I could not even see her there.
Lady Tweedsmuir: I might say that I had the opportunity to catch the Chairman's eye in Committee on Tuesday, and
1564
I particularly sent a message saying that I could not be present this morning as I was on another Committee.
Mr. Hoy: I do not wish to say anything except that I was present on both occasions and did not attempt to catch the Chairman's eye. I do not know what has gone wrong with the Government. They are becoming very thin skinned specimens, and I hope that the Secretary of State, who I know is of much better calibre, will stand up to it.
One of the things on which we depend is the supply of steel. It is essential that we should get it at regular delivery dates. The same applies to components for the ships themselves. One of the things that increase the cost of the finished product is the waste of time while waiting for supplies to come forward. This particular shipyard in my own constituency has been asked to build a much larger type of ship than it has ever built before.
One of the difficulties has been its supply of steel because the allocation is assessed on past consumption. If it is to undertake this job, which is for export to one of our Colonies, then it is essential that these factors should be taken into consideration when the allocations are made. It is necessary, as I say, to make sure that the materials and components on which they are dependent from sub-contractors are delivered in time. That is the main responsibility of the Ministry of Supply and the Board of Trade, and I hope that these Departments will pay special attention to the problem which concerns Scotland.
My final point is on the subject of coal. In addition to the build-up of heavy and light industries in Scotland, we used to export considerable quantities of coal from ports in Scotland. In my own constituency over 2 million tons were concerned in the export trade in the years that have gone. Today it is about one-eighth of that. One can well understand how a dock or harbour board, which has expended a considerable amount of money in bringing its plant up to date and making its harbour an efficient unit, does not like to carry this burden for years.
If there is going to be an increase in the export of coal, we in Scotland should be given our share of it, and we can best cope with it if we hurry forward these developments in the Lothians and in

1565
Fife, which would help more quickly than anything I know to give back to Methil, the Fife ports and my own constituency that export trade which they had before the war. It would help to open up once more trade with the Baltic countries.
All these things can be done and can make their contribution to Scotland's economy. I hope I have said sufficient this afternoon not only of a critical but of a constructive nature to show that there are great possibilities in the future. When the Government come to reply to this debate I hope they will at least deal with those points which I have made, and which I belive will make some contribution to the future prosperity of our country.
5.43 p.m.
Mr. R. Brooman-White: I hope the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) will forgive me if I do not follow him closely in his argument, as I have waited a considerable time for an occasion to refer to one or two matters which I think are most essential for the industrial development and the maintenance of employment in Scotland and do not want to delay the Committee unduly long. I know that what I say will be received with that tolerance which is one of the most humane traditions of the House towards a maiden speech.
I do not want to go into the general economic argument which has been raised. The Joint Under-Secretary stressed the extent to which our economic difficulty in Scotland depends on the general economic position of the balance of payments, production, and all the rest of it. But, of course, there are certain aspects in which those general problems weigh particularly heavily on us in Scotland. Also we have certain problems of our own, and on these problems a great deal of information has been made available and is being made available both by the Government and the Scottish Council.
We have the recently-published Cairncross Report, and we are going to have a report about the sources of power available and their effect on industrial location, and in time no doubt we will have the Cato Report throwing light on this and other problems. We also have the annual reports on Industry and Employment in Scotland. I mention all these only because this weight of material
1566
is in itself a very clear illustration of the extent to which there are specifically Scottish industrial problems over and above those common to the United Kingdom as a whole.
I must confess it is surprising to a new Member, in looking back on previous editions of this annual review of Industry and Employment in Scotland in the archives of the House, to find that that for 1948 is filed in a volume under the general title "Colonies, Housing and Miscellaneous." Which is it? It is not housing. Miscellaneous seems a rather slighting way to refer to 40 per cent. of the shipbuilding of the Kingdom, most of the mining machines and the other things we produce. If it is Colonies, one would do best to remain silent and leave comment to our Nationalist friends. It is even more disturbing when one gets to 1949, because in that case the annual report is filed under "Colonies, Crime and Miscellaneous." But the binding is very handsome and the information very valuable—so perhaps it is ungracious to poke fun at the titles.
These are very wide problems, and I think one could divide them, like the geography of Gaul, into three main parts. There is the maintenance development of our heavy industries. There is the development and expansion of our light industries, which the hon. Member for Leith has rightly described as our second line of defence against slumps, unfavourable turns of world trade and other adversities. Thirdly, there is the problem of the extension of our industries to the Highlands and Islands and the developing mining areas. If I may, I should like as briefly as I can to say a word about each of these.
Of course, as has already been expressed during the debate, the main problem of our heavy industry, and much of our light industry, in present circumstances, is the problem of the supply of steel. I am sure everybody in this Committee will welcome the statement which has already been made. It shows to all of us that the Ministers in the Scottish Department are well aware of this problem, as are the officials and Ministers concerned in the Ministry of Supply, and also that their Sassenach colleagues have been paying due attention to the representations that have been

1567
made. It must be an extremely difficult problem to divide an essential commodity in short supply between various areas and claimants, but I hope that the people in other parts of the country will appreciate that though we in Scotland are only asking for our fair share, under present circumstances a fair share for Scotland means a very large share of the imported materials, scrap and ingots.
This need is going to continue for a considerable period. Reference has been made to the development programme; it will be a couple of years before the Scottish steel industry can develop sufficiently to get away from the traditional practices of the past and develop the ovens and capacity that will free us from the dangerous reliance on a high proportion of imported scrap. I am sure that the Government will give every facility in the supply of equipment necessary for this development to go ahead as rapidly as possible.
Meanwhile we shall have for a time to maintain a rather Oliver Twist attitude. It is not a question of greed, of asking for too much porridge or too much steel scrap, but for sufficient. We are only asking for what is necessary for Scottish health. It is most urgent, not only for the producers, but also for the consumers, who are inevitably tied very closely to local production.
We all know that our steel-consuming industries, engineering and others, must go out and win new markets. They can do so. They can break into dollar markets now if they have the supplies, but competition is increasing. If they can make contracts and establish contacts now, these may provide the foundation for continuing business in the future. But if they only get the steel at a later time the opportunities may by then largely be gone. Foreign competitors may have stepped in and taken the trade.
I am sure the Ministers concerned will watch carefully not only the question of the supply of raw materials for our industries using steel, but also where necessary the question of supplementing this with finished steel as an interim measure to help as much as they can in meeting our Scottish steel consuming needs.
I hope I shall not be too controversial in a maiden speech, or stray too
1568
widely, in saying one more thing about the future development of the steel industry. I say that only because it seems to me of such deep importance for the people who have sent me here to Westminster and for the whole of Scotland.
The right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) cannot expect hon. Members on this side of the Committee to follow all his views on the future proposals to denationalise the steel industry. But I think that every hon. Member will agree on one thing, that we cannot have our steel industry thrown into chaos every time there is a General Election. We are not going to help the development programme, the production drive or the security of employment of the people in the industry by roaring at each other across the Floor of the House like stags across a glen in the autumn.
I do not myself believe that either Karl Marx or Adam Smith is going to be a great help in working out the long-term answer to the problem of this great modern industry in a modern world, which is essentially a problem of reconciling the need for a certain amount of Government supervision in the national interest, with the essential degree of decentralisation and flexibility which is necessary for efficiency and, indeed, for survival in the competitive markets of the world.
If we agree that that is more or less the objective, surely we can reach some lasting understanding about it which will give the industry the security and stability which is essential for its future. Such agreement may not be entirely welcome from a political party propaganda viewpoint; but if we fail to reach agreement we must realise that the price of our failure may be paid for by a loss of welfare and security of employment for millions of people.
With regard to our light industries, the hon. Member for Leith asked whether the Government thought we were reaching "saturation point." and the Joint Under-Secretary referred to the great efforts made in the past to bring new light industry into Scotland. It will probably be generally agreed that we need more industries, but in present circumstances, particularly in the old industrial areas and the trading estates, we need to be to some extent selective. We must not unduly increase the demand for scarce raw materials or, indeed, for skilled

1569
labour, both of which are in short supply for our old industries.
But we do want to do all we can to attract those industries which have an essential part to play in the future. It is very encouraging to see that proposals are already under way which will increase the percentage of employment in the electronics industry from 2 per cent. to 9 per cent. That is a very healthy development. There is, moreover, a great difference between being selective about bringing in new industries, and being very careful about not losing the established light industries which we already have. There may be a certain danger there.
Some of these firms make component parts, and in that case the demand for their finished product fluctuates evenly over the industry as a whole. But certain of these Scottish factories make finished products, and certain of them may be the marginal units of production, the least economic units, of firms with their main works elsewhere. In that case it may be on them that eyes will first be turned if there is any question of cutting down. I am sure we all hope that if industrialists do turn their eyes that way they will, if they possibly can, turn them quickly away again, realising that unemployment in Scotland—although small, and although there is some difference of opinion about the figures—is at least twice what it is in the country as a whole.
I hope also that the Government will do what they can by the placing of contracts and other means to guard against difficulties of this kind. I may be over-apprehensive. Perhaps the Secretary of State can give some assurance on that point. It is not just a question of mitigating temporary unemployment, but of ensuring that nothing is done seriously to upset the balance which we have been carefully building up for many years between light and heavy industry in Scotland.
Then there is the question of the distribution of industry to the Highlands and Islands, the North-East coast and the new mining areas. I have always been very attracted by the idea that the first people who ought to step in to meet the needs of the Highlands of Scotland are those in the Lowlands of Scotland—and vice versa when it comes to the question of "red meat" and things of that sort.
1570
In industry it is not only right, it is also easiest. It is a far cry for firms in the South or firms from overseas to take the road to the Isles though we hope more of them will. But it is not so far from the Clyde Valley or from the Forth, and it is most interesting to see, in the Cairn-cross Report, the extent to which recent development has been due to the expansion of Scottish firms and the creation of new Scottish firms. Between 1946–51 there have been 84 new Scottish firms and only 10 non-Scottish ones in the Highland and North-East area.
Therefore, I think that the main development will rest with the spreading of our own resources and by our own initiative. The Joint Under-Secretary has told us that it is too early to make any statement on the findings of the Cairncross Report; but when the time comes it will be most interesting to hear the Government's views on those recommendations, particularly the recommendations which point towards the widening of the powers of the Government and local authorities to establish factories and lay on facilities for firms not only in closely defined development areas but wherever they are needed in the development of the country as a whole.
At this time, whether we like it or not—I am not arguing the merits or demerits—risk-bearing capital is scarce, and it will be much easier to ensure this development if industrialists are called on to provide only the working capital and the machinery, so that they can move in and find the factories and facilities laid on, as in the industrial estates. There may be greater scope for flexibility in that direction. I have here a letter from one firm which has tried it. The letter says:
"It is virtually impossible for any limited company earning profits in the Lowlands to lose by starting a satellite industry in the Highlands."
That is provided it is given a certain amount of Government assistance. I hope that is not over-optimistic. I think there is great scope in that direction, and we all know that in these Highland areas quite a small concern may produce a very big effect.
There are a number of other things I should like to have spoken about, such as the question of technical training—

1571
which has been mentioned both here and in Scottish Grand Committee—on which the future of our established industries, and the development of cur new technical industries depend. Then there is the question of industrial democracy. Just as this country gave the lead in building up trade unionism and political practice I think we can lead in developing new patterns of association and industrial co-operation for the benefit of everybody.
But I do not wish to delay the Committee further. Perhaps I shall be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Sir, on another occasion. May I conclude by saying that the motto of the Royal burgh of Rutherglen, in the constituency which I have the honour to represent—is well known to Scottish Members. It is a famous tongue twister, and I do not propose to add to the terrors and hazards of a maiden speech by repeating it now. But its main theme is the wish that our lums may reek, that our chimneys may smoke, the wheels of industry turn, and our people find the benefit of employment and prosperity. I am sure that is the wish of all of us for all of Scotland, however much we may differ in our opinions on the precise methods by which those things may be most rapidly, effectively and securely achieved.
6.0 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Steele: It falls to me to congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Brooman-White). He has come through a trying experience with flying colours. He spoke quietly, effectively and with a certain amount of wit which we all enjoyed. I am sure that, when he has concluded the research which he is obviously making in the Library, we shall all be interested in what he has to say. I am happy and proud to follow the hon. Member because he is one of my constituents.
I do not wish to comment on what the hon. Member said, although many of us on this side of the Committee agree with a great deal of it. I shall revert to the earlier speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) and the Joint Under-Secretary of State who followed him, particularly in regard to the industrial estates in whose development we took an intense interest. They were welcomed in Scotland because we
1572
all felt that they were bringing us that diversity of employment so essential for our welfare.
At the same time we had certain latent fears when that development took place. We saw that certain firms were going to those estates which were extensions of firms in the South. We wanted in Scotland not such extensions but new firms which would take root there and progress, and upon which we should be able to rely. We feared that, if there were any recession in trade, the firms coming to Scotland from the South would be the first to suffer and that once again Scotland would have to depend on the other industries. It may be only by accident that when we have a Conservative Government in power this recession should take place, but it is time that we took stock of what has been happening in those industrial estates, and the Scottish Office should take it upon themselves to get such information and pass it on to hon. Members.
There are two groups of industries with new factories in those estates. First, there is the group to which I have already referred, where the parent company is in the South. We ought to know at this stage, after development has taken place, what is happening. Are the early fears we had about them justified? Is full production taking place in those factories? Can we know whether there is serious unemployment or under-employment in those Scottish factories while the parent company in England is still working full-time? How many workers have been paid off? What has been the reaction of the present recession in trade on those factories? I do not ask these questions in any sense of niggling criticism but because we have always taken a live interest in what has been happening in those estates. We require a detailed analysis.
Let us take the other group, those factories set up by firms which are taking root in Scotland. In this group I include factories which have come from abroad. I should like to see a detailed analysis giving the forecast of the firms as to the employment they would provide and, set against that, the peak employment figure achieved and also the number of people engaged at present; and again, what short-time is being worked and to what extent these firms are being affected by shortage of labour, by shortage of material, and by shortage of orders.

1573
I know one firm on an industrial estate in my own constituency. The Joint Under-Secretary of State claimed credit today for the fact that the increase in factory space is still continuing, but that factory, while at present extending its premises, is experiencing a reduction in orders and the firm is actually putting off workers week by week. The Joint Under-Secretary of State said that the Bank rate had no effect. Has the Scottish Office any information on whether any of those firms have had to turn down orders because the banks are not prepared to give them the necessary credits?
On the other hand, I know a firm in the same industrial estate which is worried about steel. This firm—Burroughs, the manufacturers of adding machines—is turning out a product of great marketable value. It is interesting to know that 75 per cent. of its production is being exported, mainly to the dollar market. It is extending its premises. I hope that, when the allocation of steel is being made, a firm of this kind which is able to make such a valuable export asset out of steel will have special consideration.
At the present time, if there should be any reduction in its production due to a shortage of steel or anything else, which would make it necessary for it to pay off its workers, it would be difficult to get them back because of the great demand for such skilled workers for other employment on Clydeside. We do not want any loss of skilled engineers because of temporary difficulties. I urge the Scottish Office to obtain information of this kind and to make it available, so that those concerned may be properly briefed in any conversations or consultation with their colleagues and can put the case for Scotland. In any event, the issue of a report on these lines would be extremely useful.
In considering the value of the industrial estates, the old-established firms should not be overlooked. In the Vale of Leven, I am now, for the very first time, getting questions about unemployment. The fears of the workers are understandable, because in the inter-war years 75 per cent. of the insured population of the area was unemployed. We are very pleased that the Minister of Labour has been present throughout the debate, but I assure him that the effects
1574
of the inter-war unemployment in the Vale of Leven are still to be seen. It is understandable, therefore, that with the recession the people are worried.
One of the industries in the Vale of Leven is the dyeing and processing of cotton, linen, canvas and other materials. The firm of whom I speak have spent a great deal of money in modernising their plant and in introducing new methods of production. I was very interested to learn from the speech of the Joint Under-Secretary of State that a new contract for canvasses is to be given to Scotland, who are to share it with Northern Ireland.
I do not see any representative of the Ministry of Supply with us, but I am sure that what I am about to say will be conveyed to them. I have already written to the Ministry about it, but I should require the assistance also of the Scottish Office in the matter. There is a great deal of storage space in the Vale of Leven, and much of the Scottish material, particularly canvasses and ducks, is being transported in the loom stage from Scotland to England, and when contracts have been placed, it goes back again to Scotland for processing.
There is a shortage of storage space for materials of that kind, and the firm in my constituency have asked that the Ministry of Supply should revert to the old practice whereby the processing firms store the material. The firms in question have gone even further, and are prepared to store the material for the Ministry and to make no charge for that proportion which they process. This is a good offer, but the Ministry of Supply seem to think that it is all too complicated. There is no reason why the canvasses should not come from the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) across to Alexandria and thereby save all the transport to England when much of the material is to be processed in Scotland in any case. I hope that this suggestion will be given full consideration.
I had hoped to say a great deal about the tourist industry, but I had a good innings on that subject during the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee last year. I must, however, refer to an aspect which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend. He said that we welcomed the

1575
oil industry to Scotland, and he spoke of what was happening in the Gareloch. We welcome this industry also, but there are a number of problems which I hope the Scottish Office and the Ministry of Transport will take into account.
The problem of oil on the shores is very grave indeed. It is very discouraging to anyone going round that delightful part of the country, from Helensburgh to Rhu and round the three Lochs, to see the oil. I do not say that it comes from the firms handling the oil in the Gareloch. It may be coming from the tail of the bank—we do not know; but it is a matter which we hope will be looked into.
I conclude by referring to a matter which ought to be mentioned. It relates to an industry which previous Secretaries of State and others have said would at one time be the largest employer of labour in Scotland—that is, forestry. The White Paper which was issued during the war set out a five years' planting programme. Those five years have now expired.
I see from the returns that, as far as State Planting is concerned, 75 per cent. of the acreage has been achieved. In private planting, 84 per cent. has been attained. What interests me is that during the last three years the labour force in forestry has been almost stable, with little or no alteration. One of the reasons given for this lack of progress is the shortage of labour.
I have not been conscious of any publicity by either the Forestry Commission or the Scottish Department to attract young men to the industry. I understand that there are no difficulties regarding executives and officers. At the universities of Aberdeen and Edinburgh a grant has been given and special facilities have been made available, and young men with the necessary degrees are coming forward to take up the executive posts. But what is necessary is foresters and skilled forestry workers.
It is a very great pity that last year the Ministry of Labour had to close down the school for forestry workers, but I hope that something more will now be done. Quite irrespective of any possible recession or any fear of unemployment, the matter is so important that we ought to do something about getting the
1576
necessary workers trained for these jobs. The schools for forestry workers had to be closed, but there are two schools for foresters. Foresters are different; they are the sergeant majors, the N.C.O.s, the people who really matter in this industry.
I should like to know what is happening to these two schools. Are sufficient numbers of people coming forward? Are the schools fully occupied, and, even if they are, I wonder whether two schools are really sufficient? In these schools foresters are trained not only for the forestry commission but to go to private estates and to the Colonies. I think it is right and proper that they should do so, but at the same time we should recognise that there is a great scarcity of these skilled men and we ought to do something about the matter. I do not expect to get full answers to these questions this afternoon—
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): To which school did the hon. Member refer as having been closed?
Mr. Steele: There are two different groups—first the two schools in Scotland which are for foresters, and then there is another school. These schools are run by the Forestry Commission, and the other school is under the auspices of the Ministry of Labour and is for forest workers. That school has had to be closed down.
I do not expect that I shall get replies to many of these matters this afternoon, but I want to draw the attention of the Scottish Office to them and I hope they will be considered. I can give warning that I shall follow them up in future debates.
6.22 p.m.
Lady Tweedsmuir: I agree very much with the plea made by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) that it would be useful for Scottish Members if we could get more specific information about our industrial estates.
In Aberdeen, on the north-east coast, we are not so much interested in the industrial estate as known by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West but I am extremely interested as to what defence contracts are to be placed in the north-east. Aberdeen has been fortunate

1577
in not depending on one major industry but having a good diversification of industry. Nevertheless, we are under the impression—suffering as we do from a certain amount of under-employment—that defence contracts are not being placed specifically and sufficiently enough in the north-east. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State, in reply, could give some indication whether anything is definitely in progress.
I wish to refer particularly to the section in the Report before us which deals with the fishing industry. I hope that the Committee will bear with me in doing so, because I was unfortunate in not catching the eye of the Chairman of the Scottish Grand Committee when we discussed the subject. I make no apology, because Aberdeen is the largest and most important fishing port in Scotland, the third largest in the whole country and, apart from ship building, fishing affects us more intimately than any other industry.
I want particularly to deal with paragraphs 105 and 106. First, I must refer to the whole chapter on fisheries. I think it most unfortunate that, so far as I have read it, there is no mention whatever regarding one of our major problems—that of over-fishing. The only mention I could see is in connection with the decision of the International Court of Justice at The Hague regarding the Anglo-Norwegian fisheries case.
I believe that all of us in this Committee would be glad to hear from the Secretary of State what is the latest position regarding the Icelandic Government's extension of her territorial waters. This affects the United Kingdom most intimately. Iceland was one of the latest Governments to ratify the International Convention on Over-Fishing. It should be pointed out that ratification of this Convention does not mean that one nation can take action such as this, which will definitely harm all the others concerned, and do so on the plea that it is protecting immature fish. Over-fishing is one of our basic problems, because we shall never get trawler owners to consider re-building our fishing fleet unless they have some confidence in the industry as a whole.
Specifically regarding the Aberdeen industry, I am disturbed that, apparently, so little has been done to carry out some
1578
of the proposals of the McColl Report published in 1951. This Committee was set up by the Scottish Council for Development of Industry at the request of the late Secretary of State—
Mr. McNeil: The former Secretary of State.
Lady Tweedsmuir: The former Secretary of State; I am glad to say he is still very much in evidence. This Report was a courageous and challenging one and a controversial one. It recommended an entire reorganisation of the fishing industry as it affects Aberdeen. We know quite well that in Aberdeen we have what are described as peculiar difficulties. Not the least is the fact that we have far too many firms engaged in the industry, particularly on the producers' side. The McColl Committee recommended that Aberdeen should continue to catch quality fish from the near and middle waters and not concentrate all out on the far fishing grounds, unless, of course, ships could be built with adequate freezing facilities.
The re-building of the Aberdeen trawler fleet is vital and the McColl Committee recommended that there should be loans and a 25 per cent. grant from the Government for the purpose, subject to the acceptance by the industry of the reorganisation proposals in order to ensure efficiency. Without this re-organisation it seems to me that the contraction of our fishing industry as it affects Aberdeen is bound to continue. It will continue to be so because, once again, we get to the crux of the matter—that our people do not have confidence in the future of fishing as a whole.
In paragraph 17 of the McColl report, we are reminded of the conditions that obtained before the war. It says:
"The contraction of the industry at Aberdeen and failure to modernise the fleet indicates, of course, that fishing in the near and middle waters was not profitable in the years before the war and reflects the fears of those engaged in the industry that it may not be any better in the future."
The McColl Report, I understand, has been discussed by all sections of the trade in Aberdeen with the Secretary of State. As this Report was published in 1951, surely by now we should have got beyond the stages of discussion. I should like to hear from the Secretary of State exactly

1579
what is the position. What is the difficulty? Is it in Aberdeen, or is it with the Government, or with the White Fish Authority?
We want to know what is happening to the White Fish Authority. We have their first Report. There are some distinguished members on this Committee and we quite understand that in 18 months they have had many difficult and complicated tasks. Nevertheless, in the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1951, Parliament charged the Authority with the duty of
"re-organising, developing and regulating the white fish industry."
It was welcomed in this House because, for years past, the varied sections of the fishing industry have too often pulled in different directions.
This debate gives a chance to appeal to all those sections of the industry concerned really to try to co-operate on matters which are absolutely vital to their future and to that of the country as a whole. Hon. Members may say that the White Fish Authority is still a young body. I would not advise any compulsory scheme because I think that the fishing industry is essentially a private enterprise industry, not a State industry, although one might say that it would be better if it were a regulated private enterprise industry. I should like to ask why the White Fish Authority has not made more progress, and I think it is up to the Secretary of State to ginger them up.
Mr. McNeil: I presume the noble Lady is asking for further control of private enterprise?
Lady Tweedsmuir: Although I know that the former Secretary of State for Scotland would like to catch me out on this, I have said that I want regulation of private enterprise in the fishing industry because I consider that, in a situation where far too many firms are engaged in the industry, we have to have some kind of regulation. I should like to see that brought about by the co-operation of the industry itself, instead of the industry being regulated by Parliament. That is why I think this Committee should take note of the recommendations of the McColl Committee, and also of the White Fish Authority scheme, in order to see whether we can get all the sections of the industry together.
Mr. Hoy: If the noble Lady does not want any Government interference, and she wants this to continue in Aberdeen, does her argument apply to that part of the McColl Report which states that the Government ought to give the industry the money to go on with it, or does she not want money from the Government?
Lady Tweedsmuir: Oh, yes. I am always wanting money for Aberdeen. But the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) will remember that the section in the Report dealing with those particular grants and loans stated that these loans from the Government are not to be given to the Aberdeen fishing industry unless they first agreed among themselves that they would re-organise their own industry. I am asking that the industry should voluntarily re-organise in order to secure greater efficiency, and so that they will be eligible for these grants and loans.
Mr. A. Woodburn: Naturally, we are all very anxious to follow and to help the noble Lady in this campaign for the control of the white fish industry; but there is one problem to which she has not directed her attention, and that is the question of the transport of fish. She may be proposing to say something about the flat rate. I take it she is aware that there has been a considerable amount of negotiation going on with the Road Haulage Executive in order further to facilitate the transport of fish. I hope that in due course she will weigh that very carefully in her mind when she is supporting the abolition of the Road Haulage Executive, which is likely to help so much in the distribution of fish.
Lady Tweedsmuir: I listened with great interest to that short speech. I was coming directly to the question of transport, which is, of course, of major importance to the fishing industry.
I shall not now give my speech on the Transport Bill, but I should like to refer to the Report of the White Fish Authority, which has just been published. It means a great deal to us all in Scotland because of the recommendation that there should be a scheme for the equalisation of the cost of the transport of fish. This is something which some hon. Members have advocated with persistence ever since they entered the House.

