Sitting of 25 February 1953

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

    Manpower (Use)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence if he will consider the establishment of an independent body to review the use of manpower in the Armed Forces, in view of the numerous complaints of wastage at the present time.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch): No, Sir.
    Mr. Swingler: In view of the very serious nature of the Government's National Service proposals in the Defence White Paper, and the numerous complaints about the wastage of manpower that have been made in recent times, is it not high time that a thorough investigation of this character should be held? What have the Service chiefs to conceal?
    Mr. Birch: They have nothing to conceal. There have been at least three investigations in each Department since the war, and in two Services investigations are going on now. We are coming to the time when there will be debates on all three Services, and if the hon. Member has any specific points in mind my right hon. Friends will be very glad if he will raise them.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will the Parliamentary Secretary be good enough to furnish the House with the details of the investigations to which he has just referred? That is new to the House. Will he say why the Service Departments cannot, through the Ministry of Defence, establish permanent machinery to ensure that there is no wastage of manpower?
    Mr. Birch: The fact that there have been certain investigations can hardly be news to the right hon. Gentleman, because some of them took place under his guidance. The question of permanent machinery is rather another question, but it is the first duty of my right hon. Friends to see that manpower is not wasted, and that is what they devote a large part of their energies to ensuring.
    Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman has just informed the House, in reply to a supplementary question, that two investigations are now proceeding. Will he give the House the details?
    Mr. Birch: No, Sir. These are Departmental investigations as to how manpower can be saved. It is not customary to give the House details of Departmental investigations.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Is it not a fact that the establishments divisions of all three Services are constantly reviewing these matters and trying to cut down wherever possible?
    Mr. Birch: Yes, Sir, of course they are, and I think that my colleagues have had considerable success, which will be brought out, in saving manpower.
    Mr. Swingler: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the difference between a Departmental investigation and an independent investigation, and that what is asked for in my Question is whether he will set up an investigation by an independent body of people who have no prejudices within the Service Departments?

    British Merchant Ships, Formosa (Protection)
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence to what extent British naval and air units are patrolling the Straits of Formosa in order to provide protection to British merchant ships on their lawful occasions.
    Mr. Birch: It is not in the public interest to reveal operational information about the extent to which patrols are carried out.
    Mr. Henderson: Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that everything possible is being done to protect British ships that are plying along the coast of Communist

    2055
    China? Only last week another British ship, the "Incharran" was fired upon. Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the statement made by the Chinese Nationalist Prime Minister, a few days ago, at a Press conference, that the Chinese Nationalist authorities intended to do everything possible to stop ships carrying strategic goods to the ports of Communist China? Is it not clear from these events that there will be a repetition of what happened when British lives were lost a few months ago?
    Mr. Birch: The Foreign Secretary stated that British ships, on their lawful occasions, would be protected. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Shinwell: That is all very well, but in the absence of details which, obviously, ought not to be disclosed for security reasons and that we understand—will the Parliamentary Secretary say quite categorically whether protection is being afforded to British vessels in the Straits of Formosa?
    Mr. Birch: I have nothing to add to my answer.
    Mr. Henderson: This is very important. Another British ship was fired upon last week. May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary a straight question —he has the information and the House has not? Is he personally satisfied that everything possible is being done to give physical protection to British ships trading in Chinese coastal waters, and that nothing more could be done, for example, in the way of organising convoys through the Straits of Formosa?
    Mr. Birch: I am satisfied that all appropriate steps are being taken.
    Mr. Shinwell: If we cannot get a satisfactory answer, or any other kind of answer from the hon. Gentleman, could we get some other Member of the Government to give us a more satisfactory reply?
    Mr. Birch: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will try.
    Mr. Shinwell: I shall, to the best of my ability.

    War-time News Films (Release)
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewingasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence if he will arrange for the Service Ministries to release their wartime news films to the British Broadcasting Corporation or other documentary producers so that British films "Victory in the Air" and "Victory on Land" may be produced in order to balance the American production "Victory at Sea."
    Mr. Birch: Yes, Sir. I understand that the War Office and the Air Ministry have already offered the B.B.C. the use of their war-time film material for the production of programmes of the kind my hon. Friend has in mind, and that the B.B.C. has the matter under active consideration.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is my hon. Friend aware that the B.B.C. submitted proposals in 1946 and 1947 with a view to obtaining these films, but that such high prices were charged that the proposition was dropped, and that it will give great satisfaction that a saner view now prevails?
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is there not an excellent war-time film of the Prime Minister meeting Marshal Stalin in Moscow, Yalta and Tehran, and could not the B.B.C. be asked to exhibit the film on television so that we may know there is a precedent for these gentlemen meeting again?
    Mr. Birch: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that up to the B.B.C.