1581
The Report recognises that there will be a great deal of tough opposition from the other ports which are not in the scheme. They will oppose it because they realise that they will have to pay some of the transport costs of those ports less favourably situated geographically. They will have to do so because Parliament did not give to the White Fish Authority funds in order to create an equalisation of transport scheme. Therefore, the money must be obtained, either from loans, which will have to be repaid, or from the equalisation scheme itself.
I can quite foresee that we shall have a great battle in Parliament on this issue. I can only hope that Scottish Members on both sides of the Committee will band together to fight this issue, because it is by no means certain that we shall get it. We shall have some very powerful opposition, particularly from English Members in the South, and those of us who live in the North will have to clan together and do our best.
I ask the Secretary of State to tell us when this scheme will be presented to Parliament, and whether we have to wait until after the Summer Recess. As the Report of the White Fish Authority has been published, and as they have said they have come to a decision regarding this scheme, why cannot we have it presented to Parliament and debated before we adjourn for the Summer Recess, and, if necessary, sit well into August in order to do so? I feel that we have, by this means, to create as much confidence as we can for the fishing industry. I maintain that the transport equalisation scheme will help to re-organise and develop the fishing industry as a whole; that it will be a most important contribution to the reduction of costs, and a powerful factor in creating confidence in the future.
I will sum up the questions which I addressed to the Secretary of State and which I trust he will be able to answer. First, what is the position about the placing of defence contracts in the northeast of Scotland? Second, what is the latest development regarding Iceland and her extension of territorial waters? Third, what action is being taken on the McColl Report concerning the Aberdeen fishing industry? Lastly, what is happening to the White Fish Authority as a whole, and
1582
when are we to have the transport scheme presented to Parliament? I ask these specific questions because I feel that we must have a sense of urgency if, in this very competitive time, we are to keep industry thriving north of the Border.
6.36 p.m.
Mr. John Timmons: I do not propose to attempt to follow the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir), because this debate has certainly drifted into a discussion of the peculiarities of the constituencies of all hon. Members. I propose to try to confine myself, not only to my own constituency, but, so far as possible, to deal with Lanarkshire as an industrial unit. After all, it is an industrial unit adjacent and closely related to the industrial problems of Glasgow.
On Tuesday of this week, I put a Question to the Minister of Labour, and in reply he gave me the unemployment figures for Lanarkshire and Glasgow, which totalled 27,000. Everyone in this Committee will agree that these figures are out of all proportion to the figures for the whole of the country, with the exception of Northern Ireland.
The question then arises whether the people of Lanarkshire and that part of Glasgow are going to sit down quietly and accept unemployment once again as a permanent feature in their life. I say quite advisedly that they are not, and I know the tone and temper of the people. When we remember that these very same people have had some semblance of security during the past seven years and that they have experienced full employment, we may readily agree that they are not going quietly to accept this continued unemployment.
We should recall also that in Lanarkshire, and more especially in that industrial part of Lanarkshire which embraces a great part of my constituency, we never had less than 54 per cent. of the insured population signing the unemployment register. It lasted for years. I saw the finest specimens of humanity deteriorating morally and physically because of those dreadful years. They have apprehensions now. They cannot afford to allow things to drift in the manner in which they are drifting, and so they have every reason to be apprehensive.

1583
The united trades councils in Lanarkshire—there are a number of them—contemplated convening a conference concerning the state of unemployment in Lanarkshire—not only the registered unemployment, but the huge amount of under-employment which makes conditions even more serious than would appear from the register. But they cancelled the conference, because the Scottish Trades Union Congress decided to convene area conferences of the areas most affected by unemployment.
That policy of unemployment has certainly been aggravated by the financial policy of the Government. I believe that Lanarkshire has the biggest development area and the greatest number of factories in the United Kingdom. I make it my practice to keep in close touch with these matters. I have had to deal with many of the problems which arise from day to day and week to week. Both present and past Ministers will know of my activities. I want to say a few words of warning to the Government. The time is not very far distant when the Government will be judged on their policy of unemployment as against the sensible policy of full employment in Lanark during the past six years. That date, in my opinion, is not very far off.
I have heard many hon. Members talking about new factories and new industrial estates and the number of industrial estates which are on the building programme and still in process of construction. I hope that the areas connected with the new industrial estates will not have the bitter experience that we have had in Lanarkshire. I say this advisedly. We have more factory space than we have employment for the people. We have firms which employ only a handful of people. In some large factories only 12 to 18 people are employed. There are vast factories in which no more than 20 or .30 girls have been found employment. That will not solve our unemployment problem in Lanarkshire.
There are three firms that came to Lanarkshire which have provided good employment. I refer to Smiths, the clock makers at Carfin, to Metro-Vickers, in Motherwell, and Vactric in Newhouse. When we take into account the fact that in the Newhouse, the Chapelhall and the Carfin estates there are 1,180,000 square
1584
feet of factory space and slightly over 3,000 people employed, we can appreciate the point more fully. Those are figures which I got a few months ago. The position has worsened since then. I doubt whether today there are 3.000 people employed in that area.
The Board of Trade, in the regional office at Glasgow, are responsible for that state of affairs. Someone asked what are the functions of the regional office in Glasgow. I do not know, but I know that in Lanarkshire the people simply refer to many of these firms as "spiv" firms. They are here today and gone tomorrow. They never provide any certainty of employment. I would say to the President of the Board of Trade, if he were here, that he has power under the 1950 Act to requisition factories which are not providing substantial employment. I have not yet heard, since that Act was passed, of any steps taken by the Board of Trade to requisition any of these factories and to put in firms which would provide substantial employment.
I have had occasion to speak to Ministers, to the Board of Trade and to various other Departments about what is happening in this area. It appears to me that no effective measures have been taken to try to stimulate employment. One of my hon. Friends asked Questions about some of these firms and whether they could estimate the number of people who might be employed. I can advise my hon. Friend that that is done, but that the promises are never implemented.
I have in mind a firm on the Chapel-hall estate which promised to provide employment for 600 men in their factory; but that factory has never employed more than 100 men at the best of times. Normally it has employed below 80. They have been on the job for about four years, and no effort has been made to try to deal with the problem.
There has been mention of John Deer. That is a good and practical firm which was prepared to provide employment for 4,000 in Lanarkshire, at East Kilbride, if encouragement had been given to it. I have no reason to doubt my source of information. Last week I was told that John Deer's got no encouragement: John Deer's was more or less pushed out, rather than invited to develop in East Kilbride.

1585
I could have solved that problem myself by a process of decanting in the big industrial estate at Newhouse. We have vast areas of factory space which have never been fully occupied. Factories have been built since 1946 and 1947. I have in mind one factory in which I do not suppose more than 700 people are employed. It has never been used to capacity. It is capable of employing between 3,000 and 4,000 people. A process of decanting the 700 people to a smaller factory could have accommodated John Deer in the big factory, and at least we should have had the prospect of work for 3,000 or 4,000 people. But the firm of John Deer has gone to Paris.
Another American firm made an attempt, not only recently but also about two years ago, to get accommodation in Lanarkshire. They wanted to take over 18 acres of ground and to carry out extensions which would have provided employment for 10,000 people. Again, they were impeded and they also have transferred to France. That is what is happening, and yet there is growing unemployment throughout the whole area.
Another question which I raised privately with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply was about Bellshill. A factory there during the war years employed about 4,000 people. It was known as Colville's, Ltd. but it was worked by them on behalf of the Ministry. A vast area of factory space was occupied in the production of steel. An alloy steel was produced and all the necessary mechanical equipment was installed. There was a special heat treatment block.
When the war ended, this work ended also. No one has been employed there for the past five or six years except a handful of men who have done structural work. I raised this matter with the Parliamentary Secretary in a talk which I had with him in his room a few weeks ago. After he had made investigations, I learned from him by letter that the interests of the Department were sold out to Colville's, Ltd. some years ago. But surely this firm will come under the Steel Corporation. Here is the problem with which we are confronted every day, and there is no wonder that many of these people feel very sore about it. I appeal to the Secretary of State and the Minister of Labour to do something about it, and to persuade their colleagues
1586
at the Ministry of Supply to check up on the heat treatment block and find out how many people might be employed there.
I put a Question the other day to the Minister of Supply, who gave me a written answer which was very interesting. I wanted to know what was the total allocation of defence programme work to Lanarkshire, and I am afraid he could not tell me very much. He said that the contracts for defence work placed by the Ministry of Supply are not allocated to any particular region, apart from the development areas, including Lanarkshire. He regretted that the form in which the records are kept does not show the total amount of work given to main and sub-contractors in any particular area. Here is a factory which produced steel plates and machines ready for assembly, where 4,000 people were employed during the war.
There is one other point which I raised the other day in a supplementary question. It is not new; it is a matter which has been going on since May, 1951, and there are three Ministries involved. It is a case of passing the buck from one to the other. I refer to the firm of Alexander Dunn and Son, Ltd., which requires a certain amount of steel for the manufacture of fireplaces for housing. This firm is doing more than 55 per cent. of the total housing done by local authorities in Scotland, and it is concerned with private housing as well.
This is a very important matter. The firm has to purchase from the iron firms light castings for the manufacture of fireplaces, and they find that they cannot get an adequate supply of these light castings. Consequently, their housing programme has fallen back, although at the moment they have contracts for 25,000 houses, and other contracts are still coming in. Progress cannot be made, and houses are left uncompleted, because they cannot get an adequate supply of these light castings.
Moreover, the firm is prepared, if they can get the steel, to produce the castings themselves at about half the price which they have to pay for them, and, in consequence, have made an application for a licence to build a foundry, which is designed to work together with their other factory as a completely integrated plant and ensure a continuity of supply of light castings.

1587
The firm has offered a price reduction at the rate of £3 per fireplace to the local authorities, and one would have thought that the various Government Departments, and particularly the Scottish Office, would have given the firm every encouragement possible. They did not get it. The Departments have played with them for about a year, and the Under-Secretary of State, who deals with housing at the Scottish Office, and who came along with representatives and officials from the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Works to meet us, after hearing our case, admitted to me personally that our case was unassailable, but still, a fortnight later, we got a letter to say that he could not recommend the granting of a licence to build this foundry.
We had a further meeting of hon. Members from both sides of the House at the Ministry of Supply, where we discussed the matter at some length with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply, but again, the matter was passed on to the Ministry of Works, from them back to the Ministry of Supply, and then to the Scottish Office. They sent it back to the Ministry of Supply, who again sent it to the Ministry of Works. Later, we were told that no licence could be granted.
This is a state of affairs at which we have to look most seriously. Alexander Dunn and Son, Ltd., are experts in the production of these fireplaces, which have received the recommendation of the Ministry of Fuel and Power as the most efficient fireplaces in the country. The saving of fuel which they produce is enormous, and the firm are now building for a new type of fireplace which will be still more efficient than the one they are already making, but they have difficulty in obtaining the necessary materials. We have now arrived at the situation in which this firm are employing only between 30 and 40 men, instead of taking on the additional 80 whom they intended to take on.
That is the situation with regard to this particular firm, and I appeal to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the other Ministers concerned, particularly the Minister of Labour, because we have a vast number of people unemployed in this area; they are clamouring for employment, and here
1588
is a firm prepared in a very short space of time to provide that additional employment, as well as to make a further substantial contribution to housing in supplying fireplaces, and at a reduced price, to the local authorities.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: Since the hon. Gentleman had that letter from my hon. Friend, does he know that Messrs. Dunn's suppliers have offered to give them all the castings necessary for their full programme?
Mr. Timmons: No. The firm have not had all the supplies they need offered to them. I may tell the hon. Gentleman that these very firms to whom Messrs. Dunn were recommended, and who were to supply them with all they required, are not supplying their requirements; they are supplying much less. Since the hon. Gentleman has raised the question, I would say that the impression I got at the first meeting I had with the Ministry of Supply representatives, when hon. Members from both sides were present, was that the Ministry of Supply were more concerned about protecting the vested interests of the Iron-founders' Federation than meeting the needs of Alexander Dunn and Son, Ltd.
There is one other point on which I wish to touch before concluding. I want to refer to the situation in the Lanarkshire coalfields and the possibilities of new developments in that area. I am not one who has ever agreed with the policy of the National Coal Board in regard to the Lanarkshire coalfield, because I have past experience, before the Coal Board was set up, and, as a member of the Lanarkshire County Council, I remember that at one time Sir Charles Reid had a powerful job with the Ministry of Fuel and Power, when he closed down pits ad lib in the Lanarkshire coalfields. When we approached him with regard to the closing of these pits and pointed out that there were still 650 million tons of coal in Lanarkshire, he told us not to worry too much about that coal as our grandchildren could take it out. He pursued that policy in order to ensure a sufficient supply of manpower to meet the needs of the Fighting Services.
I prepared a memorandum and submitted it to the Minister of Fuel and Power a year ago. I do not know what has happened to it. Things went on, and then we had a General Election and a

1589
change of Government. I do not know what the present Minister thinks about it, but in it I suggested that the Minister should appoint two independent mining engineers as advisers in the matter of the development of the Lanarkshire coalfield, instead of taking away families from that county and sending them to Fife and Ayrshire, from which places they are coming back almost as fast as they are going. There is housing accommodation for them in those areas, but there are no schools, no shopping centres, and no churches or amenities.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: I do not think the hon. Gentleman should say that about the County of Fife. It is not true.
Mr. Timmons: I say it quite advisedly. I have had shoals of letters from families who have left my constituency asking me to try to get them some semblance of a house in order that they may come back to Lanarkshire. The menfolk of these families are prepared to work on housing schemes or in factories if they can get back. They say that there are no school facilities, no churches, and that in many of the places there are no shopping centres. After all, that situation is not peculiar to Fife; it obtains in other parts of the country as well. These people complain that there is no community life in these places.
Certain borings have taken place and are taking place at the moment in Lanarkshire. I remember when the Cumnock coalfield had to be abandoned. It was supposed to be worked out, according to the opinion of many of the experts; but some people in Cumnock did not accept that view, and went ahead with further borings. The result is that today there is a complete new coalfield there. Had they acted on the advice of the experts, Cumnock would be a derelict area today.
As I say, certain boring operations have been going on in Lanarkshire and they have discovered the richest seam of coking coal in the country. I notice that some reference is made to it in this Report. I wonder how far they have gone ahead with it. Paragraph 144 of the Report says:
"The National Coal Board are at present investigating the possibility of developing certain reserves of coking coal which have been proved near Glasgow."
There is more than coking coal there; there are also other seams.
1590
I think that if the Secretary of State would make some representations to his colleague the Minister of Fuel and Power with regard to new developments in that area, it would be a very useful thing for Lanarkshire. There are thousands of miners in Lanarkshire today between the ages of 35 and 40, experienced and skilled men, who could be producing coal if the necessary facilities were provided in that county. I am not talking about the 3,000 volunteers to the industry who still have to be trained and whom it will take years to become experienced miners.
We are taking families away from Lanarkshire and putting them in Fife and Midlothian, but what is there for the miners' families in those areas? Nothing. The girls of the families have to be re-exported to the mining areas from whence they came in order to obtain work. Nothing has been done in the way of development in Fife and Midlothian to try to provide accommodation and work for such families.
I ask the Secretary of State to consult with his colleagues the President of the Board of Trade and the Ministers of Labour, Supply, Works, and Fuel and Power to see whether something cannot be done, by co-ordinating their efforts, to reduce unemployment in the Lanarkshire area, because there is still ample factory space, opportunity, and the necessary labour available to produce in Lanarkshire. I look upon the Secretary of State as the custodian of the well-being of Scotland and of the people of Scotland, and I honestly believe that the right hon. Gentleman is just as interested in their well-being as are any of the rest of us.
7.6 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot: I am sure we all have great sympathy with the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Timmons), who has put the case for the re-development of the county to which he and I both belong, and has raised particularly the difficulty of developing along the lines of certain rather transient enterprises which have appeared in the new factories. The very valuable review made by Professor Cairncross makes special reference to that point. He says that our prosperity
"will not be assured by a mere importation of enterprise from England. Enterprise without development is sterile; and far too high a proportion of the new industry that has come to Scotland, however many jobs have come

1591
with it, is sterile in the sense that it engenders no autonomous development. It would be unwise to rely on a continuing overflow into Scotland from English industry. In the long run, if new industries are to flourish and expand in Scotland they should not be merely the industries that cannot find labour or are denied a location in England."
They tend to wither away when trouble comes.
We also feel great sympathy with the case put forward by the hon. Member for Bothwell concerning the firm in his own constituency which desired to extend and develop, but which was unable to get a licence for that purpose. I have a case of exactly the same nature in my constituency. There is the firm of Kennedy and Macleod who were only too anxious to extend their factory and to develop further their rope-making industry both for home and export purposes. They had the bricks and the steel on the spot. Everything was there, but the firm could not get a licence to put the bricks together, to place the steel into the bricks and to install the machines, which were in their yard, in the new factory in order to carry on and extend the work in which this firm had been engaged on for many years past.
These things are apparently inseparable from the tight set of controls with which we are enmeshed at the present time. But they are very galling, and lead, as the hon. Gentleman said, to the suspicion—I think unfounded—that the Departments in question are more anxious to maintain the position of firms already in business than to extend facilities to others wishing to compete with them. It is very unfortunate, and I would draw the attention of the other Departments, whose representatives we are very glad to see here, to that aspect of the case.
The re-development of our existing areas is just as important as the development of new areas. The re-development of existing areas, such as Glasgow, has the advantage that it deals with the problem, which the hon. Member for Bothwell has just mentioned, of provision of amenities, such as shopping centres and entertainment areas. Although he mentioned that he received shoals of letters complaining that there were no churches—and that may well be—he did not mention that he had letters complaining that there were no cinemas; but I am
1592
sure that the absence of cinemas is also one of the things resented in the new areas.
It is difficult to create a town; it grows slowly. When we are counting the cost of developing housing areas, we should weigh against the apparent cheapness of new housing areas the possibly greater expense of higher buildings with flats and lifts in the congested areas, the older areas, which would be a godsend to many of the people whom I represent. It is more expensive to build flats in congested areas than to build villas on pieces of bare ground. But that is not the end of the expenditure. When one has built a little house on bare ground, one has still to produce all the other social services not yet brought into existence.
In Anderston there is plenty of vacant ground perfectly suitable for building upon, near the work in which people wish to engage, at the docks. It faces the great open roll of the river. There is plenty of fresh air, which is not such a common commodity in Glasgow. I applied for houses to be built there; but I was told that the area was zoned for industry. My constituents, Kennedy MacLeod and Co., applied to carry out the building of an extension to the factory, which I have mentioned, to implement the policy of bringing industry there. Then they were refused, because it was not possible to give them a licence to erect the building, though they already had all the necessary materials lying on the ground. One is reminded of the great epigram on the old Board of Education that "a pension is a sum of money of indeterminate amount the payment of which is precluded by the appropriate regulation."
The difficulty of appropriate capital development, in Scotland in particular, is very great. We are in a period of acute shortage of materials and of money, both necessary to carry out the developments which we desire. So we must scrutinise very carefully the lines along which new development is to take place. Greenock has spoken, Fife, Leith, and Aberdeen have spoken, and indeed Rutherglen, in the very excellent maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Brooman-White) has spoken. It was a speech which we were all glad to hear. Although he, in a maiden speech, did not venture upon the famous tongue-twister which is the motto of Rutherglen, I,

1593
greatly daring, will embark upon it and say:
"May Ru'glen's wee roond red lums reek briskly."
Mr. Hubbard: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will be asked to go up to the Official Reporters' room very shortly.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We are not supposed to be aware of the existence of anybody other than those who are on the Floor of the Chamber.
Nearly all of those speeches have emphasised that we must not neglect the old existing industries of our country. That is very necessary just now. We are in a period when great capital development in the world is taking place. In it we can play a part. The world is hungry for many of the goods which we in Britain, and we in Scotland particularly, are specially able to produce. They are the products of high quality, precision, heavy industry.
We shall not be saved only by plastic-backed hairbrushes, typewriters, or cold cream, but by big and little ships, heavy electrical machinery, steel pipes, heavy pumps, and all the engineering gear for whichwe in Scotland are famous. Although I have every respect for the industry represented by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy), the description "Clyde-built," after all, is used throughout the world when one wants to refer to a heavy precision job carried out with the highest efficiency.
The hon. Member for Bothwell spoke of the need to make sure that we had exhausted the mineral resources of any part of the country before abandoning it. I was as interested as he was to read the references to and to hear discussions about proving the new seam of coking coal. It is one of the most essential and important things we could possibly have in view of the shortages of iron and steel.
Neither must we neglect the importance of agriculture. It is now one of the great consuming industries. We have now a tractor for every three and a half agricultural labourers in Britain, and there is a higher proportion in Scotland. Agriculture is one of the most highly mechanised industries in the country. Every agricultural labourer is now served by a large amount of machinery. The tractor of
1594
10 or 15 horse-power roughly represents about three horse-power for each worker. That is a very considerable figure and there are many bigger industries which are not mechanised to such an extent. It means that each agricultural labourer controls a force equal to 50 men or more.
Nor should we forget the sea, which was mentioned in an eloquent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir). The countries round the North Sea take out of the sea in herring alone each year a weight of pure food equal to the whole of the pre-war meat exports from South America. That great amount of food is put on shore by what looks like the small business of herring drifters going out and coming in with their nets. White fishing, again, is a very important industry. These are industries which we have developed in the past. They are native to our shores. We must not neglect them in the future.
Tonight, however, I speak particularly for Glasgow, and particularly for my own constituency, and I say that shipbuilding, and the heavy industries of that great power-house of Scotland, ought to be fostered in every possible way. We have many documents on the subject. The reviews of industry which have been referred to in this debate have been supplemented recently by several others. There are the review by the Cairncross Committee, the review of the Three Banks, and an interesting review made by Colin Clark, the economist, writing from Australia, last March. He stressed the enormous amount of capital goods which would be necessary if the development of the undeveloped lands was to take place. If it is to take place at all something comparable to the great development of continental America in the 19th century is overdue.
I believe that the great works and factories of Scotland, which played such a part in the development of the railways and in the industrialisation of America, have a part like that to play in the new fields which lie before them; in the development of India, Pakistan, South-East Asia, and Africa. The Volta River Dam alone in West Africa, for example, is a project of enormous size. If we can link up our heavy industry with those great needs for capital development which are showing themselves throughout the

1595
world, I believe a field of enormous importance is available to our people in Scotland. I believe that it is a field which is not open to the same extent even to the great Republic of the United States of America, because, whilst we send out goods we are able to take goods in return, and the United States is more and more a self-sufficient unit. The plans for its development, although colossal, are plans for the development of a self-sufficient unit.
One of the most interesting recent reviews was that of the Materials Policy Commission of the President of the United States. I commend it to hon. Members. Giant economies are coming into existence—the giant economy of the United States and the giant economy of the Soviet Union. It is necessary for us to think out an industrial strategy to enable us to stand on equal terms with their enormous undertakings. I believe that with an integrated policy, especially with the countries of the sterling area, and the countries in the Empire and Commonwealth, we shall find the foundations for an economy which can look these two giant economies in the face.
It will be a difficult task. The United States are planning before 1975—within the next 23 years, a period shorter than the period for which we were legislating yesterday—to have 193 million people, and to double their output of energy. Today the United States produces half the energy in the world. In 23 years they propose to have as much as all the energy in the world today. Yet they reckon that within their owl boundaries they can increase by 200 per cent. the output of foodstuffs merely by the application of fertilisers and the use of modern machinery in the areas within their boundaries. We have nothing like that to look forward to. I do not believe that we shall get it merely by a policy of plastics and typewriters.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is not the logic of this theory of international trade that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should look to China and Russia and consider the possibilities of the development of East-West trade?
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I was thinking more of a policy of trade within the sterling area and particularly within the Empire and Commonwealth, for these
1596
are people whom we know and with whom we have done trade, and we literally speak the same language. I think the Soviet Union will itself be a very formidable producer of heavy capital goods, and we should not seek to force our capital goods upon those who do not want them, for there are plenty of places where people do want them. I would rather build the Volta Dam than try to force my capital goods upon people who might not be very anxious to get them and might not be anxious to pay for them when they got them.
Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that one of the leading industrialists in Glasgow, the managing director of the North British Locomotive Company, takes an entirely different view, that he was at the Moscow Economic and Trade Conference and tried to do trade with them?
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am not anxious to prolong the debate. We have had one or two longish speeches and there are many hon. Members who wish to speak. I only wish to say this. Let us, at any rate, look after our own household first, and when we have done all we can do with that, let us see what we can do further afield; but let us, at any rate, make sure that we have produced adequate facilities and supplies for the people for whom we in this Committee have a certain responsibility.
Take steel pipes, for instance. The whole of our new towns at home might be held up for want of supplies of steel pipes. In Africa there are women walking eight and 10 miles to carry on their heads jars of water for cooking because of the lack of steel pipes which we could send from Glasgow to Africa. I saw the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) bounce upon his seat when water pipes were mentioned, and I would add that there are many places in Britain, too, where that development could be carried out. I only say that we should put the necessary things first. Let us be sure that we are conserving the scanty supplies which are available to us now, and using them in the right direction.
We all felt a pang of uneasiness when the hon. Member for Bothwell referred to thousands of square feet of factory space standing empty. We have to be sure

1597
that all the resources of which we have control are directed along lines where they will give the maximum possible return. I am sure that a general strategy for our industrial development is urgently necessary—[An HON. MEMBER: "Planning."] The hon. Member refers to planning. Again the President's Materials Policy Commission has some very useful sentiments on that matter which I commend to him.
None of us, and certainly none of the Tories, is against planning. We fought a revolution against the Whigs who denied that there should be any central control at all in this country. We lost for a time but we came back again, as we have done now.
Let me commend these words to the Committee:
"We believe in private enterprise as the most efficacious way of performing industrial tasks in the United States. We believe in a minimum of interference with its patterns, but this does not mean we believe this minimum must be set at zero. Private enterprise itself has often asked for help or restraints from government; we have thus long experienced a mixture of private and public influences on our economy. The Commission sees no reason either to blink this fact or to decry it, believing that the co-existence of great private and public strength is not only desirable but essential to our preservation."
That is a slogan to which we on this side of the Committee can fully subscribe, and to which also I hope hon. Members opposite subscribe. The new writers of Socialist essays have given up the idea of finding Socialism. It is like the pea under the thimble; first you see it, then you do not. Which is it under? It is only a way of looking at things. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) cannot have read the most recent essays on the subject.
Mr. Strachey: I wrote one.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: There is no surer way of neglecting the other essays in a book than to write one of them oneself. I would only say, in conclusion, that on some combination of public and private enterprise the future of this country depends. I think we all subscribe to that, and I would hope that we should be able to work out in conjunction with each other the problems with which we are faced along that line. For time is short and our resources are scanty; we are in a hazardous position, and if we make a
1598
mistake now we may never get another chance.
7.29 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Hubbard: I do not wish to follow the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvin-grove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), except to say that this debate on industry and employment in Scotland has assumed far greater importance than such a debate has ever done before. This question of employment is of vital interest to the people of Scotland. I find it very difficult indeed to understand the statements made by the Government on increasing productivity and the demand that people should work harder to produce more, while at the same time we find that the figures of unemployment are rising steadily.
It would be very interesting indeed to know how those unfortunate people who, with fear in their hearts, go to the employment exchange to sign on either as fully unemployed or partially employed are to accept the invitation so readily issued to them to work harder and produce more. How are they going to respond to that invitation? Are they going to walk twice to the exchange and thus double their productivity? Nor can I understand the attempts that have been made to conceal the figures of unemployment.
I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is with us tonight. I have been making a little investigation of my own, bearing in mind the statement he made a few weeks ago about unemployment figures in Scotland. I am finding that notwithstanding the fact that the Government made an appeal for people to continue in employment after the age of 65, many of them are today being paid off. The Minister of National Insurance, when introducing the new scales of benefit, emphasised the fact that the figure should be one which would induce people of retirement age to continue in employment so that we could maintain the figure of productivity.
Far from it being possible for old people to go back into industry when they are already on retirement pension, we are finding today, and it is almost inevitable when unemployment becomes the order of the day, that these old people are being suspended from employment.

1599
They do not go to register at the employment exchange, they go to the Ministry of National Insurance. It would be very interesting to have some figures of new applications for retirement pensions.
It is a matter that ought to worry every one of us and a matter of great importance as to how there can Le any future for Scotland or for the rest of the country if we are to be talking in terms of unemployment or under-employment or employment merely for employment's sake. Is it not true that the whole future of this country and that of the Government is dependent upon keeping up our productivity?
Have we forgotten that today the whole of the goods we have to import, including raw materials, have to be paid for by exports? That is the case with the great bulk of what we consume, an amount that, with an ever-growing population, becomes larger and larger. How can we indeed think in terms of full employment if we let up on our production figures even for a short period?
Production figures are bound to fall as unemployment figures grow, and the moment that there is an interruption in the chain of employment and productivity there is an interruption in exports. It follows that if there is an interruption in exports there is bound to be an interruption in imports, which means a shortage of raw materials and a shortage of food.
Surely that is the most important aspect of the present position in Scotland, and all over this country for that matter. Surely it is a time when the heads of all Departments ought to get together, and when there ought to be a great deal more co-operation between Department and Department.
I have studied very carefully many of the reports of delegations which went to other countries with the aim of trying to find better, more speedy and economical ways of production. At the same time as these efforts have been in progress we have seen a gross lack of understanding of our own industries.
I do not intend for one moment to be in conflict with my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Timmons), who spoke about shifting mining population from Lanarkshire to Fife; it is
1600
obvious that coal is of tremendous importance. Only this week great pleasure was expressed by the Minister of Fuel and Power at the growing figures of coal production and the growing figures of coal exports, which mean so much to us in terms of the goods we need.
It is obvious that the coal that has to be won cannot be taken to the places where people live, and that the right place to mine coal is where coal can be most economically worked. So people have to be transferred to the coalfields, but it is perfectly true, as the hon. Member for Bothwell has said, that it ought not just to be a matter of stating "We can bring so many miners from Lanarkshire, or elsewhere into Fife, or the Lothians." If we attract the miner, we then have to hold him, and that means doing more than provide a house and employment for him. The whole of that miner's family must be taken into account, whether they be young or getting on in years. They too have to be provided with employment, and it must be suitable employment, not merely employment which provides them with a job. There is not nearly so much co-operation in that respect as there ought to be.
If miners or anyone else are brought into a new district they have to be provided with schools, churches, entertainments, transport and amenities. A number of new towns are developing where it is recognised that it is not enough merely to erect houses for people to live in. The new mine which is being sunk at Rothes, Fife, will be a miserable failure unless employment is provided for the different members of the miner's family. A house is a tremendous attraction, but unless we can hold the miners to their jobs we shall not make a success of getting them to settle where their work is needed.
I turn to the question of the ageing population in coalmining. I have spoken about this before and little regard has been paid to it. The most dangerous fact about the coalmines of Scotland today is that the coalface workers, the producers, are the ageing population in coalmining. That is a dangerous situation.
Coal is one of our key industries. Nineteen out of every 20 industries are dependent on it for power, light, heating and production. The fact cannot be

1601
over-emphasised that in another 10 years' time, unless something drastic is done to deal with that problem of the ageing population who are the coal producers, we shall be in a very desperate plight.
"Green" labour can be recruited for the coal mines, can be trained, and given "pit sense," as we say in some parts of Scotland. The mines can be flooded with labour, whether British or foreign, but no matter how many men are pumped into the coal mines we cannot increase coal production unless coalface workers can be kept up to the required numbers. I repeat that this part of the mining population is becoming elderly, and in that hard, laborious, uncongenial work a man ages more quickly than he would otherwise do.
One has to realise that particularly in the Scottish coalfields some coalface workers are on some occasions working in seams which are two feet high or a little more, and it can be seen how difficult it becomes for these ageing miners to continue doing that type of work. The present-day system of coal mining means that the ordinary individual worker does not see the coalface. It is hidden. The system of mining has completely changed in the last 15 or 20 years.
Whereas previously a man working at the coalface had some younger person working with him to learn the art of coal-mining and how to win coal from the coalface, because they worked at the place where the coal was won, that has ceased since the increasing mechanisation in the coalmines. There is now sometimes a coalface which is 100 or 200 yards long, which has a conveyor belt from top to bottom, and the young miner never sees the coalface.
One way of overcoming this problem is to see to it that better facilities are made available for the young men in the coalmines to gain that experience which is so necessary so that we can maintain the increased tempo of our coal production. I repeat what I have said in the House previously—we shall never get a continued supply of efficient joiners unless skilled joiners have apprentices working with them and learning the art and skill of the journeyman. And the same applies with a plumber, a bricklayer or anyone else. It amazes me that there is not more pressure coming from the Government to
1602
give the apprentice coal miner the same facilities as are given to apprentices in other industries. The coalmining industry is probably the greatest of all industries.
It is a matter of regret for me to see falling employment in the textile industry in my own area. I do not want to feel that we are in competition with Ireland, England or anybody else in regard to linen. We are all part of a great nation, presented with the same problem, but I do deplore the fact that recently a very large Government contract was sent to the North of Ireland where they had neither the machinery nor the labour to deal with it. At the same time, there are places in my own constituency which are actually gasping and begging for orders. That is not the way to deal with our problems.
I am satisfied that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are just as conscious as I am of the need for keeping up our productivity and our exports. The time has come when we should have a re-examination of the whole problem. We should not continue to look at this problem as we did before, and even after the last war—in terms of distressed areas. We must have a new outlook.
During the difficult days in the past the miners saw man-made mountains of coal growing up round the pitheads. It meant that mechanisation was increasing the production of coal; but what did it mean to the miner? It meant that he would become unemployed. We have seen the introduction of new machinery and new methods of manufacturing goods, and the consequent speeding-up of production. It used to mean that people became unemployed, and possibly the most dangerous aspect of the present situation, when the volume of unemployment is growing again, is that we might see that same fear in the minds of our people—the fear that, in their response to the need for increased productivity, the faster they produce the more unemployment there will be. It is worth while spending some time planning and explaining so that that may be avoided. That fear must not be allowed to get into the minds of the workers again because, if it does, all our efforts will be in vain.
I represent the division of Kirkcaldy, which produced Adam Smith, the great economist who, although he did not belong to my party, had some wonderful

1603
things to say in his book "The Wealth of Nations," when he proved conclusively that the real wealth of our country was the capacity to produce. That is absolutely true, but I think that our capacity to produce ought to be coupled with something of equal importance—the guarantee of continued employment and the standards of life. We cannot have those things conflicting with each other.
We gain nothing by trying to exaggerate the increase of unemployment. The figures given by the Parliamentary Secretary are unreal, because they do not take into account those workers on part-time employment and the fact that so many old people are being paid off at the moment. If there is a future for Scotland at all, the problem can only be solved if we get down to some fresh thinking, and the sooner we do that the quicker we shall get results.
7.44 p.m.
Major W. J. Anstruther-Gray: I am sure that the whole Committee will be very much in sympathy with the tone of the speech which has just been made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard). I felt that he was very right in what he said about facilities being made available for the training of apprentice miners, because the increasing age level in the pits is certainly a danger to production. I also agreed with him in disagreeing with his hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Timmons), who complained that Lanark shire miners were being invited to go to the East of Scotland because that was where they were most needed.
I know that the hon. Member for Bothwell told tales of families from Lanarkshire who had unhappily not been made contented where they had gone, whether it was to the County of Fife or to East Lothian; but if I may speak for some Lanarkshire miners who are at present settled in East Lothian, I can say that they and their families have in many cases found themselves made very welcome and have found happiness. Looking at the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) I can speak with some feeling, because, I, too, know what it is to lose my job in North Lanark and to
1604
go to East Lothian and to find, after a somewhat lengthy period of approval, a resting place and a welcome.
Mr. A. C. Manuel: It is not permanent.
Major Anstruther-Gray: Neither is life permanent for anybody. That brings me to the more serious part of our discussion.
What encouraged me most in the debate was the good tidings of the Under-Secretary of State in regard to steel production. Right glad I was to hear that Scotland is to receive a large proportion of the total scrap imports. How necessary that is, because there can be nothing that has threatened our national production and employment more over the last few years, in the most essential of heavy industries, than the shortage of steel. I want to emphasise the fact that I am speaking of the last few years.
In this connection, it is no good trying to score a cheap and unfair political point. I should like to quote from the "Clydesdale Review" of 1951—which is a period in which nobody can say that Her Majesty's present Government had responsibility. The review says:
"During the period under review, some of the smaller Scottish yards discharged workers owing to the shortage of steel."
Then I come a little more up to date, but still in a period when the present Government were not responsible. I should like to quote from the "The Times Review of Industry" published this month:
"The disturbing shortage of steel and certain other materials is causing acute anxiety in Scottish heavy industries such as shipbuilding and engineering. For more than a year the shipbuilding industry has been suffering from restricted steel supplies and at a time when order books have never been heavier only two-thirds of its capacity is being utilised. Contracts secured in face of keen competition on guaranteed delivery dates are endangered by the meagreness of the allocation and irregularity of deliveries of the right type of steel at the time it is wanted."
In view of that, I do not think that any English Member could object to Scotland being given a fair share of scrap for steel. Certainly nobody could be anything but encouraged to hear the news given to us by the Joint Under-Secretary in relation to future blast furnaces, iron-ore importing vessels and docking facilities, because all these things will be required if we are to hold our own in the future.

1605
I should like to go back to touch on a subject which affects my constituency very much, and that is the question of coal. We cannot feel complacent about the question of coal in Scotland. Despite the increased mechanisation, the level of output of coal in Scotland has remained virtually static over the past four years. This compares unfavourably with the improvement in other divisions of the National Coal Board in the United Kingdom.
Certainly we have heard a very encouraging statement by the Minister of Fuel and Power on exports for the country as a whole, but I suggest that we should look at the position of coal exports from Scotland. I think the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) made some reference to it earlier in the debate.
I want to refer to a letter written in "The Scotsman" on 19th of last month by a man who said that before 1939 he was for over 20 years with a large coal exporting company in Leith and, as he pointed out, the tonnage of shipments from Leith had fallen in 1951 to one-tenth of the figure it was in 1938—and this applies not only to Leith but to all the exporting ports of Scotland where the same sorry tale can be observed. In 1938 Glasgow exported 1,700,000 tons, and last year only 400,000 tons.
Mr. Hubbard: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not forgetting the fact that in those days, with which he is making the comparison, very little coal was being used in this country. The small size of our exports today is the measure of the amount of coal we have been using in this country. We have not the coal to export; surely that is the important thing. In those days, we were not using it in this country.
Major Anstruther-Gray: I wish I could accept that, but I am afraid that the low level of production is responsible in considerable part for the fact that the exports of coal are not so high as they were in days gone by.
Mr. Hubbard: According to the figures they are higher.
Major Anstruther-Gray: Scottish production over the last four years has shown scarcely any improvement, and in that respect we have lagged behind other coal-producing areas in the United Kingdom.
1606
I must stick to my point. Going to Fyfe, in Methnil the exports of coal are now only 700,000 tons, whereas in 1938 they were 2½ million. I do not want to quote too many figures, but I think the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs will agree that in general it is disappointing that we in Scotland cannot export at a greater rate. He put forward proposals as to how young miners could have better training as apprentices and could be brought to do the work of elderly men, and he and I are united in wanting the Scottish coal trade to produce more and also to see greater exports from this country.
Perhaps I may now turn to the Cairn-cross Report, about which we all read in yesterday's Press, although I think very few hon. Members succeeded in getting a copy. That was a pity. I went to the office of the Development Council in Mayfair yesterday and asked for a copy, and I was told that none had come. Apparently there was one copy in the whole of London available; perhaps the Secretary of State had another copy, but certainly it seemed a great pity that copies were not available so that we could have read the Report in time for today.
This Report deals in particular with the location of industry and changes in the population. The Joint Under-Secretary of State very wisely said—and I expect the Secretary of State will do likewise—that he would not state any conclusions yet as a result of the Report, because there is a good deal in it which needs examination, but I was interested to see that in the 1951 Census preliminary report it is shown that the largest increase in population in Scotland over the last 20 years was in the small burghs. To me, that is a very encouraging fact, because I do not like too large a congregation of population in the big centres. I think it is much better that people should be dispersed more evenly over the country.
The Report went on to say that very few of the 144 burghs had lost in population. Indeed, of that 144 with a population of over 2,000 only 21 had decreased between 1931 and 1951, though I am sorry to note, in passing, that two of them were in my own constituency—Haddington and Eyemouth. But, turning over the page, I am encouraged to think that it does not matter so much, for between 1947 and 1950 both the counties

1607
of East Lothian and Berwickshire showed an increase in population.
Perhaps I may go from there to the very important point—from the point of view of any one who represents a considerable rural area: how can we hope to attract new industries and to keep what population we have in their present work? This Report leaves us in no doubt. Paragraph 88 says:
"Among the most important services which the industrialist looks for is passenger transport; indeed, more than one of the organisations we have consulted have told us that lack of a good transport system is one of the main obstacles to industrial expansion in a country area."
There is not a single hon. Member representing a rural area who could not have told the writers of this Report that that was only too true. The Report goes on to say:
"It has been suggested that this encourages a drift of population away from the countryside."
Of course it encourages a drift of population away from the countryside; nothing is more important than to have a reasonable transport service.
I agree that it is not the only thing needed. Housing, which we debated the other day, is one of the most important things, and another is the provision of reasonable cinema facilities; and I commend that to the attention of the Government. As for attracting development itself, without dealing with the personal side, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that if he were to take a glance at development charges under the Town and Country Planning Act he would be getting pretty near to the root of the problem.
Perhaps I may turn to some of the findings of the Cairncross Report, which I commend to hon. Members now that it can be obtained, for it is well worth reading. It says:
"First of all there is evidence of a general change favourable to towns and districts lying outside the main industrial areas of Scotland."
That is all to the good. Secondly, they say, "We have been impressed by the amount of industrial development already in progress in country towns and districts and by the number of country towns that are expanding in population."
That, again, will be generally welcomed by people in Scotland.
1608
Thirdly, I come to a point on which I want to close; for they say that,
"The fishing towns and villages are the main exception to these favourable developments. Some mining towns are also in process of contraction. Of the two, the fishing towns present the more serious problem."
It is stated later that all the fishing towns, indeed all the seaports on the East of Scotland, with the exception of Aberdeen, are contracting. That, I may say, is a sorry state of affairs for the representative of Dunbar and Cockenzie and Burn-mouth and Eyemouth. That is sorry news, because they are very worthy people who live by the sea—a people on whom we count in time of war. If the population falls away, how are we to replace them when the time comes, if they are needed.
However, this is not the opportunity to discuss fishing at all, so I must leave that out of my argument, but I do think that it is up to the Scottish Office to make every effort it can to keep the piers and the harbours of these villages in good repair. After all, it is not only fishing vessels that use a port such as Eyemouth. It is by no means impossible that the Admiralty may find it valuable in defence to have such a port in which to seek refuge, if need be.
It is by no means impossible, either, that more sea trade should be developed. For instance, why should the raw materials for the Chirnside Paper Mills have to go all the way by road from Leith instead of by sea to Eyemouth, and thence by road to Chirnside? The latter way by sea would be more economic. I do ask my right hon. Friend to look with kindly eye on any appeal that may come from Eyemouth for assistance with its harbour, in order that the town may be helped to keep its personality and to keep its population—helped to keep its population from shrinking and, instead, to expand it. That is what we want—expansion of the population in places like Eyemouth, and more of the right people on whom we can depend through thick and thin.
8.1 p.m.
Mr. Cyril Bence: I hope to be very brief because I have only a few points to make; after all, I am an engineer, and engineers are used not to weaving patterns and generally come straight to the point. I had my

1609
training as an engineer in South Wales, which, between the wars, was a country with circumstances very similar to those of Scotland, in that we had considerable unemployment. Those of us who were engineers had to move from South Wales to areas where there were lighter industries. I went to Birmingham, and there I met many Scots who had come from Scotland to the Midlands of England.
When I was adopted as prospective representative for a Scottish division I gave up my job as a toolmaker in Birmingham and went to live in Scotland, and there I found a number of toolmakers who had come back to Scotland to work as toolmakers. They were highly skilled men who had been trained in heavy engineering; they were young and adaptable, and very good toolmakers—and I reckon to be a judge of a good toolmaker.
They were first-class men but, unfortunately, 99 out of every 100 of them looked upon their jobs in Scotland as being transient. They were looking to the time, not wishfully, when they would go back to the Midlands—to Coventry—or to London and the South as toolmakers. They remembered what their fathers had experienced in the past, and felt that their firms, being subsidiaries of major companies in the South, or of major companies in the United States of America, would be closed down should a recession come. So they were not taking root as skilled artisans in their home country.
Many young men asked me for the addresses of engineering firms for whom I had worked in the Midlands, because they were afraid—I apologise for having to say this, but I am trying to tell the Committee exactly what was of immediate moment to those people—that a Tory Government would come back and that if a Tory Government came back there would be further unemployment and the depression of the pre-war years. That was invariably what was said. They thought the thing to do was to go South as toolmakers and engineers.
I was rather surprised that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kolvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot)—I am sorry that he has left his place—talk about concentrating on our traditional industries. Well, of course, I agree it is vital that Clydeside should maintain
1610
its standards of shipbuilding and its long experience of the production of ships—not only of quality, but economically produced.
Unfortunately, however, the development of the technique of production in the shipbuilding industry depends today more than ever on the regular flow of the essential raw materials for the construction of ships. If there is any irregularity in the supply of materials, if the machine tools are held up for hours, if machine hours are lost, if men are idle and the machines not producing maximum output, costs of production are raised, besides the delay of completion of the work.
I know that on Clydeside there are engineers, members of my own union, the Amalgamated Engineering Union, who are working day work now whereas 12 months ago they were working piecework, and this is because of the irregularity and insufficiency of the supply of steel. This not only delays delivery dates of heavy capital goods—ships, locomotives, heavy machine tools—but is increasing costs, because in modern engineering a smooth flow in the processes of production is the first essential.
We, when we were apprentices, used to go to night-school to learn theory and mathematics which we could not learn at the elementary school. When I was a boy we worked long hours—10½ hours a day. That was not so very many years ago. Today engineering work is so fast and so tiring that I challenge any boy who is serving an apprenticeship in the engineering trade adequately to provide himself with the technical knowledge necessary in mathematics, metallurgy, draughtsmanship at night school.
I am surprised to find in this Report that attendance at schools outside working hours still remains the principal way in which the apprentice who desires higher qualifications and technical theory and knowledge can obtain them in Scotland. I have worked for some big plants, and our boys had their technical education during working hours. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where?"] In the Midlands. I can name the firm—Messrs. Fisher and Ludlow in Birmingham. The Austin Motor Co. sent all their apprentices to the Birmingham Central Technical College, and paid their wages, and gave them an annual bonus based upon

1611
the marks they got at the college they were attending.
That should be done in every field of the engineering trade when boys serve their apprenticeship. The practical training should be carried out at the bench, and at technical college where they learn theory and higher mathematics which they must have before they become skilled engineers. That should be done at the expense of the industry in which they are going to render life service. I hope that in Scotland the right hon. Gentleman will use all the influence and power he has to see that apprentices in the engineering industry are enabled to go to school during working hours and be paid while they are there so that they may acquire the higher technical knowledge that it is necessary for them to have if they are to give of their best in the engineering industry.
One or two firms do this, and I think it is becoming generally recognised that, if we are to get the best technical development, and if we are to keep abreast in industrial techniques and developments with the rest of the world, let alone hold a leading place, we must do this at least.
I now wish to mention the allocation id houses for key workers. Now, this is a very serious problem. A toolmaker used to be called a journeyman, because he went into a small factory in London, Coventry, or any where in the Midlands, producing buttons, safety pins, or anything else. He would knock at the door, as it were, in the morning, and say, "Do you want any tools?"; they would reply, "Yes, we have an order for a million safety pins. You have got a tool we want," and he would do the job. In my union there are men who move all over the country as tool-maker journeymen in all sorts of trades.
I have had to deal with the case of a skilled man who moved to Scotland from London because his house in London was allocated to a key worker. This tool-maker accepted the house as a key worker, had a row with his firm—nothing unusual for a tool-maker, because they are very intelligent people—but because the house he was living in was allocated, not to him, but to the firm for a key worker it had become a tied house for the firm by which he was employed. If, say, a dozen houses are
1612
allocated to a firm on the assumption that the firm allocate them to key workers, the workers occupying those houses become the occupants of tied houses; they are allocated those houses on the basis of a contractual agreement with the firm as key workers. Now make no mistake about it. Skilled workers will not stand for that.
In the Report it says that houses are allocated to key workers. What is the key worker? The firm or the man? If a man works for a firm and has a house because he is a skilled worker in a branch of engineering, no matter what firm he works for, so long as he pursues his occupation of, say, a skilled toolmaker, for which he was allocated that house, he should continue to occupy the house. Who is to judge who is the key worker? The firm? The young fellow I have in mind was named Mr. Frank Murray. He went to another firm in the same area, who said that he was not a key worker. This poor fellow is now living in the poor house, and his wife and family are living somewhere else.
Mr. James McInnes: I am very interested in this. If the firm are not the judge of who is the key worker, who is the judge? Is it the man himself?
Mr. Bence: I suggest that in any industry the judge of whether a man is a key worker should be the Ministry of Labour.
Mr. McInnes: As I understand it, the local Ministry of Labour and the local authority are all consulted in the allocation of these houses.
Mr. Bence: I have no doubt that the Ministry of Labour have been consulted, but the fact is that the firm have sacked this man; he has gone to work for another firm, and the house is allocated to the firm and not to the man, although he is performing a highly skilled job for the other firm. But that firm says he is not a key worker. That is the point. To whom are these houses allocated, the firm or the skilled worker? If this sort of thing goes on there will be the greatest difficulty in getting journeymen toolmakers in my union to move to where they are needed to do these highly skilled specialised jobs, and we shall not

1613
have the mobility of skilled labour so vital to our economy if that sort of thing goes on.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander Galbraith): Would the hon. Gentleman tell us when this incident to which he refers happened? It is a matter of very great interest.
Mr. Bence: It was in March. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware of the case. I have had a lot of correspondence on this issue with the Secretary of State for Scotland. I admit that there are various snags, but the point is that the Report says these houses are allocated to key workers; it does not say that they are allocated to key workers on the understanding that they work for a firm to whom the houses have been allocated. If they are allotted to key workers, it must be irrespective of the firm by whom they are employed, provided they are performing what is termed highly skilled jobs, or key jobs. That is the only thing with which I am concerned in this respect.
The Joint Under-Secretary referred to the effect of the Bank rate. Many of the industrial units in Scotland—and I have been in several of the smaller ones—are not complete production units in themselves. In one firm I was shown round by the chief engineer they were in the process of becoming an engineering production unit. Some are importing all their tools, some from America and some from London and Coventry. Elsewhere they were making tools and exporting them from Scotland, while other parts of the unit were being developed and built up so that they could keep their tools and tool-up their own production. They were, in fact, complete units. That applies to many factories.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) will agree that over the past two years many small, growing firms have not themselves been complete production units from the raw material to the finished product. Now, no factory or engineering unit will get rooted and evolve around itself an indigenous population unless it is a complete production unit, and any action taken by Her Majesty's Government to frustrate the evolution of these part units, as I call them, into a complete unit will prevent
1614
the development of an indigenous population around a complete engineering production unit.
The increase of the Bank Rate must obviously frustrate the capital development of these units, and the limited credit available is bound to react on those small factory units in the industrial estates of Scotland. I dare say the same will happen in Wales. There will be the necessity of spending more money on that expansion and the higher bank charges will force the parent company to intensify its development at the centre rather than outside it.
I ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State to try to ensure that the present Government will not depend entirely upon the Bank rate as an instrument for the regulation of credit in the development of the engineering industry or any other industry. Many of the hon. Gentleman's friends on the benches behind him have stated today and on other occasions when economic questions have been debated that the increase of the Bank rate creates a selected process whereby capital flows into those channels which are best for the country as a whole. That is not true. If this instrument is to be relied upon, as many hon. Members opposite want it to be, and the financial policy of the present Government is moving in that direction, because they want to reduce physical controls and bring back monetary controls, it will not lead to the direction of capital into those resources and industries which are most necessary to the community.
The flow of money is likely to be the other way. It will flow where the greatest profit is to be made. I hope therefore that the physical factor in the allocation of licences and premises will completely override any selective operation that may arise from the operation of the Bank rate. I should like to see the Public Works Loans Board operating at a very low rate of interest—far below the commercial rate of interest—and advancing money for the building on industrial estates of factories belonging to the Ministry of Supply, instead of it being allowed to flow off to major and subsidiary companies in the South or in the Midlands, or to the United States. I should like to see these factories built up by the Ministry of Supply at low interest rates so that the workers of Scotland can feel assured that they will