    Textiles (Expenditure)
    Mr. Haleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, in terms of 1950 prices the amounts spent as part of the defence programme on textiles in the financial years 1950–51, 1951–52, and the estimated expenditure for 1952–53 and 1953–54, respectively.
    Mr. Birch: The amounts spent on textiles (including clothing) for the financial years 1950–51 and 1951–52 respectively were £22 million and £47 million. Estimated expenditure in 1952–53 and 1953–54 is £90 million and £51 million respectively.
    Mr. Hale: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that when my right hon. Friend announced the three-year rearmament programme he said that £200 million was budgeted for in respect of

    2057
    expenditure on textiles in the next three years? As the hon. Gentleman's figures show—even allowing for rises in costs— only an expenditure of some £150 million in those three years, is it not clear that the announcement made last year that additional orders were being placed with the textile industry were inaccurate, and that, in point of fact, there has been a reduction of Government expenditure on textiles at the same time as there has been a restriction on textiles on the home market?
    Mr. Birch: The hon. Gentleman is aware that special action was taken during the current financial year in view of the textile troubles, and that at least an extra £20 million were spent which it was not previously intended to spend.

    Pensions and Retired Pay
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence if he will circulate in HANSARD a list of all forms of pensions and retired pay which are the responsibility of the Service Departments, showing in each case by what percentage the rates have been increased since 1945.
    Mr. Birch: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Swingler: Do not these figures show conclusively the absolute justice of the claim of retired officers to an increase in retired pay; and how long do the Government propose callously to disregard the pleas of the very distinguished officers who recently wrote to "The Times "?
    Mr. Birch: That is the subject of a subsequent Question.
    Following is the statement:
    Army ranks are given for convenience. For corresponding ranks and periods of service in the Navy and R.A.F. the position is identical.
    The chief improvement of the 1950 revision of service non-effective awards was the addition of a lump sum terminal grant on retirement or discharge: this improvement is not reflected in the percentage increase in the retired pay or pension, but is shown separately below.
    Except for certain special categories, the rates of disability awards, and of awards to widows and dependants where death is due to service, are identical with those paid by the Ministry of Pensions, and on this matter I would refer to the Written answer given by the Minister of Pensions on 29th January. The following tables give the percentage increases since 1945 in the main forms of retired pay and pension awarded in respect of service.

    INCREASES SINCE 1945
    1. Service Retired Pay of Permanent Regular Officers (full standard rates)

    Rank

    Percentage Increase in Retired Pay

    Terminal Grant (20 years' service)

    per cent.

    £

    Field Marshal ("half pay")

    11·1

    1,000

    General

    13·3

    1,000

    Lieutenant-General

    7·7

    1,000

    Major-General

    9·1

    1,000

    Brigadier

    11·1

    1,000

    Colonel

    6·1

    1,000

    Lieutenant-Colonel

    8·0

    1,000

    Major

    5·3

    1,000

    Captain and below

    6·7

    1,000

    II. Service Retired Pay of Certain ex-ranker Short Service Officers
    In the case of officers who served as regular other ranks before the war and were granted Emergency and later Short Service Commissions, and who are eligible for retired pay under special regulations, the increases are as follows:

    Rank and Service

    Percentage Increase in Retired Pay

    Terminal Grant

    Per cent.

    £

    Lieutenant-Colonel (22 years' service)

    5·5

    1,000

    Lieutenant-Colonel (15 years' service)

    6·0

    750

    Major (22 years' service)

    7·5

    1,000

    Major (15 years' service)

    7·9

    750

    Captain (22 years' service)

    9·1

    1,000

    Captain (15 years' service)

    9·1

    750

    III. Service Pensions of Other Ranks (typical cases)

    Rank and Service

    Percentage Increase in Pension

    Terminal Grant

    per cent.

    £

    Warrant Officer Class 1 (37 years' service)

    21·8

    600

    Warrant Officer Class 1 (22 years' service)

    26·2

    400

    Serjeant (37 years' service)

    13·6

    425

    Serjeant (22 years' service)

    19·5

    200

    Private (37 years' service)

    Nil

    250

    Private (22 years' service)

    Nil

    1100

    IV. Forces' Family Pensions*

    Rank of Husband

    Children

    Percentage Increase in Pensions

    per cent.

    Officer:

    Field Marshal

    —

    66·7

    General

    —

    88·9

    Lieutenant-General

    —

    55·6

    Major-General

    —

    60·0

    Brigadier

    —

    66·7

    Colonel

    —

    76·0

    Lieutenant-Colonel

    —

    60·0

    Major

    —

    53·8

    Captain

    —

    69·2

    Lieutenant

    —

    88·0

    Child Motherless Child

    53·8

    Warrant Officer Class 1

    —

    53·8

    Child Motherless Child

    53·8

    * It is assumed that the widows are without dependants and that their income other than the pension does not exceed £52 a year.