1615
not be thrown off by a recession of trade in Britain and the closing down of firms like Burroughs and Watts and other firms in Lanarkshire and other parts of Scotland.
8.25 p.m.
Mr. W. S. Duthie: I should like the Committee to devote its attention for a little to the north-east of Scotland, where we have in evidence some of the symptoms which have been associated with the Highlands decline. The population figures in some of these more important towns are going down. There is a drift away of our skilled workers, and the hard core of unemployment in the Banffshire coastal belt is very much greater than the average figure for the rest of the country.
This is a matter which has been exercising our attention in the north-east of Scotland for a very long time. I have had frequent correspondence with St. Andrew's House on this matter. In March, 1951, I received a letter from the right hon Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil), who was then Secretary of State for Scotland, which contained a very reassuring message to the effect that the Government were most cordially inclined to the development of industry along the Moray Firth coast. British Railways immediately followed this up by closing the passenger service on the Macduff—Inveramsay line.
The hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Major Anstruther-Gray) mentioned the Cairn-cross Report's reference to the fishing towns and villages:
"The fishing towns and villages are the main exception to these favourable developments. Some mining towns are also in process of contraction. Of the two the fishing towns present the more serious problem."
I should like to examine some of the considerations appertaining to the fishing industry. In the Moray Firth coastal belt, of which Banffshire is the geographical centre, practically from Aberdeen to Inverness, the towns are almost entirely dependent on the fishing industry. We are seeing the draining away of men from the fishing industry all the time. The Hydro-Electric Scheme at Cannick is already largely staffed by fishermen. The reason for this recession from the fishing industry is the recent poor fishing seasons and the prohibitive cost of vessels and
1616
gear. We have a herring fleet, but in many cases it is obsolescent, if not obsolete.
I would point out to the Secretary of State for Scotland that the hold-up of any announcement of the Government's intentions concerning grants and loans is a further factor mitigating against the development of the fishing industry. The provisions under the Herring Industry Act expire in August, 1952, and the Inshore Fishing Industry Act provisions expire in December, 1952. The time at the disposal of the fishermen is not sufficient for them to obtain any vessels or even gear under these provisions. A Government statement on this matter is overdue, and I urge the Secretary of State for Scotland to make that statement without further delay. I have mentioned before the difficulty of getting crews. We have seaworthy vessels which are tied up in our ports but which are unable to go to sea because of lack of crews. All this tends to discourage the younger people from entering the fishing industry.
Another very serious factor, the importance of which I cannot too strongly stress, is the falling into disuse of certain fishing ports. Buckie is typical of many others. It has a first-class harbour and, what is more important, unrivalled shore facilities, not only as regards equipment, but from the point of view of expert personnel to handle the fish. From one month's end to another, scarcely a fish is being landed at the port.
There may be a number of reasons which contribute to this state of affairs. In certain ports, there has been the canard of poor prices being obtained locally. It is within the province of the White Fish Authority to lay that bogey for all time. Indeed, it is their duty to do so. That is part and parcel of their terms of reference. The Herring Industry Board and the White Fish Authority ought to, and can, ensure that all these ports are brought into operation, by the licensing of vessels to fish from them, and by the direction of landings, coupled with the provision and the building up of facilities for processing fish, for freezing, and for the production in ever-increasing measure of herring oil and fish meal.
These are vital considerations if our fishing industry as we know it in Scotland is to continue. It must be remembered that in the case of a fishing port, a

1617
busy harbour means a busy and prosperous town. Since the entire economic strength of the area comes from the fishing industry, let us have all these towns—for it is within our power to bring it about—prosperous and busy.
If our fishing industry becomes prosperous again along the Moray Firth coastal belt, other industries will follow. We want other industries to come, but we need to develop the one industry that Nature has placed in our hands—he fishing industry—and we want every possible assistance from the Government to bring that about.
In considering this, we must have protection for our territorial waters. This is a matter that has been referred to on many occasions from all sides of the House, but since The Hague Convention we know what has occurred with Iceland, and we do not know what will happen with other countries. It is our bounden duty to ensure that the waters upon which our inshore fishermen are entirely dependent are protected for them. I refer in particular to the Moray Firth, the Firth of Clyde and the Minch.
Despite all our wishes, hopes and efforts for the fishing and other industries in this North-East Coast of ours, all will fail unless something can be done about transport costs, which today are completely prohibitive. The announcements from time to time by the White Fish Authority of their plans for the equalisation of fish transport rates are, no doubt, very good. We anxiously await details, but so far they have been withheld from us.
But equalisation of rates for fish alone is not enough. If we are to succeed industrially, those factories that now operate in the North—and we have some very good ones for instance, at Keith, in Banffshire, where we have two of the best woollen manufacturers in the country, and the same applies to Huntly and to other places—should not be made to operate at a distinct disadvantage in comparison with the factories further south.
The transport of raw materials to the factories by rail, and the transport away of the finished articles, puts these factories at a disadvantage. It is vitally necessary that something must be done for this northern part of Scotland in connection with transport rates. It is en-
1618
cumbent upon the Government, with the nationalised transport industry, to ensure that this is brought about.
Government action is imperative, because without it the industries that we now have will be lost to us, with the possible exception of agriculture and distilling. Through the tremendous extra costs that we have to pay for fuel and for gear for the fishing industry, largely as a result of transport charges, our fishing industry will slowly but surely leave the North of Scotland and concentrate upon the bigger ports further south.
I plead with the Government to give this matter their urgent consideration, because, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian has said, we cannot afford to lose our fishing population on the coast. It is to them that we have to turn in our hour of need to man the vessels that will defeat the submarine menace of the future, as they have done in the past.
In connection with the hydro-electric development in the North, we see great indications of dams being built and power being generated. As a nation we have to take a leaf out of the book of Canada and the United States in this matter. Their industries have gone as near as possible to the source of supply as in the case of Niagara, Oregon, and the Tennessee Valley. We see industries going to the seat of power there, but in our glens in Scotland we have plenty of power and room for expansion. All we want is goodwill and forceful action in this regard.
I appeal to the Government to see that we have a fair share of Government contracts in the north so far as wool manufacture and other things are concerned. On the Moray Firth coast we build the finest class of wooden craft that sails the sea and our ships from Aberdeen will bear comparison even with those of the Clyde. Particularly in fishing craft there is nothing which can touch the north-east coast. I plead with my right hon. Friend that the maximum number of contracts for that type of craft should go to our northern yards. We should remember that this part of the world produces the finest seamen and it is this area in which the 51st Division has been cradled and brought up for two generations. All we say is, give us the conditions under

1619
which success is remotely possible and we will prove in peace equally successful as we are in war.
The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Arthur Colegate): Mr. Pryde.
Mr. Manuel: On a point of information, Mr. Colegate. May I have guidance as to the method by which hon. Members are called in this Committee? I understand that you have a list and I understand that some representations have been made to you from those wanting to speak, but that that list is not even adhered to. Is there any way by which we may receive guidance from the Chair as to how I may put questions affecting my constituency?
The Temporary Chairman: No, I fear not. The calling of hon. Members in a debate is left entirely to the discretion of the Chair and no reasons are given.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Further to that point of information, may I ask whether speakers are being selected on a territorial, geographical, or other basis? For your information, Mr. Colegate, I gave notice about a week ago that I desired to speak in this debate and my name was the first to be received. I have been here all day and have not had tea and dinner.
The Temporary Chairman: Order. I cannot allow a discussion of this kind. Hon. Members may rely on representations—of which the Chair gets many—being considered, but they must leave the calling of hon. Members to the discretion of the Chair.
8.37 p.m.
Mr. David J. Pryde: I wish to compliment the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who initiated the debate. I think everyone will agree that he made the best of a bad job. He certainly presented the case with all the trappings of success, but any debate in this Chamber will require to be very effective indeed if it is to cure Scotland's ills.
At Question time today we had the President of the Board of Trade defending the importation of bricks. There requires to be no importation of bricks into Scotland. We in Midlothian can make all the bricks we require in Scotland for building construction in Scotland.
1620
Since 1945 I have never at any time hidden my views in regard to government in Scotland. I cast no reflection on anyone, but to the previous Prime Minister in the first majority Labour Government I clearly stated my position. I said then, and I say again, that government in Scotland will never be effective until the work of the Board of Trade, the work of the Ministry of Works and the work of the Ministry of Supply come under the aegis of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
In approaching the Prime Minister of the day, I find that he performs a picturesque political polka and refers me to the Catto Committee, which will be followed by a Royal Commission. I have been a student of political history all my days and I always find that whenever the Government of the day get into a jam, they resort to a Royal Commission. Scotland today is suffering from the ills of Government from Westminster. It is all nonsense to say that people in Scotland are not suffering from unemployment. In my own constituency I have carpet weavers who work only three days a fortnight and paper makers and textile workers who also are working short time.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland mentioned the Government giving out contracts in Scotland. I should like whoever is to reply for the Government to answer a question regarding the handing out of those contracts. One contract went to Aberdeen and I was told that was because there was a considerable amount of unemployment there; but on inquiry I found that the unemployment was among the fishermen engaged in the fishing industry. I was told that one contract went to Tillicoultry. Well, one would require a magnifying glass to see Tillicoultry compared with places like Hawick and Galashiels and Peebles, with regard to weaving.
In regard to my own constituency, I have on previous occasions pointed to the fact that there has been ample opportunity for the Government of the day, whether it be Labour or Conservative, to live up to its policy, because in Midlothian there are two parishes scheduled for development in the Caldars area of Midlothian which have never had any relief at all either in regard to defence contracts or any other section of industrial activity.

1621
There is a considerable percentage of unemployment there today and work-people have to travel journeys lasting from an hour to an hour-and-a-half in the bus to get to their work if they wish to find employment in other parts of Scotland. I want the Government to tell us whether it is possible for some defence contracts to be allocated to that area of Midlothian.
I have endeavoured to cement good relationships in the southern portion of my constituency between the workers and the employers on the banks of the Tweed. We in Midlothian and Peebles recognise that if the wheels of industry are not turning there will be little for either one side of industry or the other. I never interfere in wage disputes. I leave that to the trade unions and other appropriate organisations, and I think that is the spirit which will have to pervade the whole of this Committee if we are to overcome the present crisis.
The Committee listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Timmons), who made a searing and scorching speech which contained a great many true facts, although he may have exaggerated in some portions in regard to the transportation of miners from Lanarkshire to Midlothian, where we are building houses quicker than anywhere else in Scotland.
We have firms which make a special feature of quick building, like Messrs. Cruden of Musselburgh. We are building houses so quickly that we cannot provide the social amenities for the inhabitants, because there is a shortage of steel. We require schools and churches and other social amenities in the shape of halls. The Midlothian County Council is doing something which is not being done in any other part of Britain today. We are tackling the building of a great new town at Newtongrange with a target of 50,000 inhabitants, without the assistance of the New Towns Act, but solely from the main-spring of the county council, and I think that the Committee should give consideration to that county council—
Mr. Hoy: And credit.
Mr. Pryde: Yes, and credit. The Midlothian County Council believes in the old Scottish maxim of doing something for themselves.
1622
I think I have given the Secretary of State for Scotland sufficient grounds for considering one county council which is making an effort for itself. I ask him to tell the Committee whether we shall get any assistance in Midlothian in the building of the new town. We require roads, and so on, and we cannot do all the work ourselves. I want to make sure that when the contracts are handed out the firms in Midlothian and Peebles will get their share.
8.45 p.m.
Commander C. E. M. Donaldson: I do not think that the Committee will mind if I do not follow the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) too closely, although I am in sympathy with him and he is my next-door neighbour in Scotland. We have many things in common in the Border country. Though I do not propose to follow his argument about the new town, I am fully in sympathy with what he said about employment.
In his constituency there are carpet weavers and others. In my constituency we are interested in the great wool textile trade, the Border tweed mills, hosiery and the manufacture of rayon in the North British Rayon Mills at Jedburgh. It is in the last particular that I wish to call the attention of my hon. and right hon. Friends to the fact that we are conscious of recessions in the textile industry in Scotland equal to those about which we have heard so much in other parts of the country in debates on other topics in the last few months.
I specially wish to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the fact that in Scotland there is a great rayon industry. The mill in Jedburgh supplies about 68 per cent. of the employment in that old Royal Burgh at the centre of the Border. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will remember the time and the reason why that mill was established there. We now have a situation in which, due to world conditions which were becoming apparent at least as early as this time last year, we have heavy unemployment.
This is a serious matter. This week we have seen on the Order Paper Questions to the Ministers responsible for various Government Departments, including the Navy, the Army and the Air Force, asking whether they are to place orders for rayon

1623
goods which may be used in those Services. That will in turn assist re-armament and also the rayon industry.
The labour is available. Some of us have sat here for five hours hoping to join in this discussion, and I do not wish to weary the Committee by producing statisics. It is no use to a man who is unemployed to study a list of statistics. He knows that he is out of work. Even though the number is small, whether it be 3.6 per cent. for Scotland as a whole, it is 100 per cent. unemployment for him. He is the fellow who is interested.
This firm was put in Jedburgh for the manufacture of rayon thread which is supplied to the retail manufacturers in other parts of Britain. We have had announcements of collaboration between the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Supply in connection with a stimulus for the industry, but it may be some time before the effect of these Government contracts is felt on unemployment in the mill which produces the actual thread.
This was a new industry in the Border. For generations, indeed for centuries, the basic industry has been connected in one way or another with the wool trade. As the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles knows, because there are similar conditions in his constituency, we have surrounding us hills and hill farms. The raw materials were there. It was from there that the art of spinning and carding came. We had also the introduction of tweed. There is no need for me to go into the history of tweed, but we in the Border country manufacture and export, in proportion to the size of the industry, one of the most valuable dollar earners sent from any part of Britain. In textile debates in the past, I have endeavoured to interject a suggestion which has never been fully stressed in this period of time. It is the fact that we have a particular interest in Scotland in the textile industry, and we also have associated with it the great upbuilding of the hosiery industry.
The hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles mentioned one or two burghs in my constituency, including Hawick, where we have the centre of the Scottish hosiery industry. It is true to say that, in the course of last year—and our records prove this—the dollar-earning
1624
capacity of the export trade was greater per man in this industry than in any other industry in Britain. It is the proud boast of the Border people that they have the energy and the desire, the will, the knowledge and the craftsmanship and all those things which are necessary for the expansion of this industry, but it is the unfortunate fact that, in the history of the past 50 years, the population has remained static.
Our fear is that the population may start to go down. We do not wish to see a situation like that which we have had in the Highlands, and I do not believe that it will happen. Although I cannot speak for new scheduled development areas or for new towns, it is my personal belief that the steady, solid and basic grip of the Border people on their destiny, and their ability, will ensure that they remain there; but their numbers should be increased.
It is my belief that the introduction of a few light industries, carefully planned, into the Border area, would be effective in meeting the difficulty which has to be faced in the whole of the south-eastern area of Scotland. Whenever there is a recession—and let us not try to place blame for it, because it is a world condition, from which the whole woollen industry is suffering—all the people in all walks of life are affected by it, and we really need a little more diversification of light industry so that workers who may be temporarily unemployed may find some other work to do.
There is ample employment for women, but it is essential, in my view, in planning for future industrial development in south-eastern Scotland, that consideration should be given by employers, chambers of commerce, and by all those interested in the real and genuine needs of southeastern Scotland, to the future development of various light industries in the Border area, in association with housing and all those other things which are necessary to fit in with those industries.
In conclusion, there is one other topic I should like to mention, and it relates to the new organisation which has been set up at St. Andrew's House. There has been no mention in the whole of the discussion today about the industrial development of Scotland of the new Minister of State for Scotland and the functions which he fulfils in Scotland.

1625
The object of his appointment was that he should be present in Scotland at all times, so as to have his finger on the pulse of Scotland's needs.
All of us who have had occasion to go to St. Andrew's House have been glad to find the Minister's wide understanding, appreciation, knowledge and application to his duties, and I commend to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee the idea that, if they have any specific difficulty in their constituencies, they can go in confidence to the new set-up in St. Andrew's House, which is really working effectively, and they will receive real understanding and the answers to the problems and the difficulties affecting the well-being of industry in Scotland and of all who live within its borders.
8.55 p.m.
Mr. Hector Hughes: I want very briefly to draw attention to some very serious faults in and omissions from the 1951 Annual Report on Industry and Employment in Scotland. The particular matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the Committee is the manner in which this Report deals with Canadian trade and export trade. In the circumstances, I shall have to do so very briefly, and possibly in a staccato way.
This Report differs from its predecessor, which was a complete, comprehensive and stimulating survey of the field with which it purported to deal. This Report is in strange, striking and prejudicial contrast to its predecessor. The 1950 Report devoted a whole chapter to 12 informative sections on American and Canadian participation in Scottish industry. The 1951 Report has no such chapter. It is silent on Canada and on the United States and with regard to any trade with the New World. Indeed, so far as this Report is concerned they might not exist.
My second point is that the 1950 Report devoted a whole chapter of nine informative sections to Scottish exports, whereas the 1951 Report has no such explanatory chapter.
Lest it might be felt that my observations are in some way an attack upon the civil servants who are responsible for the Report, let me say at once that this is not so. The civil servants, with that scrupulous clarity which is characteristic
1626
of them, have compiled under various heads the statistics and presented them. But it is always for the Minister to select which heads shall be included in the Report, and in this instance the Secretary of State has chosen to leave out certain very important heads.
The country is entitled to know why these things were left out; why Canada and the United States are neglected. I submit that this is contrary to the interests of Scotland. I am a strong believer in the solidarity of the British Commonwealth of Nations and of the business intercourse and brotherhood between them. I think that Canadian trade is and would be beneficial to Scotland. It is a growing plant which should be nurtured. I hope to have the pleasure of going to Canada this year and of studying it on the spot, when I shall certainly do what lies in my power to promote Scottish interests there.
The Government may think that our export trade with Canada is so trivial a matter that it does not need to be mentioned and that it is rightly omitted from the Report. I venture to differ, and I am sure the Committee will agree with me when I draw attention to one paragraph in the 1950 Report in order to show the contrast between the two years. As I have said, the present 1951 Report does not refer to this matter at all whereas the 1950 Report referred to it in this graphic and stimulating way:
"For 300 years Scotland has sent her sons and daughters to Canada and the United States. The products of her factories have helped to build up the industrial strength of both countries, and her companies have established enterprises there. In the last half-century, however, the industrial balance of the world has changed, and the wealth put by Scotland into North America in the past has begun flowing back. Indeed, before long there will be some thirty companies in Scotland either controlled by, or closely associated with, firms in the United States and Canada, and the direct employment they provide is approaching 40,000; indirectly they give employment to several thousands more."
That stimulating Report then goes on to deal with the American and Canadian participation in Scottish industry under the following heads, "Pre-war Developments," "American Enterprises Since The War," "Reasons For American Investment in Britain," "Why American Firms Come to Scotland," "The Scottish Council's Contribution," "Future Prospects" and "Other Relations With

1627
North America." That Report actually gave a list of Canadian firms interested in Scotland and of Scottish firms interested in Canada, but yet the Report for this year does not say one word about that. I have lists of Canadian firms which have branches in Scotland and of Scottish firms which have branches in Canada. Why should those lists be confined to me? Why should they not be recognised in the Report?
I promised to speak for not longer than five minutes. I cannot hope to cover this whole subject in that short space of time, but I beg the Secretary of State to direct his attention to this matter and to explain to the Committee and to the country why Canada and Canadian trade are completely excluded from this Report in contrast with the graphic and helpful way in which it was included in the Report of the previous year.
9.2 p.m.
Mr. William Ross: It is regrettable, if inevitable, that some of our colleagues on both sides of the Committee have failed to catch the Chairman's eye because, after all, this As probably the most important debate of Scottish affairs that we have in the whole Session. I think that no one can have any doubt at all about the quality or the profitability of the debate. It was Burns, in his address to the Scotch representatives of his day, who gave them a certain amount of advice when he said:
"Some o' ye nicely ken the laws
To round the period, and pause
Then with rhetoric clause on clause
Tae mak' harangues
Then echo through St. Stephen's wa's
Auld Scotland's wrangs."
There is no doubt at all that if the Secretary of State was paying attention to the speeches which have been made—as indeed he was—he will be aware that all is not yet well in Scotland. I ought to pay tribute to the very good maiden speech of the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Brooman-White). Two of the points which he rightly dwelt upon are points to which I hope to return in the course of my remarks. I hope also to touch upon certain aspects of the speech of the Joint Under-Secretary. The hon. Gentleman has had a pretty hectic three days, and indeed a pretty hectic day
1628
today—as have all Scottish Members of Parliament.
This is the second debate we have had today. We started at 10.30 a.m. in the Scottish Grand Committee to debate education, and it was the Joint Under-Secretary who opened this debate who this morning wound up for the Government. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not take it too hardly if I say that he must have taken a little too much out of himself this morning, because in my opinion he failed to give an assurance to this Committee that the Government are as concerned about the position as they should be. He certainly gave us no real indication of the Government's policy for further development.
His attitude to certain aspects, particularly to the loss of John Deer, when he shrugged his shoulders and smiled to the effect that it did not matter very much, was something which frightened me. I hope to return to that point. We have monopolised the time of the Committee and have made pretty good use of it. We have brought the searchlight of Parliamentary opinion once again on to Scottish industry.
In recent debates we have dealt with education, social services, health charges, housing and housing subsidies. But there is one point that we must not lose sight of, and that is the fact that all these things are maintained by and are entirely dependent upon the wealth of our industries and employment. Indeed, the whole social fabric of Scotland depends in the ultimate on our success in developing efficiently the Scottish resources. We must make the most nationally profitable use of our resources of manpower and material. This is not merely desirable; it is absolutely vital.
In the present circumstances, when the heavy burden of defence is added to the task of sustaining the standard of life, the demand is for a high standard of life, and justifiably so, the responsibility upon the Government is all the greater, and they cannot ignore that responsibility or pass it on to some irresponsible group or section in the community. The development of employment and industry is the Government's business. That is the responsibility which the Labour Party accepted with eagerness, and by its deliberate policies it played a full part in steering into Scottish Development Areas

1629
new industries that gave new hope and new life to a once shattered economy.
I should like to refer to what the Joint Under-Secretary said. He said, "But do not let us forget that that was started before the war." It was, but let us look at what happened. From 1932 to 1936 in the whole of Britain 2,688 new factories were established, and in the same period in Scotland there were 102. In those years, when Governments were eventually forced by public opinion and economic circumstances to accept this responsibility, new jobs established were 248,000 in Britain, and in Scotland 8,000, and for every two factories that were opened in that period three closed down. It is not exactly a record to be proud of. But we provided work and a wide variety of new industries which went to those areas where the fear of unemployment was greatest.
I notice in recent reports that there is a tendency to say that the unemployment figures should not be the only criterion. But in the situation with which we were faced, and with the industrial history of the inter-war years, that could be the only criterion on which we could work. We had not time to sit and study long-term development. The figures relating to what was done are all in the appendix to the Report. However, for those who question the wisdom of the policy which we adopted, there are one or two figures which should be borne in mind.
In Lanarkshire, East Renfrewshire and the whole of the Glasgow area 6 per cent. of the working population last year were employed in new development since 1945. The figure for Ayrshire is 5 per cent.; for Dumfries, a rural county area, 5.4 per cent.; for Stirling and Falkirk over 5 per cent. The figure which we should certainly bear in mind is that in Dundee 10 per cent. of the working population are employed in enterprises established since 1945. When one remembers that we still have 3.2 per cent. unemployment, what would the position have been if these steps had not been taken at the right time and in the right places? I think we should not under-rate the work which we did in Scotland, with the help and active co-operation, I admit, of interested groups and of private enterprise, Scottish and non-Scottish.
We have to remember the indirect effects of a prosperous agriculture. Aris-
1630
ing out of the prosperity of agriculture—as is pointed out in the Cairncross Report—we have had small individual enterprises developing naturally and it has made a tremendous difference to certain parts of rural Scotland. I know that certain parts seem to have missed the general benefits. There are the crofter counties; there is the South-West part of Scotland, the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright. If the Government fasten their attention particularly on these areas and see how they can, with discriminating assistance, bring to them the benefits that have so far passed them over, they will be doing something really worth while.
The position today is that once again fear and uncertainty are creeping over Scotland. We still have in Scotland twice the proportion of unemployed that there is in the United Kingdom. I wish that were the full story. We have 68,000 unemployed in Scotland. But when we look into the actual facts, as compared with last year—and this is where we, on this side of the Committee, quarrel with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, who seemed to give an unduly reassuring reply on this question; he made fairly light of it—we have nearly 20,000 more unemployed this year than last year. And it must be remembered that this is the time of seasonable employment. If, within a few months, these figures rise again by another 20,000—though I hope it does not happen—
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I should like to draw the hon. Member's attention to the supplementary questions which I answered on that particular subject, when I made it quite plain that although we were delighted to see that the unemployment figures were going down at the moment, in the autumn of this year nobody could forecast what the position might be. I made that perfectly plain.
Mr. Ross: I think the proper comparison is a month of this year with the same month last year—not with last month, when seasonal conditions are so entirely different.
What we have at present is a familiar pattern of growing redundancy and unemployment. We Scottish Members will have the time of our lives in about another week—when the Glasgow Fair

1631
starts—trying to find places in the House for our constituents and friends; but many of them will be getting not just a fortnight's holiday—they will be getting three weeks, and one of those weeks will be without pay. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) did not manage to catch your eye, Mr. Hopkin Morris, but if he had he would have told you that that is what is happening at Templetons, the greatest carpet manufacturers in Scotland. We have had short-time work in Kilmarnock, in the carpet works in Ayr and in Paisley.
It is happening in the textile industry. If the textile industry of Scotland were concentrated in one area, as it is in England, there would be an outcry today. We have over 100,000 people in the textile industry and the unemployment figure is over 14,000, as compared with 2,000 in the same month last year. I claim that this is serious, but it does not end there. While a survey of what should be done and what industries should be helped can be made, in a re-armament period we cannot place reliance on over-all average percentages.
We have the figures for Development Areas, such as those given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Timmons) for his area, which are far far beyond the average. In Blantyre the unemployment figure is over 10 per cent.; in Greenock and Port Glasgow nearly 8 per cent.; outside the industrial areas, in Lerwick it is over 12 per cent., and in Campbeltown 10.5 per cent. In Wick, Thurso and Banff, about which the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) spoke so well, the figure is over 9 per cent., and for Stornoway 2.4 per cent. I do not think there is cause for panic, but there is cause for concern and action.
I should like to look now at heavy industry which, as has been rightly stressed, must bear a great burden in Scottish industry. No one has suggested that we should suddenly dispense with heavy industry and embark on the manufacture of typewriters and plastics. Heavy industry is our mainstay. In fact, the great success of our policy for these industries is part of the difficulty today. We have asked these industries to expand and to increase their productivity, and they have done so, but that in itself aggravates the shortage of supplies, which
1632
I am sure is worrying the Minister of Supply. I should like to say here on behalf of every Scottish Member, that while we are quick to draw attention to the absence of our own Ministers, we are grateful when we have the attendance at our debates of the Ministers of Supply and Labour, representatives of the Admiralty and others.
A difficulty for which the Government must accept responsibility is the proper apportioning of raw materials to hold the balance between defence and exports. This is a most difficult task in which there is a danger of distortion, not only between industries but within an industry. From the long-term point of view of Scotland's plans, that must be one of the foremost concerns of the Government. The shortage of raw materials in the steel industry has been referred to. It was also dealt with by the hon. Member for Rutherglen, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West. The repeated drawing attention to this one thing shows that it is one of the most urgent of our problems. There is a short-term solution, which I would urge upon the Government.
This debate has revealed the vital weakness of our dependence upon the scrap available. I wish the Minister would not give the idea that a benefit is being conferred on Scotland because we get more than half the scrap. The Scottish steel industry, unlike that of England or Wales, is predominently dependent upon scrap, without which we cannot make progress. I hope he will learn by listening today that we are a wee bit, perhaps peculiarly, sensitive about these things.
The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I am half a Scot myself.
Mr. Ross: Well, I could make a quotation:
"Awake Duncan with thy knocking."
And that is what we are hoping to do today.
If we can get the assurance from the Government that the new blast furnace which we have been urging for some time and which Scotland has been requiring is well on its way we certainly shall be grateful, but when we contemplate the changes that are going to take place in the steel industry we are just a little bit suspicious. Would it not be far better if this plant

1633
development were under the nationalised industry, which gives us in Parliament responsibility for seeing that it is carried through properly and quickly? Is it not better it should stay that way, rather than that we should risk handing it over—something so vital to Scotland's future—to people who are, in the ultimate, irresponsible to Parliament?
Then there is the question of textiles. I have touched on it slightly. Textiles, lace, boots and shoes—all these industries today are swelling the volume of unemployed to which I have referred. Because it is a scattered industry it is not something we can ignore, hoping that it will be absorbed within the re-armament programme. For the future of Scotland that is not good, and for the present of Britain it is not good, because we depend on these industries for our current export drive. Just now an hon. Member was speaking about the value of tweeds in the dollar market. All these industries are of value in our export drive. They are our traditional industries. We do not wish to see them go. Scotland would lose some of its industrial character if they did.
I am afraid that the Government are not without blame for what is happening in the slump at the present time. There is the question of the Australian import cuts, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) referred. The suddenness and the savagery of the Australian cuts had the effect of a low knockout blow on an already weakened fighter. I know Mr. Menzies has been here, and has had discussions with the Cabinet about the repercussions of the cuts; that he has issued elaborate explanations, and that he has even made some modifications, but the art of statesmanship is not to hold post-mortems: it is to anticipate and obviate economic troubles of this nature.
After all, we must remember what we were promised in the Conservative Party's manifesto, which, speaking about the relations between the Commonwealth and Empire and our own country, said:
"We must all stand together and help each other with our strength both in defence and trade."
Yet one of the first things that happened in Commonwealth matters when this new Government came into power was this savage, almost destructive, blow at the textile industry of Britain. In recently issued figures of the Australian balance of
1634
payments some hope is shown that there will be a resumption of this trade before very long, but meantime, I think, we must ask whether or not enough is being done with Government orders to the lace and affected industries that have been hit; to the hosiery industry, and to the clothing industries of Scotland.
Then there is the question of the financial policy of the Government. The Government cannot expect to get off lightly. The Scottish Office, especially, cannot. We have heard so often from hon. Members on the other side about the dependence of the textile industries on the home market. The Joint Under-Secretary, speaking at that Box defending health charges, spoke of reducing the consumption by the people of other things—that is, the consumption by Scottish families of the goods produced in Scottish factories, such as textiles, clothing, carpets and boots and shoes.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State cannot shrug off so easily the question of the Bank rate, as he attempted to do when he said the increased rate would benefit Scottish families. Consider the effect of the Australian cuts. Small and large enterprises were left with stocks on hand, some of which were awaiting shipment to Australia. There has been so much working capital tied up in stock that unemployment has been forced upon these enterprises.
These two facts—the reduction of consumer demand by budgetary policy and the restriction of credit, again by financial policy, have had serious effects upon employment in Scotland. We are concerned, too, about credit for the future development policy, and we had no indication from the Joint Under-Secretary today about what was to happen and whether he believed in the development policy. We are forced to the conclusion that hon. Members opposite do not.
It is no good telling us that 7½ million square feet of factory space were under construction at the end of the year. That was the work of the Labour Government. The present Government stopped all new factory building for three months. Has any new factory been started since the ban was lifted in March? We had figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) that there are over 5,000 building workers and contractors unemployed at present.

1635
The credit policy of the Government, allied with the fact that in the Budget they cut the allowance to the Development Areas by £3 million, means that there is no stimulation either to enterprises to receive help or to people to help themselves in the way of starting up in Scotland. The John Deer case is indicative of the attitude of the Government. I think they are sliding along hoping that what unemployment there is will be absorbed by rearmament, and they neglect the fact that the long-term future of Scotland depends on action now.
To my mind, at this juncture Government action to control and stimulate, and if necessary initiate, development is more urgent than ever. The tragedy of Scotland's industrial past, its stagnation and its decay, was its failure to participate in the new industrial enterprises which started in the early part of this century and after the twenties. Government failure to take action at that time is something that we must remember and something that we must not repeat.
We have opportunities at the present time, but I feel that Scotland must make its bid now in those fields of new enterprises which can take root in Scotland—the enterprises of electronics, of plastics, of synthetic fibres. We had one firm which started a development in Ardeer, in Ayrshire, and which now has a thriving factory in the constituency of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson). That kind of thing must be done.
One of the heartening things about Scotland in the post-war years has been this change of outlook of the people. They threw off the old hostility and uncertainty, and even the industrialists in Scotland threw off a certain lethargy and conservatism, and expanded. The Government must ensure that continues. Scotland did not formerly build up its greatness by missing chances. There was a time when cotton was king in Scotland. Cotton was left to Lancashire only when Scotland lost interest in it and went in for the new development afforded by the exploitation of steel, iron and coal, and the developments coming from the inventiveness of her engineers. That was how Scottish greatness was built up.
We lost our chance between the wars. In these new industries and during this revolutionary period there may be
1636
another chance. We cannot fail twice and survive. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will give us some cause for hope that even this Government is prepared to accept the responsibility of bringing back full employment to the people of Scotland.
9.31 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): I should like to congratulate the Committee as a whole upon the tone in which this debate has been conducted throughout. I think that it has been very informative, helpful and constructive, and it has, of course, covered a very wide field, as it was bound to do.
My particular difficulty in endeavouring to reply to the debate is that I am not—and no one here will be surprised to hear my confession—a superman, because, as the Committee know, the many topics covered by the various Departments of the Scottish Office provides a pretty wide field with which to deal. However, it is my duty to do my best.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who wound-up the debate for the Opposition, referred, as did other hon. Members, to the importance of considering Scotland's industrial future. That is, of course, the really important and vital matter. I am glad to think that it is a matter on which, although we may be politically divided, we are at one in wishing to see the very best possible strategic planning, or thinking ahead, because no one wishes to see unemployment. It would certainly be a tragedy if that should occur again.
I would point out to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock that the maintenance of employment and the steady flow of materials to the production industries has been seriously disturbed by the rearmament programme. In saying this, I do not desire to cast the blame anywhere; I am merely stating that it was bound to be so. When he asked me whether there had been new factory building started lately, the short answer is that there is building going on, but the starting of new factories, which we would hope to see and which would have gone on in normal times, was necessarily interrupted by the allocation of steel and other materials to other essential projects largely connected with the re-armament programme.

1637
I should like to refer briefly at the outset to the Cairncross Report. It has been referred to considerably during the debate, quite rightly and naturally. I am convinced that it will be of great value and great help. It is being studied, but I do not think that the Committee would expect me to say anything at this stage about our conclusions as to the Report, because, as the Committee know, it has only very recently reached us and it has also to be considered by other Departments as well as the Scottish Office.
Major Anstruther-Gray: It is one of our criticisms that the Report has not reached us. The Council would have been well advised to have sent all Members of Parliament a copy. Not only did they fail to do that, but when I went to their offices in London yesterday, having read of it in the Press, I found that none of the copies had come down to their offices. I got hold of a copy at the Scottish Office, but in general the Council failed to circulate it as they should have done.
Sir W. Darling: The Scottish Development Council send copies of their Report to all those who subscribe. If there are Members of Parliament who do not subscribe, I suggest that they do so now. A guinea a year would make them members.
Mr. Stuart: After this free advertisement which my hon. Friend has been able to give, I will only say that I will bear my hon. and gallant Friend's point in mind. Of course, no doubt the printers and others concerned did not know until fairly recently that this debate was taking place today.
The right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil), who opened the debate, asked about blast furnaces. It is a matter of such importance—and it has been referred to by other hon. Members—that I should like to get quite clear the position as it is today, in case there is any doubt about it. The first blast furnace was completed for Colville's in 1947, in pre-nationalisation days. The second furnace at Colville's is planned and should be ready in three or four years' time. Plans are now being made to build two new furnaces at Gartsherrie. They will supplant the present five furnaces and will increase capacity
1638
by three and a half times the present figure.
A great many points were raised during the debate and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, as well as other hon. Members, referred to the position of the textile industry. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State referred to this matter today. I have a fuller statement which I should have been glad to make if time had permitted. We are doing our best to get additional orders as a result of the statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the effect that £20-£25 million worth of textile orders would be placed for the Services. As my hon. Friend said, we have certain orders already, and we hope to get at any rate a fair share of such orders as they come along.
Mr. McNeil: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us a little more about the machinery which is being utilised in relation to these areas? Hon. Members have no doubt heard statements about independent firms tendering, but is there any machinery existing to ensure that a fixed proportion of the orders is available?
Mr. Stuart: I would not go so far as to say that there is any fixed proportion in connection with the recent order for £750,000, of which we are receiving half, while Northern Ireland receive half. That is not a definite proportion as to population, but the Government must also take into account the weight of unemployment in the various areas. As the Committee will be aware, in Lancashire and in Yorkshire a very large section of the population is engaged in those trades. In Scotland, while we have not the numbers and such a large weight of population engaged in that way, nevertheless we will endeavour to get a fair proportion, provided it is the type of work which can be undertaken.
I wish to say a word about the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Brooman-White). He was congratulated by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) and I am sure that he, like myself, appreciated very greatly the remarks made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock. He referred especially to steel, and I can assure him that we must very carefully watch future developments there. The

1639
right hon. Member for Greenock and other hon. Members paid considerable attention to this matter.
In regard to new industries, to which many hon. Members referred, including my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), it is, of course, the case that Scotland could accommodate lighter types of engineering work which do not make too heavy demands on skilled labour. In particular, we would welcome the growth of electrical engineering, chemicals, and new developments of that nature.
But it is also true, as the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard) said, that for the main bulk of our population we must look to the Older basic industries which are vital to our prosperity and stability as an industrial nation. The diversification of new developments is of great value to our social life and well-being. Dundee, which has been referred to and which I visited recently and also knew in my youth, is a very remarkable example of the whole face of a city being changed by new developments.
I also recognise the possible danger which I hope will not occur to which the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West referred, where factories are offshoots of parent companies established elsewhere. In those industrial developments where the parents are in another country, I think they are working mainly in the European market and I do not see that danger developing—at least I trust that it will not. I also agree with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs in his reference to the question of a shifting population, as when mining goes out to a new area, as is happening in Scotland today. It is of great importance that the location of new industries should be fully considered because, in addition to the miners, in those places the shifting population must have steady employment to which it can turn. I fully agree with that, and in that connection I think the Cairn-cross Report may be of value to us.
I wish to refer briefly to technological education. It is of the greatest importance to us to consider this very carefully. As the Committee may recollect, the
1640
Chancellor of the Exchequer answered a Question in the House on this subject on 11th June; and there was a very interesting debate in another place on 11th and 12th June to which I suggest hon. Members should pay attention. I have taken an interest in the subject before, and it is undoubtedly true to say that if we are not only to maintain, but step up productivity it can be done only under the improved conditions of industry today, with better wages and shorter hours than were formerly the case.
But in order even to maintain, let alone increase, productivity, it is essential that the methods or technique shall be improved and developed all the time—industrial technique as well as management. I do not see how productivity can be maintained unless constant improvements are made, and in this regard technological education is one of the most important things to which this country should have regard. I cannot devote more time to the subject now, and I do not pretend to be an expert; but it is a matter of great value and interest and importance to which careful attention should be given.
That brings me to one other problem which also deserves careful consideration. I do not think it has been referred to today. It is the change in the age of the various groups of the population which is increasingly liable to raise great problems in connection with industry and employment. To give one example, which interested me very much when I came upon it recently, the number of men over 65 and women over 60 in Scotland will not only have doubled, but doubled plus 100,000, between 1921 and 1969 if the present statistical curve is maintained. I shall not endeavour to suggest a solution now at the end of a full day's debate, but it is a point to which I direct the attention of the Committee.
Mr. Woodburn: Is not that bound to happen if we add 20 years to the life of the people? Twenty years has been added to the life of the population since I was born. Is not that bound to take a lot of people beyond the age of 65 who previously would have died?
Mr. Stuart: That is absolutely true. Those people are still with us and, in relation to the younger people entering industry, they present a very much

1641
greater problem, or burden—I use that word for lack of a better one—of maintaining people of pensionable age. One possible line of endeavour in this regard would be to improve the health of the nation, to keep these people out of hospital and to keep them well. I throw out the thought that the technological side in regard to greater productivity, on the one hand, and on the other hand—I am not now pronouncing policy—the question of the retiring age, are two matters about which we must think.
I should like briefly to consider the broad picture. I cannot follow my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove in raising constituency questions. I might be in danger of being criticised if I did that. However, I should like to say, because two of my hon. Friends have referred to points about the north-east, that I should like to see more industrial development there to absorb the pocket of unemployment which exists in that area. It was the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) and the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) who referred to the north-east. I hope that it may be possible to have one or two good industrial factories there when we can proceed with such a development. Undoubtedly they would be of great assistance.
As to the fishing industry to which the noble Lady and the hon. Member for Banff referred, I cannot say more now than that the questions which they mentioned are well known to me. The McColl Report is being considered by the White Fish Authority and by the Scottish Council. I do not think that there is any disagreement between us on the question of over-fishing. It is merely a matter for international agreement. I can only say about the Icelandic position that we have protested, but what one can do at this moment beyond protest is, I am afraid, not quite clear. I cannot pronounce on any future action at this stage.
Agriculture has not been referred to at any length and I do not intend to discuss it fully. I only wish to refer to it in looking at the wide field of industry in Scotland. I am glad to say that in that industry employment does not present any difficulty. There is an avenue of employment for those who wish to
1642
enter it and there is an assured market for its produce. We wish not only to maintain production but to increase it. As we had a debate on this subject in the Standing Committee, I will not say more about it now.
Another basic industry is that of coal mining. Here again, we want full production. We want to increase our exports. I am pleased that there has been some increase in employment in Scotland recently. I hope that that trend will be maintained and that production will be increased.
Ship-building is also one of our basic industries. I am glad to think that at the end of 1951 there were 2,391,607 gross tons of shipping under construction or on order. I think that that means that the order books are full and that employment there should be well maintained, although I admit that the maintenance of full production depends on the availability of steel. I think that the Committee will agree that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply has been helpful in the matter of steel and that the statement made by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State was satisfactory.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West referred to forestry. That is a subject which interests me considerably. Forestry and tourism are two of the main developments with which we should push ahead in our efforts to help the Highland areas. I want to see more planting carried out in the Highland areas, not cutting into but as a continuation of the policy in other areas. The difficulty, as no doubt the hon. Gentleman knows, is that it may cost more to plant in the outlying areas rather than in more convenient parts of the country.
Planting in other areas is in conflict with agricultural interests, and that we must avoid in the interests of maximum agricultural production. I can assure the hon. Member that, in that relation and in the Highland areas, particularly in conjunction with agricultural and crofting interests, it may be very helpful towards creating employment and maintaining the population in satisfactory and healthy occupations. I am afraid that I cannot, in the time available, go into the many questions affecting the Highlands and Islands, which are really matters which would require a separate debate.
Mr. John MacLeod: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it is essential to have industries such as we have been talking about, and that our economy is not balanced evenly enough in the Highlands?
Mr. Stuart: I agree, of course, where the population will maintain the industry; that is to say, we have got to man the industry. In regard to light industries in the Highlands, I absolutely agree, and I think that, with our hydro-electrical developments, it should be easier, more economical and more practicable to establish such light industries.
On the subject of transport I am conscious of the difficulties and of the desire for more communications, but I have not the time on this occasion to deal with the matter. I have referred briefly to fisheries, and I have endeavoured to cover all the subjects raised. I should only like to say, in summing up, that I am afraid that I have not answered individually the questions asked me by several hon. Members, but I can, however, assure them that I have a note of them, and that I will see that they receive full and proper attention.
I want to mention that, during the course of the Joint Under-Secretary's speech, some reference was made to jute, and there was an interruption, to which my hon. Friend replied. Since then, I have received information from my noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that it has been decided today that he can reduce the price of jute by about £40 per ton, and that this reduction will come into effect as soon as practicable.
I should like also to refer to the question which I was asked about the dyeing industry in the Vale of Leven. The Ministry of Supply are actively engaged in negotiating with the firm with a view to taking up much of their capacity for rot-proofing.
Mr. McNeil: I am puzzled about this statement by the right hon. Gentleman's noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy. Where was it made, and why was it not made in the House?
Mr. Stuart: I am just making it; I am giving the Committee the very first knowledge of this.
Mr. McNeil: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; I thought he meant that the Chancellor had made the statement elsewhere.
Mr. Stuart: No. My noble Friend informed me that I could announce it. At any rate, I hope it will be beneficial to the industry, because we are all anxious to see that industrial development in Scotland is maintained.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again"—[Mr. Kaberry.]—put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

CIVIL LIST
Resolutions reported,
1. That there be charged on the Consolidated Fund as from the last demise of the Crown the following annual sums (subject to adjustment in respect of parts of a year):
For the Queen's Civil List: £475,000;
For retired allowances: such sums as may be required for the payment of retired allowances granted by Her Majesty or by His late Majesty to or in respect of persons who have been members of the Royal Household;
For Civil List pensions: such sums as may be required for the payment in each year of Civil List pensions already granted and Civil List pensions hereafter to be granted, so, however, that the aggregate of the pensions granted in any financial year shall not exceed £5,000 a year;
For His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh: £40,000, in substitution for any sum payable to him under the Princess Elizabeth's and Duke of Edinburgh's Annuities Act, 1948;
For the benefit of the children of Her Majesty, other than the Duke of Cornwall for the time being: in respect of each son who attains the age of twenty-one years or marries, £10,000, and in the case of a son who marries a further £15,000; and in respect of each daughter who attains the age of twenty-one years or marries, £6,000, and in case of a daughter who marries a further £9,000;
For Her Royal Highness the Princess Margaret: £9,000 in the event of her marriage, in addition to any sum payable to her under section six of the Civil List Act, 1937;
In the event of the death during the present reign of the Duke of Cornwall for the time being leaving a widow, for his widow, £30,000;

1645
and that provision be made for continuing for a period of six months after the close of the present reign certain payments charged as aforesaid upon the Consolidated Fund which would otherwise then be determined:
Provided that—

(i) as respects any period during which the Duke of Cornwall for the time being is a minor, the sum of £475,000 for the Queen's Civil List shall be subject to a reduction of an amount equal to the net revenues of the Duchy for the year, less—

(a) for each year whilst he is under the age of eighteen years, one ninth of those revenues,

(b) for each of the last three years of his minority, £30,000;

(ii) as respects any period during which the Duchy of Cornwall is vested in Her Majesty, the said sum of £475,000 shall be subject to a reduction of an amount equal to the net revenues of the Duchy for the year.

2. That it is expedient to repeal section five of the Civil List Act, 1937, and to make other amendments in the law relating to the Civil List, the hereditary revenues, the Duchy of Cornwall, and Grants for the Royal Family.
Resolutions agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister, Mr. Crookshank, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, Mr. Stuart and Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): I beg to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the subject-matter of the Bill, so far as it relates to the Duchy of Cornwall, recommends it to the consideration of the House.

CIVIL LIST BILL
"to make provision for the honour and dignity of the Crown and the Royal Family, as to the disposal in certain circumstances of revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, and for the payment of certain allowances and pensions": presented, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill No. 133.]

MARINE AND AVIATION INSURANCE (WAR RISKS) [MONEY]
Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for authorising the Minister of Transport to undertake the insurance of ships, aircraft and certain other goods against war risks and, in certain circumstances, other risks, it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, or the issue out of the Consolidated Fund, of the amount by which, at any time when a payment falls to be made out of the fund established under the said Act, the sum standing to the credit of the fund so established is less than the sum required for the making of that payment; and

(b) for the payment out of moneys pro- vided by Parliament of the expenses incurred for the purposes of the said Act by the Minister of Transport, except in so far as they are required to be defrayed out of the fund so established.

Resolution agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS

  MARINE AND AVIATION INSURANCE (WAR RISKS)
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for authorising the Minister of Transport to undertake the insurance of ships, aircraft and certain other goods against war risks and, in certain circumstances, other risks, it is expedient to authorize—

  (a) the payment into the Exchequer of the amount by which the sum standing at any time to the credit of the fund established under the said Act exceeds the sum which, in the opinion of the Minister of Transport and the Treasury, is likely to be required for the making of payments out of that fund; and

  (b) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the amount of any sum so paid into the Exchequer and the application of that amount in redeeming or paying off debt;

  and to authorise the Treasury to raise money and issue securities for the purpose of providing for the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund to make good any deficiency in the fund established under the said Act.
  Resolution agreed to.

MEAT PRODUCTS (PRICE INCREASES)
10.3 p.m.
Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Meat Products (No. 2) Order, 1952 (S.I., 1952, No. 1124), dated 6th June, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th June, be annulled.
I feel sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food and the House will be very relieved to know that I do not propose to detain the House very long in moving this Prayer, but I hope that hon. Members will not confuse brevity with insincerity.
I want to make one point only on the Order now before the House. If I make that one point effectively it will not minimise the seriousness of the effect of this Order, especially on the poorest in the community. If I were in one of the corridors of this Palace of Westminster discussing this Order with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, I think I could say in one sentence what my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself think about it. I believe that most of the consuming public think as we do. But unfortunately I am not in one of the corridors, and this matter is of such a serious nature that it should not be used as a test of the personal vocabulary of the Parliamentary Secretary and myself.
I want to forget many things in relation to many Orders which affect meat products in this country. I do not intend to go into the past, and I do not want to deal in recrimination. I want to deal with the simple issue of this Order and to do it above all party controversy. I may indulge in an occasional quip against the Parliamentary Secretary, but that is something which is well within the rules of order, and, if I do it, it will be something which he will deserve.
The intention of this Prayer is to call the attention of the Government to the fact that they are neglecting the sufferings of people with low incomes, as is demonstrated by the increases in prices provided by the Order. I know that the Order will hit everybody and that everybody will have to pay the increased prices; but more particularly will it be
1648
hard upon those who cannot afford the increases at all.
Surely the time has come when on this great question of rising prices someone should say directly and almost bluntly that by agreeing to these increases the Government are disloyal to the vast majority of the consuming public. I am not blaming anybody particularly for the way in which prices have been rising over many years. But we have arrived at a stage when further increases in prices are like the last straw which breaks the camel's back. And it is against this increase in price, over and above many increases in prices, that we strongly pray in urging that this Order be annulled.
There is very little in the text of the Order against which we can complain. So far as mere words are concerned it is very similar to the last previous Order; and in words and in purport it is not dissimilar to Orders which were issued under a Labour Government. It is very similar to an Order which was issued and which we debated in this House in April last, except for the figures contained in it. We take strong exception to the action of the Government in imposing the increases in prices contained in this Order. I think the Parliamentary Secretary must agree that the Order provides for very heavy increases in the price of nearly all the meat products with which it is concerned.
It is true that there are one or two isolated cases where the prices are the same as they were in April, but in the main almost every item listed in this Order is subject to certain increases. Here are one or two—and I am not dealing with the increase in prices on the Order that we debated in April; I am dealing with the Order that we are now debating: 5½d. a lb. on pork sausage, 8d. a lb. on corned beef, 2s. a pound on uncooked tongues and 1s. a lb. on cooked pressed tongues.
The vast majority of people in this country on whom the economy of the country depends are entitled to have these commodities as part of their daily diet. It is the heaviest increase in the maximum prices of meat products since the war. My calculations may be wrong, but I have done my best to ascertain what I consider, from practical experience, to be an average overall amount of increase, and I should say that these new prices represent for the commodities that they cover an average overall increase of about

1649
20 per cent. on the last increase in April of this year.
Mr. Frederic Harris: I am sure the hon. Member would not wish to mislead the House by ignoring the fact that there is a considerable increase in the quality and the standard of the sausage produced under this Order, which partly justifies the increased price to which the hon. Member is referring?
Mr. Winterbottom: The answer to that is quite clear. If the hon. Member will refer to the debate when the last Order was discussed he will see that the Parliamentary Secretary at that time claimed that the new quality of sausage was catered for in the increases that took place at that time. There has been no improvement in the sausage as between this Order and the last Order, and therefore I think I am quite entitled to say that it is a straight increase of 5½d. lb. I am not saying that the increases on the last Order are part and parcel of my case. I am dealing with the increases as they are now.
Mr. Harris: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, and I am obliged to him for giving way. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with that matter very fully when he replies, but I am not wrong in saying that there is a distinct improvement in quality between the times of the two Orders.
Mr. Winterbottom: I believe I am right in saying that it is the same as it was on the last occasion, and I remember congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary on that occasion on the improvement in the sausage. I shall return to the subject of the sausage in a few moments because I shall have something to say about that great mystery.
We are entitled to register a very strong objection to the increased price. I want to make it clear that I am speaking of this Order alone, and I do not wish to be sidetracked by any argument relating to the sausage, and in particular the Webb sausage. I do not want to be led up the garden by the fond hopes of the Parliamentary Secretary that some day he himself will be able to introduce a sausage of the nature, substance and quality that is almost perfection.
1650
Whilst I am on that point, I do not want the Parliamentary Secretary to posture at the Dispatch Box—I am saying this in quite a friendly spirit—like mighty Joe Young in a Parliamentary film version of Invictus singing "This is the Heritage of the Labour Government." This time the increase is wholly, entirely and completely the product of the fertile imagination of those who designed the Budget this year. The whole of the increases under this Order can be attributed to that source. It is solely the act of this Government and must be solely their responsibility.
By reason of the fact that this is a price increase over a price increase, I think we have the right almost to demand that the Parliamentary Secretary should reply to the central issue raised by this Order. That issue is this: how can he expect a family of two, with a wage of £6 10s. per week or thereabouts—and there are thousands of families like that—to be able to buy even sausages at the increased prices, when one remembers that the 5½d. increase, as a result of this Order, means a 1s. 1½d. increase during this year? I am not attributing all the increase in price to the present Government; that is a matter of controversy; but I say that an increase of 1s. 1½d. in the price of sausages within the last 12 months is beyond the ability of poor people to pay.
How will this affect those in food distribution? It is very unfortunate that this Order should become applicable at a time when the proposals of so many wages councils for increased wages have been submitted to the Ministry of Labour. It is very unfortunate that increases in prices such as these should come at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is pleading with the T.U.C. for restraint in wage demands. I know of seven wages councils with which I have at some time been intimately connected, and each of them has submitted agreed wage proposals, and two of them are intimately concerned with the sale of goods included in this Order.
Here we have an increase of about 20 per cent. on the price of important foods and, at the same time, the Minister of Labour is withholding ratification of wage increases submitted to him by wages councils. The papers have been in his office for nearly two months. Is

1651
there some slip-up in the Government? Are the co-ordinating overlords forgetting to co-ordinate? Or is it the policy of this Government to resist properly negotiated advances in wages at the same time as they are deliberately increasing the prices of commodities? I think we ought to have an answer on that point.
Perhaps it is not appropriate for the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with a point which is relative to the Ministry of Labour. I should not like him to transgress in a field that is not his responsibility; but I think he can explain why this Government are deliberately pricing up foods which are necessary to the diet of the poorest members of the community; for that is what they are doing. I say that categorically, definitely and frankly to the Parliamentary Secretary.
I come to my final point on this problem of meat products and their relationship to the price level is this. I know that we have already had two increases during this year in regard to most of the food items listed in the Order. The simple question is—when is the third increase coming? We are very concerned, not only about this increase of price but the probable increase of prices that we believe must come before the year is out.
What will happen when the present supply of home-killed meat is exhausted? Have we then to depend, as we must depend, upon imports from New Zealand and from the Argentine? If so, will the Parliamentary Secretary satisfy our minds about the trading relationship which exists between this country and the Argentine? I hope he will answer that question, because there are many hon. Members on this side of the House who are deeply concerned at the knowledge which is widespread that no negotiations are proceeding at present with the Argentine; and I hope he will not avoid the question by his usual, but unnatural shyness.
I would remind him that it was his party, when on this side of the House, who chanted, during one famous debate on meat supplies and meat products, "We want meat." If we are to get meat from the Argentine and from New Zealand, am I right in my contention that such an agreement cannot be reached unless we pay higher prices than we paid under the
1652
old agreements? And if we have to pay higher prices than under the old agreements, will that not be reflected in the price of meat in the butchers' shops in the country and also in the price of meat products listed in this Order? The probability is that we shall have a third increase during the year in the price of important items in the diet of the poorest of the community.
That is a very important consideration, and I want to put to the Parliamentary Secretary my considerations about it. I think it was a sorry day for this Government when, in their ignorance of the facts—facts which were put to them, but which they would not recognise in the bliss of occupying the Front Bench opposite—they yielded to the clamour of those who wanted reductions in the food subsidies and who, in some cases, wanted the complete elimination of the food subsidies. I remind the Parliamentary Secretary that this was one of the greatest mistakes of this Government.
This Order, and many of the high prices to which we are subjected today, are the result of that decision, and the Government find themselves not merely in a vicious circle but in a vicious spin, dizzy because they know that the price increases have not yet finished and that there are more increases to come, especially for meat products. I consider that this is above narrow party advantage and that it would be in the interests of the economy of the country and to the interest of production generally if we could call a halt to this continuous rise in prices; and even at this late hour, and even at the cost of their prestige—if they have any left—I beg of the Government to reexamine their policy on food prices, and, in particular, on food subsidies.
We have a saying in the North; I do not know whether hon. Members have it in the South or not, for as yet I have not learned the language in the South; and it is this: "It is the cock that croweth but it is the hen that delivereth the goods." It is not the man at the bench or the man behind the counter or the man at the foundry or the man in the mine who feels the first impact of these prices. It is the housewives of our country who have to meet all the difficulties which arise from these increased food prices.
Many of these housewives, especially amongst those with the lowest incomes in

1653
the community, have sometimes to make a meal out of almost nothing at all. They object to price increases like this, and I am sure their anger will be inflamed when they know, as they must know, that these increases in price are the deliberate policy of the present Government. I believe the housewives want a variety, and I believe it is right to press that that possible variety should be within the range of their purses. I believe it is wrong to introduce an Order which is totally unnecessary and which is going to raise the prices at one fell swoop of all the meat products referred to in it.
I do not think there is much hope in debate or Division in this House of obtaining any rectification of this position, but I warn the Parliamentary Secretary, as I warned the Government in my maiden speech when I first came into this House in 1950, that the problem of rising prices is the rock upon which any Government will founder. I warn the hon. Gentleman that with this continuous advance in prices as a result of Government policy this Government will surely fall.
10.26 p.m.
Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: I beg to second the Motion.
The reason for my intervention is that I am not satisfied that the working population of this country, and especially the heavy manual worker, is able to obtain enough animal protein to meet bodily requirements. As I understand this Order, it appears to me that it makes worse a serious food situation. Meat products occupy a position of considerable importance in the diet of today. The sausage has usurped the place of honour on the Englishman's table formerly held by sirloin—and the only consolation is that the creature is easier to carve.
The Parliamentary Secretary may remember having said a short time ago these words:
"The first function of the Minister of Food is to provide all the necessary food to sustain the health of the people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 2012.]
So the first question I should like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary is, is this Order made by the Minister of Food for the purpose of helping to provide all the animal protein necessary to sustain the health of the people? In other words, is
1654
the Minister of Food fulfilling what the Parliamentary Secretary described as his first function?
I do not intend to make a long speech tonight, but I am afraid I must ask quite a large number of questions of the Parliamentary Secretary. He really cannot escape inquiry, when the Minister of Food issues an Order of this sort. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of a statement which was made in a report on nutrition published by the Ministry of Health. I suggest he will remember it because he quoted it in an article of his in the Press when he sat on the Opposite benches in the last Parliament; and he used it in support of his contention that the people of this country were being weakened by the food policy of the Labour Government. The statement reads:
"A grown man at work requires not less than 37 grammes as a minimum, and to be safe 50 grammes, of animal protein daily."
I think it is a fair question to ask, when this Order is fully in operation will every grown man at work be obtaining the desirable amount—that is, 50 grammes daily—of first-class protein? I think that that will not be the case, but I should like the Minister's views on that aspect of the matter.
While the hon. Gentleman is considering his reply, perhaps it will not be irrelevant if I remind him that the meat ration is very small and that other protein foods are very expensive and none too plentiful. Therefore, most people must turn to meat products in their search for proteins. Meat products hold so important a place in our diet that it is our duty to examine closely an Order of this kind which alters the protein content of some foods and, by increasing their price, makes them more difficult to obtain. The hon. Gentleman has shown great interest in this subject in the past, and we remember his derogatory remarks about sausages. Sausages are mentioned in this Order.
The hon. Gentleman, on an occasion when he spoke from the Opposition benches, said:
"By the criteria generally accepted today"—
this was early last year—
"the amount of animal protein which is being provided in the form of meat is utterly inadequate for the tastes and preferences of the people of this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 2016.]

1655
Since the hon. Gentleman became a Minister he has not yet kept his Election pledge by providing an abundance of red meat and now, to make matters worse, the Government are making it more difficult to obtain meat products.
Can the Minister claim that the purpose of this Order is to compensate for the small amount of protein in the meat ration? I think that its effect will be the very reverse. At the time of the last General Election it appeared that the hon. Gentleman and his noble Friend tried to outbid each other in rash promises, and we still wait for an increase in first-class proteins from what he described only a year ago as a "miserable, beggarly level."
The most important question I have to put to the hon. Gentleman is, does this Order in any way increase the total amount of animal protein available for the nation? Is the Minister satisfied that as a result of this Order the protein needs will be met for the working man who is being called upon to make still greater effort in production for exports and re-armament?
Passing from those questions of a general nature—
Mr. Speaker: I must point out that this Order deals more with prices than with quantities. The hon. Gentleman must not devote too much of his argument to the amount of meat. This Order only deals with prices and the composition of sausages.
Dr. Broughton: I believe it does alter the composition of some of these meat products and I am very concerned to know whether, in altering their composition, it is improving them. Of course, I am very concerned about the increase in price.
Mr. F. Harris: In as much as the alteration in quality in each case is an improvement of the meat content, does that not automatically defeat the argument the hon. Member is putting before the House?
Dr. Broughton: I am afraid that I cannot accept the categorical statement of the hon. Member that this Order improves the quality of these meat products. I have studied the Order with a considerable amount of care and have compared it with the Order issued by the Minister a few weeks ago. I put my questions
1656
so that the issue can be made quite clear to the House.
It appears from the Order that meat products are placed in two categories. There are those in the First Schedule described as "Excepted Products," because they are exempted from Regulations; and there are those listed in the Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Schedules, which are affected by the Order.
Let me deal first with excepted products. Am I to understand that the large number of meat products excepted is free from all Regulations as regards protein content and price? The long list includes savoury ducks, black puddings, brawn and meat pies. Take black puddings as an example. The Parliamentary Secretary will agree that they are a nutritious food. The contents are groats, fats and blood; but how much fat and blood? And can rusks be substituted for groats? What of the water content? Does this Order allow a very small amount of protein to be included and a high price to be demanded? Furthermore, is it not possible under the Order for brawn to be composed of 10 per cent. meat—pork or beef—and 90 per cent. rusks, gelatine, and water? And can any price be asked? Is this part of the Order to provide the public with more or less protein? The only point I am certain about is that prices are going to be higher.
The so-called "Open Meat Products," which are listed in the Second and Fourth Schedules, include sausages, meat roll, luncheon meat, and veal and ham loaf. The prices will be increased, and I understand that a minimum meat content has been fixed for them. But is the protein content altered? If it is, is more meat being made available to the manufacturer? If there is to be more meat in these products and no more meat is to be made available for the manufacturer, then the products would be a little richer in protein, but fewer and more expensive. What additional meat has been made available for use in meat products?
Finally, can the Parliamentary Secretary deny that under this Order, owing to prices rising beyond the purchasing power of the people, there will be less animal protein in the form of meat products to nourish and sustain the workers of Britain?
10.30 p.m.
Mr. Frederic Harris: I shall not come between the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, both of whom are members of the medical profession, on this technical point of how much meat content there should be to give the protein the public requires. But is it rather strange that the hon. Member should raise that point, because he will recall that he was a member of the former Government who put so much milk powder in sausages that my right hon. Friend who is now the Lord Privy Seal, when we were in Opposition, asked the former Minister of Food how far we had to go before instead of having a sausage we had a cream bun.
The hon. Gentleman will see from this Order that a very good step forward is now being taken whereby much of this skimmed milk will come out and the meat content will be increased. Therefore, from the quality point of view and from that of the hon. Gentleman's argument about the need for more proteins, this Order must be regarded as a step in the right direction.
As a mere layman, I take the view that the public can certainly do with more meat, but I wish to deal particularly with the pork sausage. This Order now brings the meat content of the pork sausage up to not less than 80 per cent. I feel that with the ever increasing numbers of pigs in the country we should at a fairly early stage be reaching the position whereby pork could be de-rationed. In that case, could we not get to the stage where the pork sausage could be 100 per cent. pork?
Mr. Kenneth Robinson: It never was 100 per cent.
Mr. Harris: It very nearly was. It was about 97 per cent. pork, and I do not think anybody need argue about whether it was 2 or 3 per cent. short of 100. I shall be very glad if my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us whether there is any hope in the near future of the pork sausage really becoming a pork sausage.
10.42 p.m.
Mr. Jack Jones: I intend to take a rather different line from the arguments already put forward. The
1658
effect of this Order is to give people with a static income, that is, a wage level, the opportunity to buy meat products at a higher price. But how in the name of all that is decent they are expected to be able to buy more of a commodity made available to them out of a purse which is already insufficient to buy the good foods necessary to them, I do not know.
This Order is going to hit hardest those people whom the Government are asking to solve our economic problems. I cannot for the life of me see why the Government themselves are not quarrelling about this Order. On the one hand, we have the Parliamentary Secretary coming to the Box defending Orders of this kind which put up prices knowing full well that it will cause a certain amount of consternation among the lower wage earners of the country. At the same time the Chancellor is telling the country at large, and the Conservative Party in particular, that they hope to restrain people from claiming higher wages.
As the House knows, I have been associated throughout my working life with possibly the heaviest industry of this country, and I do not except the mining industry. I say that steel making is one of the heaviest, if not the heaviest, industry in the country. The steel workers at the moment are very concerned with Orders of this type, and the reasons for their concern are very obvious and simple.
The steel furnaces are working night and day throughout the week. The workers in the industry work on a system which debars them from going to the canteen at any set time during their shift work. That means that they have to take food to work with them. During my 37 years in the industry I never left home without taking what we call a "snack" in a snack tin. It usually comprised tea and sugar, and possibly some tinned milk because fresh milk tended to go sour.
This Order is going to hit hardest those people who are engaged to the greatest extent in helping our economic recovery. In the past, men have been able to take to work, not only sausages; in this specialised field of activity, men look forward to taking something which is appetising. When one has done four or five hours in front of a temperature of 1,600 degrees Centigrade, and when the sweat from the human frame dries into

1659
crystals on the shirt, one wants something to eat. The men used to be able to take cheese; which was one of the cheapest things taken to work, and one of the most popular; but now we have to forget about cheese. We have to offset that loss by a ham sandwich, or a tongue sandwich, or lettuce, or something as appetising—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or something in a bottle"] Yes, some take something in a bottle, but others are concerned with other things.
We are told that this Order makes allowance for a higher quality, but I am unable to find it; milk can still be put into sausages. Of course, there are all sorts of sausages and, speaking as an ex-regimental quartermaster sergeant, I can tell hon. Members that I have seen some very queer sausages in my time. Let us be honest about all this. The Order is designed to offset the cut in the food subsidies, announced by the Chancellor. Let us be truthful, and let us tell the country that the people are expected to be satisfied. They must do more work to fill the gap in production, while there is to be less food because food is going to cost more,
That is putting it in the simple terms, which is the way the ordinary working man and his wife sees it. This is another additional burden which is going to affect the morale of the workers; and if hon. Members ask what morale has got to do with the matter, let me explain that when men see and hear their wives complaining that three, four, or five sandwiches are reduced to two or three because there is only the same amount of money for her while they take less food to work, what is the psychological retort? It is: "If I am to have less food, I cannot do more work."
I have never been ashamed since I came into this House to tell my friends at home that we have all to do a bit more work and tighten our belts if we are to get out of our difficulties. But this Order worsens the situation so far as the minds of men in my industry are concerned, and it is those men who are expected to bring this country out of its difficulties. I warned the Government when we talked on the Order about cheese, and I warn them again. This ever increasing amount of work, and the ever decreasing nutrition, is something which
1660
just will not add up. It will not work, and instead of helping to solve our economic problems, this Government will find the problems increase because of lack of understanding of the working of the minds of the masses of this country.
10.50 p.m.
Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: There is one thing of which one can be perfectly certain in this House. It is that if an hon. Member prefaces what he is going to say with the statement that there will be no recrimination and that it is not a matter upon which one wants to make a party speech, he will then go bang into making one of the biggest party speeches one has heard for a long time. I do not blame the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom) for making a party speech. He told us that he was not going to do so, but that is the opening gambit. I am going to make a party speech too.
I think I am entitled to do so and to state where the hon. Member and his hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) are wrong and how they have drawn only one half of the picture. The hon. Member for Brightside and his hon. Friends, in the comparative obscurity of a Prayer late at night, are trying to resuscitate a debate in which they enjoyed very scant success on 30th June in Committee of Supply, when they spoke about rising food prices and tried to make a party issue of it. From their point of view that debate was a complete flop, as it might well be, because they had no leg to stand on.
Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I should like to have the hon. Gentleman's opinion as to how that was reflected in the municipal elections this year. Were they a flop from our point of view?
Mr. Speaker: We are getting very far from the Order which is before the House.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I would certainly agree, Mr. Speaker, and I come back to the speech of the hon. Member for Brightside. He was perfectly right of course when he said that the real cause of the laying of this Order, and of the rise in the price of meat products which it brings about, was the fertile imagination of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he

1661
introduced his Budget. I think that is a compliment. Of all the Budgets introduced in recent years that was the most fertile in imagination and inspiration on the part of the Chancellor.
Mr. Speaker: The Budget is a long way away from this Order. I do ask the House to concentrate upon what is before it, which is a Prayer to annul a certain definite Order. It certainly does not bring in the whole of our finances and economic policy.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: With great respect, I do not dispute what you say, Mr. Speaker, but I am trying to make a quotation from the speech of the hon. Member for Brightside and to say that when he said this Order was the result of the fertile imagination of the Chancellor he was perfectly right. So was the hon. Member for Rotherham, because there is to be a rise in prices as a result of a reduction by £250 million in the total of food subsidies. Both hon. Members are quite right; that is the real reason for this rise in food prices. The Chancellor was right to reduce these heavy and indiscriminate food subsidies. It is right that this Order should have been laid, because it is part of the essential financial policy of the Government.
The hon. Member for Brightside did not remind the House—and he should have done so—that the Chancellor in reducing the food subsidies gave very great compensating advantages to a great many people in this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—in the increased family allowances, increased social benefits and an all round reduction in Income Tax.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is quite entitled to refer to the general background of this Order in the way of reduction of subsidies and so on, but really if we go into the social insurance schemes and everything else on an Order which is mainly occupied with sausages, I do not see how the relevancy of the debate can be maintained.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: We have been blamed for increasing prices. Let me remind hon. Members opposite that when they were in office food prices increased by 58 per cent. without any compensating advantages.
10.55 p.m.
Mr. Cyril Osborne: I want to make one point, and I will try to make it as briefly as I can. The hon. Mem-Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom), who moved the Prayer against this Order, said that the higher prices would fall most heavily on the poorer section of the population. That is perfectly true. He also said that it is the housewife who would have to carry the burden. That also is true. We all sympathise with the housewife of the weekly wage earner who has to bear the burden which this Order imposes—
Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: Sympathy, like patriotism, is not enough.
Mr. Osborne: Therefore, I am in entire agreement with his plea. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) said that in the bad old Tory days he and his friends took good meat and cheese sandwiches to work, which they were not able to enjoy recently, and I accept that as a compliment to this Government. But this is the point. Half of our meat that is controlled by this Order against which the Prayer is directed must come from our home producers and the other half from overseas. Prices are not only going up now; the House ought to recognise that prices will go up further. The agricultural workers have just been granted another small increase in wages. They have got to help to produce that half of the meat that is controlled by this Order. If the agricultural workers of this country are to be paid a decent living wage—and I represent some of those men—the things which they produce, including meat, must be paid for at a fair and reasonable price.
The hon. Member who pleads so earnestly and sincerely for the rights of the weekly wage earner should not forget the rights of the agricultural worker who produces the meat for which they have to pay a little bit more for.
Mr. Winterbottom: The hon. Gentleman wishes to be fair, I know, and he has been fair up to now, but surely he will agree that I also made the point that further increases would be necessary and that we wanted some information on those increases. I think he also ought to deal with the point that the policy of continuing price increases will not get us

1663
far, and that something will have to be done about it, such as even the reversal of the food subsidy policy pursued by the present Government.
Mr. Osborne: I will give this to the previous Parliamentary Secretary. Even if the food subsidies had not been cut, prices would have had to go up because the agricultural workers of this country are rightly demanding a better wage, and if a better wage is paid to them for what they produce we must pay higher prices.
Mr. Jack Jones: The hon. Gentleman has deployed a sound argument as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. The agricultural labourer gets an extra 5s., and because of that the pence per lb. or farthings per 1b. go on to the price of the bullock which he helps to produce. He could still have had the 5s. and helped to produce the extra meat which is so vitally necessary, and the sacrifice necessary to keep these prices down in the form of taxation to provide the subsidy should have been made not by the labourer or the bottom dog but by the person who is at the tap of the tree earning the most. The farmer was not called upon to make the sacrifice. He was presented with a gift by the Government to maintain his existing position. He should have been the first to make a sacrifice.
Mr. Osborne: I listen to the hon. Member for Rotherham with great patience when he talks about steel, but he should stick to steel and leave farming alone, for, with great respect, he does not know a great deal about it.
Mr. Jones rose—
Mr. Osborne: No, I cannot give way again; I have given way once.
Mr. Jones: Will the hon. Member give way just once more?
Mr. Osborne: No.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) does not give way, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) cannot intervene.
Mr. Jones: I will produce more food on my own land than ever the hon. Member did. That is well known in the country.
Mr. Osborne: It still does not prove that the hon. Member knows anything about farming at all.
Mr. Jones: That is where the hon. Member makes a big mistake.
Mr. Osborne: Hon. Members must remember that unless they want to keep the agricultural workers right down at the bottom of the wage ladder, then they have to be prepared to pay higher prices for what the agricultural worker produces, amongst which is the meat about which we are arguing tonight.
The other side of the argument is that half of the meat we consume comes from abroad. The people abroad are determined that we should pay higher prices for the meat they send us. Why?—because the steel produced by the constituents of the hon. Member for Rotherham is costing a great deal more each year.
Mr. Jones: It is still the cheapest in the world.
Mr. Osborne: That is not the point. It is costing a great deal more each year and the people in the Argentine, who send us beef, say, "If Rotherham steel producers demand more for their steel we are going to demand more for our meat." That is why we have to pay more. I beg hon. Members to face that simple problem. If we are to avoid still higher prices—and I think we are going to face much higher food prices—and mitigate the rise in the cost of living, we can do so not by political actions but only by producing the things which are required in exchange for food—whether it be coal or steel—cheaper and of better quality and in greater quantity. That is the way in which this problem should be tackled and not by Prayers at this time of night.
11.2 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): I think that the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom), who opened this debate, will agree that the substance of his speech was the simple statement that these increases in the price of meat products, like the increase in the price of carcase meat, derive directly from the budgetary policy of Her Majesty's Government as deployed in the Chancellor's speech. Let there be no doubt

1665
about it; his statement is an accurate one and no one can dispute it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Angus, North and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) was beginning to remind the hon. Gentleman that there were other consequences of this year's Budget—an increase in social benefits and a diminution of Income Tax.
Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: He was ruled out of order.
Dr. Hill: As the hon. Gentleman reminds me, he was ruled out of order. My hon. Friend then passed to the sausage. Let me say at once that one of the incidental consequences of this Order—and I put it no higher—is to strengthen, so far as the meat content is concerned, what has so often been referred to as a mysterious article of diet.
The hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton), in reminding me of what I said when I was on the other side of the House, might have recalled that my attack was not directed against the use of milk powder or vegetable oil but against the provision that for the purpose of the Order those substances—which were not meat—could be deemed to be meat. That little piece of legal impropriety, if I may so describe it, has been eliminated. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey), who has changed his batting position, was a member of the Government which made possible this dilution of the sausage. Under the old Order the beef sausage could contain but 27½ per cent. of carcase meat. It now must contain 50 per cent. of carcase meat. That at least represents a strengthening of the sausage in so far as meat content is concerned. In the case of the pork sausage, under the old Order it could have been as low as 55 per cent. meat content: it now must be as high as 65 per cent. meat content.
The hon. Member for Batley and Morley very properly raised the question that we raised on a former occasion—is additional meat to be provided for this nutritious strengthening purpose? The answer is "yes." The allocation of manufacturing meat is now being substantially increased—by one-third. That will make possible this strengthening of the sausage, and it will also make possible the manufacture of a more adequate supply of meat products.
1666
I do not think that the hon. Member for Brightside expected me to pass into the field that belongs to the Minister of Labour. I do not think he really expected me to forecast the future level of meat prices. I know that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North might ask it—but he would not expect any such prophecy. Indeed, I do not think that it helps for anybody to anticipate rising prices at a time when we are in negotiation or about to begin negotiations for further meat supplies.
I pass to the question put by the hon. Member for Batley and Morley. He quoted the British Medical Association Report of, I think, 1933, which laid down the animal protein requirements of a heavy worker. He quoted accurately, as I did, from that Report; but I think more recent Reports, notably one in 1950, are beginning to cast doubt upon the proportion of protein that need be animal. Subject only to that more recent development, the position is as the hon. Gentleman said.
If he asks whether I think that the animal protein now in our diet is adequate, I would say that it is slightly more adequate than it was in February of last year, the date of the debate from which he quoted. I am now referring to the contribution of animal protein made by rationed foods. In February, 1951, it was 12.5 grammes daily. As from Sunday week, when the meat ration goes up, it will be 13.1 grammes.
We are confronted with the problem of sustaining a sufficient level first of calories, then of proteins generally, and then of animal proteins, and I do not dissent from the hon. Member's views on the responsibility of the Minister in that field. This responsibility is particularly difficult to discharge at a time when this country is unable to afford to import all the food that is available, but costly at any time. To what the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) said, I would add that should it come about that there is an insufficiency of calories in this country, the first thing that will happen will be an unconscious limitation of output, in order that the individual may achieve equality between what he is taking in and putting out.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether this Order increased the amount of animal protein. This Order—let us be frank

1667
about it—translates the increase of 4d. a 1b. in the carcase form into the various meat products listed here. I must make one point, because the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North has been indicating certain views in his supplementary questions about the distinction between the 4d. increase in the price of meat and the 5½d. which is the increase in the price of pork sausages; he even went so far as to draw a contrast between the increase in the price of sausage meat and the increase in the price of sausages.
Let me remind the hon. Member of this; the 4d. is the carcase increase, but it is distributed unevenly over the four kinds of meat. Indeed, the price increase on pork in the carcase is 4½d., but that becomes an increase in the price of carcase meat without bone of 5¾d.; and if we allow for the wastage, for what has to be cut away before the meat is used, it comes to 6¾d. per 1b. But there is beef as well as pork in the pork sausage, so a similar calculation has to be done for that 13 per cent. of the meat content of the pork sausage which is, in fact, beef.
When we have allowed for this, the additional cost of the meal content per lb. of sausage becomes rather more than 4d.-4.15d. But—and this is the point I want to come to—there were additional manufacturing and distribution costs allowed for in this Order, and they amounted to 1.35d. per 1b. of sausage, and so brought the total increase in the case of the pork sausage to 5½d. But if we increase the sausage—the sausage within the skin—by 5½d., why is it that pork sausage meat is increased by 6d.? The simple truth is that the price of sausage skins has gone down. It has gone down by the equivalent of ½d. per 1b. of sausages. So it becomes possible for the difference of ½d. to obtain between the two increases.
In speaking of the "Excepted Products," those free of price control, the hon. Gentleman was taking me into country into which I was not happy to enter because I wandered into it at the time of the last Prayer on the previous Order. What control, he said to me, is there over the black pudding, over brawn? There never was any control over the black pudding. Even the last Government, with all their insistence on control, all their determination to undertake it in every
1668
detail, never went so far as to lay down a chemical or biological formula to which black pudding should conform.
I have answered his question about fixing the meat content. Let me say this. In so far as the last Order—and this one slightly modifies and improves certain parts of it—laid down standards for the meat content of meat products, they represented an improvement in the situation. They can be met from the increase to which I have referred of approximately a third in manufacturing meat. For the rest this Order deals only with the question of price.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. F. Harris) was trying to lead me into the field of pork de-rationing. He will understand if I say that this does not seem to be the moment to discuss that subject.
Put simply, this Order translates the 4d. which derives from Her Majesty's Government's budgetary policy into the Meat Products Order. To those who say that this Order will affect the nutritional levels in this country, I would say that as a result of the meat price increase and the meat products price increases an extra 3.63d. per head per week has been added to the public's expenditure. In the light of other and more substantial benefits conferred in that same Budget they must prove the case, which has not yet been proved, that this increase in price will of itself result in decreased consumption of the meat products covered by this Order.
11.16 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Willey: I do not rise to prolong these proceedings, but I hope to bring them to an early conclusion. The hon. Gentleman has commented on the batting order and I can give him an explanation for the change in the batting order. He has almost invariably and inaccurately said that whatever he has been doing would have been done by the Labour Government. On the last occasion, when we prayed against the Order which is revoked and replaced by this Order he even went so far as to describe it as my child. I thought that if he should persist tonight in that sort of terminology it might drive me to use language which I am afraid might be out of order.

1669
Another matter which is remarkable about this Order is that on this occasion we have support from the other side of the House. The hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch) put his name down to this Prayer. I am sorry to see that he is not in his place now, although he was almost until the time at which the Parliamentary Secretary got up to speak.
Dr. Hill: I think that if my hon. Friend were here he would intervene to say that because of these repeated postponements of Prayers—one was put down and taken off five times and another was kept on until 5 o'clock in the morning and then taken off—he put his name down to this one for the simple purpose of ensuring that this Prayer should be taken tonight.
Mr. Wiley: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation on behalf of his hon. Friend, but the Parliamentary Secretary cannot get away with his explanation of why the Prayers were taken off. On many occasions they were taken off in agreement with the Government Front Bench.
On the Order itself, I will say a word or two about sausages. It is necessary to do so because tonight we have had a third explanation by the Ministry of Food about the price increases of sausages and the changes made by the present Order. When I asked the Minister about the sausage he said what the Parliamentary Secretary is always saying—that he was doing what we did. In answer to my supplementary question the Minister said that I should carry out some research and see what was done last year. I knew very well he was not doing what we had done, so I put down a further Question and this is what the Parliamentary Secretary said in reply to the point of comparison between the figures in 1951 and the figures now:
"These figures cannot directly be compared because the latter increases, unlike those of 1951, take account of higher manufacturing and distribution costs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July 1952; Vol. 503, c. 32.]
Now he has given a third explanation. Tonight he said that of course the composition of the sausage is changed. On which explanation do the Ministry of Food rely? Are they going what we were doing as the Minister said to the House, or something different from what we were doing and taking into account higher
1670
manufacturing and distribution costs as the Parliamentary Secretary said to the House? Or are they making allowance for the fact that the sausage contains more meat by the difference in its definition?
I think that the Parliamentary Secretary tonight is quite correct: some allowance must be made for the fact that the sausage includes more meat now. I would not argue this with any hard feeling at all. But it is questionable whether that is a right decision at the present moment. Should we be putting a third more manufacturing meat into the production of sausages? Can we afford to do that?
The Parliamentary Secretary, if I followed his arithmetic, will probably agree that there will be fewer sausages than otherwise there would have been. That is arguable, of course, because we cannot be sure to what extent the meat was used under the previous arrangements.
Dr. Hill: There is likely to be more.
Mr. Willey: I hope the hon. Gentleman is right. But if so there is likely to be less meat available for other purposes, because more meat will be diverted into sausage. This seems to be taking a rather optimistic view of the meat supply position. It would have been better to maintain the sausage as it was, and may I add that the very well-known firms of sausage manufacturers that used milk powder before the war will go on using it?
But why have these constant changes? In March there was an Order saying that manufacturers could put soya in the sausage. They began to do that, and now the Ministry says there will be no allowance for soya. Manufacturers presumably made their orders and purchases and this is not the way to treat them. The best way is to be consistent. On reflection, the Parliamentary Secretary may agree that it would have been far better to have made up his mind about meat products at one go. The result is that either way he must be wrong. He is wrong now or he was wrong in March.
Dr. Hill: It is just more meat in the sausage—that is all.
Mr. Willey: That decision could have been taken just as easily in March. The meat supply position is seasonal.
On the question of casings, I think there is some confusion between us. As I understand it, the maximum price may now be increased, if the sausage is in a sheep casing, by 1½d. Before this Order it could be increased by 1d. I am reinforced by the Ministry Bulletin, which made the point that, apart from the price increases that are obvious from the Order itself, there is also the price increase in the Schedule about sheep casings.
Dr. Hill: When they are in hog casings.
Mr. Wiley: I am relying on the information the Ministry of Food makes available for traders and people like myself.
On the price increases generally, I would say at once that it is an extremely difficult matter to debate in the House. It is very difficult to translate the price increases of meat, against which we already have prayed, into terms of the price increases in this Order. But I call attention to the fact that there are very substantial price increases in this Order. I will confine myself to the price increases to which I called attention when we prayed against the earlier Order. If we take the case of pressed and cooked beef, mutton, or lamb, I was saying only in April that the price had gone up as a result of the earlier Order by 8d. In this present Order it now goes up a further 9½d. The price of pressed and cooked ox or calf tongues, which in March went up by 11d. now has gone up by another 1s. to 1s. 6½d. Pressed and cooked pork, which under the earlier Order now revoked went up by 1s. 6d., has now gone up by a further 11½d.
These are very substantial increases which are going to cause real hardship among the people. They are bound to increase the impression that one of the things which the present Government are
1672
doing is to make the purse the determinant as far as the distribution of these essential foodstuffs are concerned when the housewife goes to supplement her meat ration by buying meat products which as a result of Government action—we are not discussing whether it is right or wrong—are now in reduced supply.
The Government are tackling the problem by saying that the best thing to do in order to avoid any question of points rationing is to have a steep increase in price so that the reduced supply meets a reduced demand. That seems to be the reasoning behind this Order, and I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that on the last occasion he said that he was not—I think I am giving a fair paraphrase of what he said—vecy enthusiastic about this Order, but that at an early date he thought it would be possible to sweep away control from this field.
I would quarrel with him in his objective, but I think that the control which is remaining is becoming a farcical control because it will not ensure fair and equitable distribution. While I would resist decontrol of these foodstuffs, I would at the same time say that the present control cannot be a successful one. In spite of that I cannot advise my hon. Friends to divide against this Order for this reason. I think we are entitled to take this opportunity to protest against it, but we cannot divide against it because, after all—
Mr. F. Harris: There are not enough of you here.
Mr. Willey: —this Order is allowing the manufacturers the increased prices so that they in turn may recoup themselves for the increased price they have to pay for the meat. In those circumstances, as we cannot amend the Order, I am afraid, though reluctantly, I must advise my hon. Friends to accept it.
Question put, and negatived.

NAVAL AIR STATION, YEOVILTON
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Butcher.]
11.28 p.m.
Mr. John Peyton: I am very glad to have this opportunity of bringing the present position of the small village of Yeovilton to the attention of the House, and, in particular, to the attention of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty. I want to say at the outset that there is no dispute either by me or the inhabitants of this small village as to the complete necessity to give priority to the needs of defence, nor should there be any imputation against either the successive station commanders at the air station or against the Admiralty surveyor.
It is fair and right to say in this House that from those people the inhabitants of Yeovilton and myself have at all times received the utmost courtesy and consideration. But I want to put certain points to the Civil Lord concerning this very small village which has to a quite exceptional extent been swamped and hemmed in by an airfield. I want to ask the Civil Lord if he has considered whether or not there is a limit, or should be a limit, to the hardships inflicted upon and the deprivations of the rights and liberties of this small community. Is there no limit which can be put either now or in the future, particularly as there is no full compensation or an alternative in many cases? It is fully understood that there cannot be full compensation, nor can alternatives be properly offered.
Some of the results of this present extension will amount to the total deprivation of a man's livelihood; in other cases, it will mean a considerable loss of amenities. Over the past 10 years, this village has been largely cut off and isolated, and 10 rights of way permanently closed. It is now proposed to close another road which forms a vital means of access to this village. As things stand at present, it is to be left with one means of access only, and that is a road which is not flood-proof and which, undoubtedly, when flying is re-started, will become a road on which traffic is bound to be subject to interruption. It is perfectly true that it is proposed to build an alternative out-
1674
going road through Limington, but I would ask the Civil Lord to give certain assurances about this.
I should like, first, an assurance that the existing road out through Ilchester will be fully maintained in at least the same state of repair as at present; secondly, that the road will not be closed as a result of further extensions, and thirdly—and this is most important—I ask very emphatically that the alternative road through Limington shall be provided before the Department closes the right of way known as Pyle Lane, because, if that is not done, then this small village community will not have one single reliable means of access to places outside. That, I am sure the Civil Lord will agree, would be an entirely intolerable position.
There are certain other factors which I think it is right should be put very strongly to the Civil Lord and to this House. As a result of the Department's proposals, the parish to which this village belongs is going to be cut completely in half. The village will almost certainly lose its school, and there will be a considerable drop in property values. To a number of individuals, that will mean a very real hardship. I admit that there is no easy answer to this subject, but I plead with the Civil Lord to bear this last factor in mind, because it is one which represents a heavy burden and a very great loss in a considerable number of cases.
I turn now to the wider and more far-reaching aspect of the position of the trunk road known as A.303. Can the Civil Lord give any assurance tonight about this, because I do not know whether that road will be interfered with later on as a result of further extensions. That I cannot tell, but I want my hon. Friend to say, if he can, what the position is with regard to that road.
There is a further point which should be mentioned, because it is one of general importance. It is the loss of farming land, which is as important almost as defence itself. Again and again we have cases of first-class farming land being taken, sometimes, one feels, without proper consideration being given first to what is being lost. In the case with which we are now concerned, two farmers are principally concerned. One of them has owned and farmed his land for some 36 years and he is now seeing his

1675
farm reduced to the status of a very small holding.
The other case is that of a tenant farmer. During the years in which he has occupied his farm, he has more than doubled the output from that land. Now he has to go. All his land is being taken. In his case it is almost impossible to assess compensation. He is losing his livelihood. I ask my hon. Friend very earnestly indeed to see whether or not he can help this man.
It is true we are now dealing with great schemes and vast proposals, but I do think it would be wrong for my hon. Friend not to go into the case of this individual and see whether he can help him in some way and whether or not it is possible for him to consult the Minister of Agriculture, or perhaps the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or anyone else, in order that this man shall not suffer undue hardship and shall receive something approaching just and fair treatment.
I do not know what intentions the Admiralty have as regards public inquiries. Is it intended to hold inquiries on the spot in order that the views of this very small community may be fully and adequately ventilated? I believe that it is right that in these cases the minority should have a full opportunity of voicing their opinions and that they should have an assurance that those opinions are fully considered by those in authority.
I appreciate that this is not an easy question for my hon. Friend to answer, but I ask him whether there are to be further extensions. If there is a possibility now of further extensions becoming necessary in the future, it may well be that any money laid out on proposals to build new roads and so on may become quite unnecessary and wasted, because ultimately the village will be uninhabitable and there will be no civilian population left to enjoy such amenities as may now be provided.
The position is grave. I believe it is exceptional. That is why I sought the opportunity of raising this matter in the House. When these proposals have been carried out, this village will be situated at the apex of a triangle two sides of which are runways at a distance of 200 or 300 yards, used by jet aircraft. I do not
1676
wish to raise the obvious points of noise and inconvenience, but I suggest to my hon. Friend that the village and its inhabitants will find themselves in a most intolerable position, hemmed in as they will be, and I am asking my hon. Friend for that reason to give very careful consideration to their case. I am asking him to say whether he thinks that in these circumstances the village can remain habitable, or whether perhaps over the years it will gradually become derelict, with the population gradually drifting away because life has become quite intolerable there.
I raise this matter not out of any desire to obstruct the Admiralty or the Civil Lord in the discharge of what must be difficult and very often painful obligations forced upon them by the defence needs, which we all recognise, of the country as a whole, but I stress my own very great and genuine concern to see that in such a case where such a small community is involved, its undoubted rights should not be ridden over roughshod by a great Department of State which cares not very greatly for such things. Before these things are lightly swept away, there should be very full inquiry and consideration in the light of the great importance which should rightly be attached to them.
11.42 p.m.
The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Wingfield Digby): I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's anxiety for his constituents in the village of Yeovilton, and may I say at once that, for personal reasons, I am very sorry that there should be any anxiety about those who live in this village because it has, until quite recently, had a connection with my own family for a number of generations. No one is therefore more sorry than myself that they should be inconvenienced by these extensions of runways.
Of course, we have to pay a price for modernisation in the world today. This is a small island, and jet aircraft travel very quickly and make a certain amount of noise. If we are to move with the times, I am afraid that it is inevitable that more inconvenience will be caused to a number of people. But I must point out at once that Yeovilton is a relatively isolated village. It is some way from Yeovil itself and one could not say that it is a centre of dense population.

1677
The Navy needs the best aircraft and the best pilots; we have to have these jet aircraft, and the pilots have to be trained in order to fly them. I am sure that the House would agree that it would be absolutely wrong that lives should be unnecessarily risked because the proper modernisation was not carried out to our airfields. Again, it would not be right that these very valuable machines should be in risk of being damaged because the landing facilities were not adequate.
In these circumstances one has the alternative either of modernising the existing airfield or starting afresh somewhere else and building an entirely new air station. I need hardly point out that it would be very much more expensive to scrap all the buildings, and the millions of pounds worth of value that has gone into the existing air station, and start again. Quite apart from that, I am certain that there would be just the same kind of difficulty with the local inhabitants of any other area which one might choose.
In the particular case of Yeovilton, as far as I am aware, the Navy are popular there, and I think it is possible to exaggerate the amount of local resentment to the extension of the runways. I was down there myself not many weeks ago and I am bound to say that I do think it is possible to exaggerate the feeling of apprehension which there is on the spot.
I think it would be best if I dealt with the various points of complaint and the ways in which the village will be inconvenienced. First, there is the question of noise. I have already admitted that jet aircraft are noisier than existing aircraft. We have to make up our minds either to have jet aircraft and to have more noise everywhere, or to try to stand still—which obviously is not possible. Jet aircraft are noisier at take-off; but what causes most nuisance is not the actual take-off but the circling to land and the circling after take-off. The Air Ministry confirm that that is what causes the most nuisance.
In this way Yeovilton will definitely be better off, because with piston-engined aircraft, and the runways as they were before, the path of the aircraft on many occasions passed almost directly over the village and very close to the church itself.
1678
That will no longer be the case. The path of the aircraft will take a much wider sweep and they will be further away from the village than they were before, so that when the aircraft are in the air the village should be better off. Nor do I think that the noise will be intolerable. It is one of the things to which it is quite possible to get used. At an air station which I was visiting not long ago, private residents were actually constructing new houses in approximately the same kind of relationship as Yeovilton bears to the new runway.
Then there is the question of danger. I must say at once that the safety requirements have been fully complied with. The fact that the ends of the runways will now be further from the village will make it safer in the village than it was before.
With regard to the question with which my hon. Friend has dealt at some length—the roads and the isolation of the village—let me say at once that there is no intention of closing the existing road known as Pyle Lane until the new road to Limington is built, and even if work goes on—as it must—in the vicinity, a way through will be left until the new road is constructed. The actual course which that road is to take is a matter for the Ministry of Transport.
With regard to the second road running direct to Ilchester, of course I am not in a position to give any undertaking about its repair; it is not a matter for the Admiralty but for other authorities. But so far as the Admiralty is concerned, there is no present intention of trying to close that road, nor is it easy to see why there should be any need to do so in the future. My hon. Friend has also mentioned the question of the A.303 trunk road. He asked whether an assurance can be given that that will not be interfered with in the future. I cannot look so far into the future as that. All I can say at the moment is that it will remain as it is at present: there is no question of crossing it.
Now I come to the question of what is called the loss of farming land. Before I deal with that, however, perhaps I should refer to the individual cases of two of the farmers concerned. I think everyone will recognise that they are

1679
bound to suffer, and one is very sorry if certain individuals have to suffer more than others, as is inevitable when the defence requirements of the country are to be met. One farmer in particular, I know, has built up a good farm and is going to have difficulty in finding another. I will certainly give an assurance that, so far as we have any influence in finding him a new farm, we shall do everything we can to help—by asking either the Ministry of Agriculture or whoever is most appropriate to try to find him a farm—because we do recognise that he has been a very great sufferer in this matter.
I myself refute the idea that the land will be completely lost to farming. In fact, we have a very successful grass-drying plant working at Yeovilton which has been producing an output which reached 100 tons last year and which is operated at a profit by the Admiralty. Not only do we produce this tonnage, but it is tonnage of satisfactory quality. During 1951–52, for example, the protein yield was as high as 19.25 in some cases and it never went lower than 13.43. That, I think, is an achievement. So it will be seen that although this land is removed from ordinary farming, food production is carried on there in this very useful way of grass drying, which is of considerable use to the farming community.
As regards the question of hardship generally, I do not think it is true to say that the position here is unique. It is true that Yeovilton is to be in a position of great inconvenience, but the Air Ministry have a number of cases where the flightways or funnels affect villages and houses. I have actually looked at the plans of some of those.
Mr. Peyton: The point of uniqueness is that the village is hemmed in on two sides.
Mr. Digby: Yes, but it is of course much worse if the village happens to be at the end of the runways, because the aircraft are landing and taking off immediately over the village. There are a number of other cases where that is actually happening at the present time. My hon. Friend mentioned the splitting of the village in two. That is unfor-
1680
tunate, but I do not think the difficulties created by that are insuperable. Then he said that the value of the property in the village is going to drop a great deal. No one can tell that, but it is fair to say that in similar cases there has not been a noticeable drop in the value of properties. I hope that will not occur in this case.
As to a public inquiry, this is not necessary as no planning objection has been raised to the development that is taking place. As to compensation, the Admiralty, of course, are bound by statute which limits the amount of compensation payable, and we are not in a position to pay any more than the scale of Government compensation which is laid down for this and many other types of cases by the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act and the Town and Country Planning Act that modifies it. Nor have we any authority to buy properties—as has been suggested—which are not needed for Naval purposes, and I do not think that we should be entitled to buy portions of the village which we did not require. Nor, indeed, do I believe that many of the villagers wish to leave in any case. Many of them have their occupations to carry on from the village and will, no doubt, wish to continue to do so.
I think it would be a mistake to deny that the Naval air station at Yeovilton does bring certain benefits to the locality; and I am quite certain—as one who lives in that part of the world—that the Navy is just as popular there as it is in many other parts of the world. A considerable amount of money is being spent there. We are just completing a large number of married quarters in Ilchester, nearby, which will bring considerable trade to the local tradesmen.
Sacrifices have obviously got to be made for the defence of this country, and I am afraid that it is the case that those sacrifices cannot always fall equally. We are very sorry for the inconvenience.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Two Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.

TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Aycliffe Trading Estate, Durham
  Aycliffe Trading Estate, Durham
  New Factories, Durham
  New Factories, Durham
  Price Increases
  Price Increases
  Rubber Footwear
  Rubber Footwear
  Bankruptcies and Liquidations
  Bankruptcies and Liquidations
  Resale Price Maintenance
  Resale Price Maintenance
  Industrial Basic Materials (Prices)
  Industrial Basic Materials (Prices)
  Tariffs and Trade Agreement (Imports)
  Tariffs and Trade Agreement (Imports)
  Fruit and Tomatoes
  Fruit and Tomatoes
  Textile Areas (Assistance)
  Textile Areas (Assistance)
  New Potatoes
  New Potatoes
  Basic Slag
  Basic Slag
  Esparto Grass and Wood-Pulp
  Esparto Grass and Wood-Pulp
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Gold and Dollar Holdings (Returns)
  Gold and Dollar Holdings (Returns)
  War Damage Claims
  War Damage Claims
  Industrial Production
  Industrial Production
  HIGHER TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
  HIGHER TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
  CIVIL SERVICE (RETIRING AGE)
  CIVIL SERVICE (RETIRING AGE)
  DALTON STATE FOREST
  DALTON STATE FOREST
AGRICULTURE
  Feedingstuffs (Poultry Keepers)
  Feedingstuffs (Poultry Keepers)
  Mining Subsidence (Land Reclamation)
  Mining Subsidence (Land Reclamation)
  Malltraeth Marsh and Borth Bog, Wales
  Malltraeth Marsh and Borth Bog, Wales
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Horticultural Produce (Protection)
  Horticultural Produce (Protection)
  Agricultural Land (Loss)
  Agricultural Land (Loss)
  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (CHILDREN)
  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (CHILDREN)
  AUXILIARY FIREMEN (UNIFORMS)
  AUXILIARY FIREMEN (UNIFORMS)
  POISONS BOARD
  POISONS BOARD
    PHARMACY AND POISONS ACT, 1933
    POISONS BOARD 1951–54
    POISONS BOARD 1951–54
  FIREARMS (BANK EMPLOYEES)
  FIREARMS (BANK EMPLOYEES)
  AIR RAID SHELTERS (POWER STATION AREAS)
  AIR RAID SHELTERS (POWER STATION AREAS)
  EQUAL PAY (L.C.C. APPLICATION)
  EQUAL PAY (L.C.C. APPLICATION)
  DOGS (FOULING OF FOOTPATHS)
  DOGS (FOULING OF FOOTPATHS)
EMPLOYMENT
  Stockport
  Stockport
  D. C. Thomson Limited, Dundee (Inquiry Report)
  D. C. Thomson Limited, Dundee (Inquiry Report)
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Cardiff Royal Infirmary
  Cardiff Royal Infirmary
  Old Peoples' Hostels (Pocket Money)
  Old Peoples' Hostels (Pocket Money)
  SOUTH AFRICA (LANDING PERMIT)
  SOUTH AFRICA (LANDING PERMIT)
SCOTLAND
  Housing (Key Workers)
  Housing (Key Workers)
  Electronics Industry (Development Plans)
  Electronics Industry (Development Plans)
  FOREIGN SERVICES (MISSING DIPLOMATS)
  FOREIGN SERVICES (MISSING DIPLOMATS)
  ICELAND (FISHING DISPUTE)
  ICELAND (FISHING DISPUTE)
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Pig Payments, South-East Scotland
  Pig Payments, South-East Scotland
  Apples and Pears
  Apples and Pears
  Sugar Beet Factory, Norfolk
  Sugar Beet Factory, Norfolk
  EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURE (CIRCULAR 242)
  EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURE (CIRCULAR 242)
  BOREHOLE SCHEME, NEWTON-UPON-TRENT
  BOREHOLE SCHEME, NEWTON-UPON-TRENT

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Marquess of Winchester—Took the Oath.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (HERNE BAY) BILL.
Read 2ª (according to Order), and committed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (KING'S LYNN) BILL.
Read 2ª (according to Order), and committed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (MINEHEAD) BILL.
Read 2ª (according to Order), and committed.

CROWN LESSEES (PROTECTION OF SUB-TENANTS) BILL
2.37 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, it falls to my lot to move the first of the plethora of Private Members' Bills which appear on the Order Paper this afternoon. Some three years ago I attempted to introduce a Private Members' Bill into your Lordships' House entitled the Marriage (Enabling) Bill, the purpose of which was to enable a man, if he felt so minded, to marry his divorced wife's sister. I was unsuccessful. The noble Lord, Lord Uthwatt, whose death we still lament, helped me in the drafting of that Bill, and he afterwards commiserated with me on its failure. He told me, "There are three traps which confront every Member attempting private legislation. There are three things which a private legislator must not attempt. First, he must
1000
not attempt to amend the matrimonial laws of this country. That is what you have done this afternoon and you have, rightly, failed. The other two things which, even if you are the proud possessor of a particularly large barge-pole, you must not touch, are the Rent Acts and the legislation concerning the administration of justice." Your Lordships will note that the first of the Bills in my name this afternoon deals with the Rent Acts and the second with the administration of justice.
This Bill seeks to do only one thing: it seeks to give sub-tenants of houses or flats built on Crown Lands the same protection under the various Rent Acts to which they would be entitled if their property was built on ordinary land. It may come as somewhat of a surprise to your Lordships to know that this protection is not available to these sub-tenants. When a leading case was before the Courts in 1947, the Lord Chief Justice of England drew attention to the fact that this exception was not known to the majority of people. Now, my Lords, a considerable number of people are affected by this Bill. There are a considerable number who have flats and houses as sub-tenants on Crown property, and what has happened is this. Various unscrupulous persons—the type of person who always takes advantage of a housing shortage—have been buying up these leases and selling with vacant possession at a greatly enhanced price; or have been putting up the rents to a height which the tenant cannot afford. The result has been that these unfortunate people are thrown out of their houses. If they go to the county court they get sympathy but nothing in the way of practical assistance, because the county courts cannot help them. It is beyond their power to go before the local authority and ask for assistance from the housing committee, because, of course, they have never been on the housing list. The hardship, therefore, is considerable.
I know that it will be said that this Bill is merely a further addition to the ungodly jumble which is the Rent Acts. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, a few weeks ago, put a Question on this subject to Her Majesty's Government: he asked whether the Government were prepared to consider a general overhaul of the Rent Acts. The Lord Chancellor

1001
smiled sadly and gave us the answer which we all knew he must inevitably give. This is no place to argue the pros and cons of a general revision of the Rent Acts, but in the opinion of many people such a revision is long overdue. Legislation which originally had the wholly laudable purpose of protecting small house and flat owners against unscrupulous landlords has changed its shape completely. There have been leading articles in both The Times and the Observer asking how much longer we must wait before we reconsider the position of one man contributing towards the rent of another. They are no longer Rent Acts but Encouragement of Slum Development Acts. However, that is not the point. As long as the Rent Acts exist in their present form, it is my submission that it is grossly unfair to exclude quite a substantial portion of the community from their protection. That is what I am seeking to remedy this afternoon.
It may also be argued: why should this protection be given only to the subtenants of Crown Land and not to the tenants of Crown Land? Well, my Lords, there are several reasons. I do not think that Private Members' legislation is the proper place to start tampering with the prerogative of the Crown. It would also obviously lead to confusion in the case, for instance, of married quarters in barracks; of accommodation wanted for people working for the Crown in secret occupations—and many more examples can be thought of. For that reason, the Crown is excluded from this Bill. Of course, when the Crown shows itself a bad landlord, the Crown, through the Crown Commissioners, can always be brought to book in either House of Parliament. In another place it is the Minister of Agriculture who is responsible. Whether in this House it is the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the Under-Secretary for Agriculture, or the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, who represents the Minister of Town and Country Planning in this House, I do not know. It may even be, as many of these properties are in the Duchy of Lancaster, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. We should then be in the unusual position of hearing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster speaking about affairs of the Duchy of Lancaster. But whoever it may
1002
be, this is too wide a subject to be included in this Bill.
That is all the Bill seeks to do. It is really a one-clause Bill. The remainder of the Bill is concerned with technicalities—and I am afraid they are many—and with the administrative machinery. It contains consequential provisions to link the Bill to such subjects as mortgages, and generally tidies up a considerable amount of complicated legislation. It has been thoroughly threshed out in Committee in another place and has been much amended. Some years before the war a lady well known in Irish social and political circles wrote a letter three and a half columns in length to the Morning Post, in which she set out her proposals for an entirely new religion. She even went down to the details of the pension scheme for her clergy. The next day, readers of the Morning Post were pleased, but not surprised, to see a letter from her husband saying that he was in no way responsible for his wife's letter in the Morning Post of the day before, save to have corrected the spelling and punctuation. I am responsible for this Bill but I am in no way responsible for the drafting, which has received the benefit of the attention of the official draftsman. I understand that it is now in a thoroughly workmanlike form. It is an uncontroversial Bill, and I think it will fulfil a long felt want and will alleviate much hardship amongst a large number of people. On those grounds I cordially commend it to your Lordships, and hope that you will be good enough to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we do not propose to offer any opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill, and in view of the excellent statement made by the noble Lord there does not appear to be any need for us to make a speech about it. If anything does arise between now and the Committee stage no doubt there will be an opportunity of raising any points. We beg to support the Second Reading of this Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to say that in this House, as in

1003
another place, this Bill has the blessing of Her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is much to be congratulated on bringing it before your Lordships for Second Reading. It will fill very usefully a gap which I think was not known to be a gap until a decision of the courts in the year 1947. I have no hesitation in commending it to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LANCASTER PALATINE COURT (No. 2) BILL
2.47 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, if the last Bill to which your Lordships have been good enough to give a Second Reading was, in all conscience, dull and technical enough, this one is far worse. I am glad to say that it attempts to do even less, and I think I can put its merits before your Lordships in a very few words. The Lancaster Palatine Court is a Court of very ancient history and honourable tradition. Its powers have, however, been whittled down in the course of the years and it now has solely a Chancery jurisdiction. It is almost another branch in Lancaster of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice. It deals only with those matters which have an equitable flavour, with such matters as infancy, wills, trusts, partnerships—generally those matters which the learned author of the Forensic Fables described as likely to be concluded by three elderly gentlemen with grey beards all getting up and asking for costs out of the estate.
A curious anomaly exists in the administration and function of this Court. It is not possible, apparently, to transfer some matters of a Chancery nature from the High Court to the Lancaster Palatine Court. Recently the Assize Courts in Lancashire, particularly in Manchester and Liverpool, have become heavily congested, and many of the matters down for hearing could well have been heard in the Lancaster Palatine Court if only the power to transfer them had existed. It is this power that this Bill seeks to produce. It is a very
1004
restricted and confined power, and there is no suggestion that any matters such as divorce or crime, or any ordinary Common Law matters, should be capable of transfer. Nor is it suggested that the appeal jurisdiction of the Chancery Division of the High Court should be transferable. There is a certain appellate jurisdiction in the Chancery Division of the High Court, notably in matters of bastardy and infancy, and in bankruptcy. It is felt that it would not be right to transfer such matters of appeal, but that it would be preferable to keep the appeal jurisdiction together in the High Court, where the opportunities for conference between the judges, for fuller sets of reports and for technical matters, make it more desirable.
My Lords, that is all the Bill seeks to do. I ought to add that there is one difficulty arising about which I hope the Lord Chancellor and the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be able to help. At the moment, legal aid is not available in the Lancaster Palatine Court, so that if a case in which legal aid has been granted in the High Court is transferred to the Palatine Court some embarrassment may be occasioned. I think that is only an administrative point, and perhaps the Lord Chancellor may be able to help us on that matter.
This Bill has the approval of the local law societies and also of the Bar Council. I believe that it also has the approval of Her Majesty's Government. It was thoroughly threshed out in another place and, to a certain degree, re-drafted. I can therefore commend it to your Lordships with as much enthusiasm as I commended my previous attempt. I think it only proper to add that I have never myself practised in the Lancaster Palatine Court, nor do I think I ever shall in the future. With those words I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Mancroft.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in introducing this Bill, is as accurate with his left barrel as with his right. This Bill also I commend to your Lordships, and I think I need say nothing more than this: that as one who for many years practised in the Chancery Courts, and therefore no doubt exactly fulfil the description which the noble Lord gave of those who practice

1005
in those Courts, I personally, with the experience which I gained during those many years, can give this Bill my blessing, as well as that of Her Majesty's Government. I have only just had handed to me a note in connection with the noble Lord's question on legal aid. Without pledging myself or Her Majesty's Government in any way, I think it will be possible to give the assistance in regard to legal aid to which the noble Lord referred, but I will have that matter looked into further.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AGRICULTURAL LAND (REMOVAL OF SURFACE SOIL) BILL [H.L.]
2.53 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to provide a more effective and speedy sanction against those who, for commercial gain, strip the top soil off agricultural land, sell it and leave the land useless for further cultivation. This practice is going on in several counties—I believe in Kent, Surrey and Essex—and I am told that the profits are quick and substantial. But the result is that the land is left quite useless for agricultural purposes at a time when we need the greatest amount of agricultural production that our Island can produce. Some of your Lordships who were present in the House may remember my referring to this matter in the food and agriculture debate which took place on April 30 last. The case I then had in mind was one taking place in Surrey. A company which has apparently been formed with this as its main activity had bought a large field of good agricultural land, and had proceeded to remove and sell the soil, leaving the land derelict. The Surrey Agricultural Executive Committee tried to stop it; the transgressor company were given a direction, and were later fined £50 for ignoring the direction imposed upon them. My Lords, that did not deter them at all; nor indeed would the maximum penalty that can be imposed under the Agriculture Act of 1947. The maximum penalty is one of £100, and I believe that the profits are considerably more than that.
There is a second way of trying to deal with a case of this sort; that is, under the Town and Country Planning
1006
Act. I am told that soil stripping of this magnitude is a form of development for which planning permission is required. Indeed, in this particular case the God-stone Rural District Council served an enforcement notice under the Town and Country Planning Act. The company denied that removing soil constituted development and appealed against the notice. While the appeal was pending, as they were quite entitled to do, they continued to remove the soil. In other words, the procedure under the Town and Country Planning Act is, at any rate in my submission, too slow to stop at its inception a malpractice such as this.
Under the Town and Country Planning Act, when an enforcement notice is served upon an operator, he can apply to the planning authority for permission. Several weeks may elapse before the appeal is heard. Meanwhile, because he has applied for permission, the operator can go on taking the soil away. If that permission is refused, then he can appeal to the Minister and concurrently he can appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. In either of those cases the effect of the enforcement notice is in abeyance while either of those appeals is pending. As a result of this procedure, the operator, if he has the most modern machinery to take away the soil, can have completely stripped the ground before anything can prevent him from doing so. In the case that has been particularly brought to my notice the ground has been largely stripped of its fertile soil I am told that the Oxted magistrates have determined the appeal, and have held that the removal of the top soil from the land constitutes development under the Act and requires planning permission. They have now ordered the company to plough and fertilise the land, and sow to ley. Of course the eventual result of that remains to be seen, but your Lordships will soon realise that if the company went into liquidation, or did anything of that sort, there would be no remedy whatever by which this land could be put back into its proper use.
My Lords, with those words as a background, I now come to what this Bill seeks to do. As noble Lords will see, if they look at Clause 1 of the Bill, no restriction is imposed, for there are prerequisites to any action under this clause against operators: first, under Clause 1

1007
(1) (a) a person must have removed the surface soil from agricultural land with a view to the sale of that soil; and secondly—it is not "or," it is "and"—the removal of that soil must constitute development within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Act and must have been carried out without the grant of permission under that Act. It will be seen, therefore, that no new restriction is imposed, but that a new summary offence is created. Because, instead of the sanction under the Town and Country Planning Act, this Bill substitutes a fine in a magistrates' court of up to £100 for a first offence and, on the committal of a subsequent and similar offence, a period of either three months in prison, or a fine of £50 for every day on which the earlier offence is repeated.
I think that at this stage I need add only two or three further sentences. First, under Clause 1 (2) the cutting of peat and the cutting of turf are excluded from the operation of the Bill. No doubt those of your Lordships who were in the House at the time will remember that when we had the Town and Country Planning Act before us there was a considerable argument about peat, and eventually it was decided to exclude it from any development charge. It does not take away—at least, only in exceptional cases—from the agricultural value of land to strip it of peat or, indeed, to cut off the turf. Secondly, I think I ought just to refer to Clause 1 (3). That closes a gap because if it were not for that subsection a man could say: "This land is not agricultural land, because I have bought it, and I do not intend to use it for agricultural purposes." That might be a defence. Clause 2 (2) makes provision in, I think, an unexceptionable manner for dealing with cases where this operation is carried out by a company. Under this clause directors who consent or connive at such an operation are liable to be proceeded against.
Perhaps, before I conclude, I ought also to refer to Clause 2 (3). Under this provision it is a complete defence to show that planning permission has been given. I ought perhaps to say, too, that this Act is intended to apply to Scotland, but not to Northern Ireland. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this Bill fills a
1008
gap that should be filled, and that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading to-day, thereby showing your determination that no more of the land shall with impunity be taken away from agriculture, which is, in my submission, the most vital of our industries at the present time and, so far as I can see, is likely to remain so for some years to come. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Llewellin.)
3.5 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, while supporting this very admirable Bill which has been moved by my noble friend, I wish to take the opportunity of raising the exact opposite of the matter dealt with in the Bill. This is a Bill to make it an offence in certain circumstances to remove surface soil from land. To-day, in this country, the exact opposite is occurring, and surface soil which ought to be removed from land is not being removed. I have in mind, particularly, the new towns. If my eyes do not deceive me, in the new town of Crawley I have seen several fields used as dumping grounds for from four to five feet of clay. Before that clay was put upon the fields, the sensible and natural thing would have been to sell the surface soil to some such despoiler as my noble friend has aimed his Bill against. So far as one's eyes can discover, no such thing is done, and I suggest that the Minister might call the attention of the authorities of the new towns generally, not only to the terms of this Bill but also to the matter in its opposite sense—in other words, say that it is a gross waste of topsoil to bury it under four or five feet of clay when there is a market for it.
3.7 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I feel certain that no one will object to the principle of this Bill. In this very small island, with its dense population, we simply cannot afford to lose valuable agricultural land unnecessarily, and the object which the noble Lord desires to secure in this Bill is one which I feel certain will meet with general support. There may be details which we shall have to look at hereafter. I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, that this Bill does not really go far enough, though perhaps it is designed

1009
to deal with the greatest abuse which occurs at the present time and which does appear to call urgently for action. Noble Lords may like to know that there is a very interesting precedent for legislation of this kind in one part of the British Commonwealth—namely, the Island of Malta—where for quite a number of years past, it has been part of the law. And Malta, of course, is an island which is even more densely populated and more dependent upon its soil than this island of ours. In Malta it has been part of the law for some time past that whenever anyone wants to do anything—to build a house, for example—on a site where there is agricultural land, he must remove the soil and deposit it somewhere else to the satisfaction of the Department of Agriculture, so that the total area of cultivable land shall not be diminished.
It may be that we do not need to go quite so far as that, but it does seem a great pity that valuable soil should be lost as an incident of other operations. This Bill is directed to the cases where it is lost because of the carrying out of a deliberate policy of selling it for profit. It may very well be lost in other cases which are not covered by this Bill at all. I am not suggesting that it is possible to amend this Bill to deal with those matters, but it is something which Her Majesty's Government might very well have in their minds for future consideration. Meanwhile, I am certainly very happy to support the Second Reading of the Bill.
3.9 p.m.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I rise on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to express our thanks to the noble Lord who introduced the Bill, which remedies a defect not so much, perhaps, in the 1947 Act as in its operation. There is no doubt that this defect has enabled considerable damage to be done, and, from the agricultural point of view, it is very disturbing to consider the amount of additional damage that might be done in the future. It is certainly the case that some immediate action is needed to stop this. For all these reasons, we welcome the Bill. So far as the technical aspects of the Bill are concerned, we have tried to help by making available the services of the Government draftsmen. We give the Bill a warm welcome and hope for its speedy passage through the House, so
1010
that it may find its way rapidly to the Statute Book.
3.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, first of all I should like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, for my absence during his speech. I had an engagement which I had hoped would be shorter than in fact it proved to be. I think the substance of this Bill is such that no one will take exception to it. It appears to provide the safeguards which are necessary for agriculture without interfering in any way with the reasonable activities of private companies. I daresay that some people would like it to go further, but we know the difficulties that arise when members of either House try to go a long way in a Private Member's Bill. There is only one problem about procedure to which I should like to refer. The great difficulty with Private Members' Bills is the shortage of Parliamentary time. May I say, on behalf of the Opposition in this House, that we shall do everything we can to facilitate the passage of the Bill, and that we shall not hold it up by the use of arguments, whether they may be desirable or undesirable? I sincerely hope that everyone else who is interested in this Bill will try to facilitate its passage in this way.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DISPOSAL OF UNCOLLECTED GOODS BILL
3.12 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, this Bill was introduced in another place by Miss Elaine Burton, the Member of Parliament for Coventry South, supported by members of all Parties. Happily, as has been the case with the Bills which preceded this one, it has the support of the Government and has had the advantage of the services of Government draftsmen. The Bill deals with a problem which I am bound to say was new to me and which, possibly, may be new to some other members of your Lordships' House. It deals with the disposal of goods left by customers with tradesmen for repair or other treatment, on which work has been done and which the customer has not collected, and on

1011
which he has not paid the charges. It happens in a number of trades that there are large quantities of articles left uncollected and unpaid for, in some cases for a number of years. This Bill enables tradesmen, after giving certain notices, to sell these goods, to appropriate that portion of the price representing the charges for work done and to retain the balance for the benefit of the customer if he eventually turns up. It appears that boot repairers, jewellers, tailors, bookbinders, cycle repairers, garage proprietors—even dentists and opticians, I am told—are left with goods to which this Bill relates. As your Lordships will appreciate, except in certain special cases, like that of pawnbrokers, for whom special statutory provision has been made, in the ordinary way tradesmen could not dispose of uncollected goods—at least, not without considerable risk.
I do not think that I need go into details. It may perhaps be convenient if I mention one or two points in the Bill, in order that your Lordships may be satisfied that there are safeguards for the customers whose goods it is proposed to sell in these circumstances. In Clause 1, power is given to the tradesman, termed the bailee, to enable him, in the circumstances set out in the clause, to sell the goods of a customer, the bailor, where the tradesman has accepted the goods and where the customer has failed either to pay the tradesman's charges or take delivery of the goods. That right of sale can be exercised, however, only under the conditions set out in subsection (3). The tradesman has to put up an appropriate notice on all his premises; when the goods are ready for delivery to the customer he has to give notice to the customer; and after the expiration of twelve months thereafter he must give notice that he proposes to sell the goods after a certain period. Your Lordships will appreciate that the goods cannot be sold until a period of at least twelve months after the goods are ready for delivery. The remaining provisions of the clause are largely a matter of machinery. Where there is a dispute between the customer and the tradesman, the tradesman's right to sell the goods shall be suspended until the dispute has been determined. Subsection (7) sets out the form of notice to be given to customers when the goods are ready for delivery and the form of
1012
notice to be given of the tradesman's intention to sell the goods.
Clause 2 lays down that the notice must be in writing, and that in the case where the tradesman intends to sell the goods notice must be sent by registered post. Subsection (5) of the clause makes provision as to the address of the customer to which notices have to be sent. Clause 3 deals with the disposal of the proceeds of sale: first, the proceeds have to go to meet the tradesman's charges—and under Clause 4 the tradesman is entitled to reasonable charges for storage, the costs of sale and the cost of insurance. Thereafter, any surplus has to be retained for a period of six years, so that in the event of the customer turning up and claiming his article, or the proceeds of sale, he may receive that surplus. The tradesman is required to keep a record for a period of six years and has to be in a position to give details to the customer. Clause 5 deals with goods which have already been accepted before the commencement of the Act. In these cases, notice has to be given by advertisement and notices have to be placed on the premises. The tradesman cannot sell the goods for a period of thirteen months from the commencement of the Act.
I hope that your Lordships may think that this is a useful Bill. It appears to deal with the most likely contingencies and is supported by a great number of trade associations. I venture to commend it to your Lordships and hope that it may receive a unanimous Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
3.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I have an unusual and, I hope, easy task to perform this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Milner, has explained the provisions of this Bill, if I may say so, with exemplary clarity. I can only say, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that we have throughout taken a sympathetic interest in his measure and have, indeed, assisted in its drafting. Therefore, we shall be extremely happy to see it become law.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HYPNOTISM BILL
3.21 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, this Bill deals with a subject which no doubt is known to many of your Lordships in some detail, but perhaps to most of your Lordships only as a description of a general condition which is somewhat vaguely apprehended. But, as a matter of fact, the hypnotic condition may be described as one allied to normal sleep, which can be induced in a large number of normal persons. I want to lay emphasis on that fact, because it justifies the need for bringing forward this Bill. An experienced operator—that is to say, one who is accustomed to hypnotising men and women—can normally hypnotise up to 90 per cent. of the people on whom he makes the attempt. In the last year hypnotism has been used for what I have heard described as "disgusting stage performances." I am afraid that that is an accurate description. This practice is one which has attracted public attention and, incidentally, has led to the bringing forward of this Bill. Hypnotism can be a valuable therapeutic aid, and it should be used as a measure for relieving and curing disease.
This Bill takes a long step forward to regulate the demonstration of hypnotic phenomena for purposes of public entertainment, and it is brought forward as a necessary measure. There have recently been a number of cases in which public demonstration has led to unfortunate results. I should emphasise that these cases are most serious in persons under twenty-one years of age. Therefore, the hypnotising of these young people for the purposes of entertainment is forbidden entirely by Clause 3 of the Bill. The other main provisions of the Bill are set out in Clauses 1 and 2, and are quite short and to the point. They put an end to the unregulated use of hypnotism as an item in the programme
"of places kept or ordinarily used for public dancing, singing, music or other public entertainment of the like kind."
unless a licence has recently been obtained. In such places where licences are not in force no demonstration or performance may be given unless the controlling authority has authorised it. No person in any place may be hypnotised under
1014
the age of twenty-one. Nothing to prevent the use of hypnotism for scientific or research purposes, or for the treatment of mental or physical disease, is contained in the Bill. Hypnotism remains a valuable therapeutic agent, as it has sometimes been in this country and also, to my knowledge, to a great extent in France, and as such it needs this regulation.
When a person is hypnotised he is particularly receptive of suggestions. I suppose that many doctors have occasionally made suggestions not really hypnotically—I have done myself. It is quite easy to convince a person that he cannot open his eyes if, after a little manipulation, he is told not to. Therefore, it is most important that this power should be controlled and should not be allowed in any music-halls or similar places as a matter of public amusement. Another aspect of this matter which requires attention is that hypnotism should be undertaken only by persons who understand what they are doing, and who are not doing it merely to provide entertainment. It should be done by people who know not only how to hypnotise but how to remove the suggestions made during the hypnotic condition. Recently there was a report in the Press of a man who was told that he would fall asleep when he heard a certain tune. This happened not only at the time but later at work: when he heard the same tune be fell asleep. I think it is partly because the performers have been badly instructed, or are careless in their handling of subjects, that the matter has reached such an acute stage. This Bill is brought forward to remedy that situation. I hope your Lordships will agree with me that this is a good Bill, and that you will give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Haden-Guest.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I address one question to the noble Lord who is to reply on behalf of Her Majesty's Government? This Bill will be applied by the local authorities, and they will have to decide whether permission shall be given for performances of this kind, and, if so, what conditions will be attached to those performances. What I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply is whether the views of local authorities have been ascertained, and, if so, what those views are.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, the views of a good many local authorities have been ascertained, and some of them are in favour of this Bill. In this connection, I may point out that the Bill received a unanimous Second Reading in the other place, and the Members there are fairly closely in touch with local authorities. For my own part, I believe that local authorities are here in a strong position. They can use their powers, and I do not think responsible local authorities will have any difficulty whatever in dealing with this matter. In any event, if they have any difficulty they can always refer to the Home Office, who are themselves anxious that this Bill should go through, to obtain any guidance and help that may be required.
3.28 p.m.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: My Lords, I am anxious to give support to this Bill, because I believe that it is a most desirable measure. I have had considerable experience of watching the use of hypnotism in therapeutics, although I have not taken much active part in it. After the 1914–18 war, when there were so many cases of shell shock, a special centre was opened in Devon for the treatment of those cases, and hypnotism was very largely used in the first instance. But those who were in charge soon became disappointed with the results, because they were not lasting. However, they realised that it was a powerful weapon and that, although it was often disappointing and the results were not lasting, it was fraught with danger, particularly with susceptible patients; and the more often they were hypnotised the more susceptible they became. The physicians became convinced that it was much sounder to educate the conscious mind by autosuggestion than to infiltrate an idea into the subconscious mind. They learned that hypnotism must be used with caution, and that the subjects must be carefully chosen.
When hypnotism is used for public entertainment, I am afraid that as a rule these provisions are not observed. In point of fact, the easier the subject is to hypnotise—and the more liable he is to be damaged by hypnotic performance—the more attractive that subject is to one who wishes to give amusing entertainment, or to carry out an experiment before a public audience—an experiment
1016
which is perhaps extremely undesirable, even if carried out in private, because there are great possibilities of damage to individuals. I therefore hope that your Lordships will give unanimous support to the Second Reading of this Bill and that we shall soon see it on the Statute Book as an Act of Parliament.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, we see no objection to the Bill in its present form. This is not altogether a new form of entertainment, but it has probably become a good deal more common in the recent past. From that point of view, bearing in mind its potential dangers, it seems desirable that the precautionary steps which are laid down in the Bill should be taken for the protection of the public. So far as the twenty-one years clause goes, all the information which we have goes to show that those persons who appear to have suffered as the result of demonstrations of this kind in places of public entertainment are, in fact, persons under twenty-one years of age. That may, of course, be coincidence; but, on the other hand, it may well be that at that age they are of a more suggestible character than they will become later on, and it is no doubt wise to put in the precautionary aspect which is embodied in Clause 3. I am not ignoring the question which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has put to me, but I think the noble Lord in charge of the Bill supplied him immediately with first-hand information on the subject which he raised.
On Question, Bill read 2ª and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Home, who is unavoidably absent to-day on other Parliamentary duties, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

MOTOR VEHICLES (INTER NATIONAL CIRCULATION) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from Commons, agreed to with an Amendment: the said Amendment considered and agreed to.
BRIGHTON CORPORATION (TROL LEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
DERBY CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

FAREHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before four o'clock.