    In addition to the above there are various minor types of award to which special considerations attach—V.C. annuities, wound pensions (given under regulations now obsolete), etc.
    As regards retired pay, etc., payable under pre-war rules it is not possible to express the improvements since 1945 in the form of percentage changes because the re-assessments of awards granted to retired officers re-employed during the 1939–45 war were based on length of re-employed service and rank held, and the additions provided by the Pensions (Increase) Schemes of 1947 and 1952 vary according to the pensioner's age, income and other circumstances.
    Commander Maitlandasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence whether he has examined the representations made by Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope, Viscount Allanbrooke and Viscount Portal of Hungerford, a copy of which has been sent him, on the need to revise the rules governing the retired pay of officers who retired before 1st September, 1950; and, in view of these representations, what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    Mr. Birch: I have seen the representations referred to. As my noble Friend the Minister of Defence, explained recently in a debate in another place, there are serious practical difficulties in
    2060
    giving special treatment to this class of State pensioner. But he promised that their claims would not be forgotten if and when it becomes possible to assist them financially.
    Commander Maitland: Does my hon. Friend realise that there are a few of the older pensioner officers who have not had their rate of pension altered for 34 years, and that though time may be on the side of the Government in this matter it is certainly not on the side of the pensioners?
    Mr. Birch: I am very well aware of that.
    Mr. Wigg: As his right hon. Friend will not listen to the representations of these distinguished officers, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many of his hon. Friends threatened to vote against the Government unless they did something about it?
    Mr. Marlowe: As this matter must finally be decided by the Treasury, will my hon. Friend say what action he is taking to get the money out of the Treasury? Is he pressing them on the matter and drawing their attention to its importance?
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give an undertaking that this rather shabby treatment of this particular class of pensioner will be considered by the Chancellor between now and the Budget? I am not asking for any undertaking, but whether the Chancellor is being asked to consider the matter.
    Mr. Birch: Yes, of course; frequent consultations take place.
    Mr. Shinwell: Why is the hon. Gentleman not as aggressive in his replies as he was when he asked Questions from this side of the House?

  KENYA

    Economic and Social Reforms
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have now been taken by the Kenya Government to introduce the necessary economic and social reforms.
    Sir R. Aclandasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement about any new

    2061
    measures designed to accelerate the improvement of economic conditions for Africans in Kenya and particularly for members of the Kikuyu tribe; and whether it is proposed that Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom should make any financial grant to the cost of any measures which may be proposed for such purpose.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): In the answers given to the hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) on 20th January and to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) on 18th February, I described briefly the action being taken by the Kenya Government in these spheres. That action covers, of course, all parts of Kenya. Her Majesty's Government are already contributing considerable sums through grants under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act.
    Mr. Brockway: As it is now universally recognised that social and economic grievances have fed the Mau Mau movement, and as conditions have become worse because of the confiscation of cattle and the lifting of Kikuyu workers from European farms—
    Mr. Speaker: This seems to be going rather beyond the Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Brockway: —will the right hon. Gentleman urge the Kenya Government to put into operation the proposals he himself mentioned in the House as being under consideration?
    Mr. Lyttelton: Two pamphlets have been issued by the Kenya Government which give a lot of information on this point. I will have them put in the Library, and I hope that from their study the hon. Member will find answers to some of his questions.
    Sir R. Acland: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the C.D. & W. contribution which he mentioned and whether that has been increased by any decision taken since this emergency began? More serious still, have we not to recognise that we cannot deal with this problem in Kenya unless we propose to take steps which will involve costs to the British taxpayers and the white settlers far in excess of the C.D. & W. contributions?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I will not trouble the House with all the figures, but I shall be glad to send them to the hon. Member. Of course, any requirements
    Mr. Hale: My hon. Friend asked whether there had been an increase.
    Mr. Lyttelton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the allocation has already been made and no further applications have been received. The Government will be prepared to consider any further financial grant when the time comes.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, approximately, what is the total of the grants? Did I understand him to say that the Government are ready to make a further grant if an application comes along?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I did not give any such undertaking. I said that we would consider sympathetically any further application. As the right hon. Gentleman presses me, the actual sums are £3,657,000 in Kenya, all allocated to schemes and £2,186,000 actually issued; East Africa Regional, £3,630,000; locusts, £430,000; and Makerere University, £1,250,000, making a total of £5,310,000.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the very grave circumstances to which my hon. Friend has called attention, will not the Government now say that they are prepared to make a further grant?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I have no power to do that, nor has any application for further money been received from the Kenya Government. I can only repeat that when the time comes the Government will be willing to look at any application with sympathy.

    Newspapers, Printing Presses and Schools (Suppression)
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds the printing press of the "Tribune," Nairobi, has been suppressed by the Kenya Government.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The Registrar considered that the "Tribune" press had been printing documents prejudicial to or incompatible with peace or good order in the Colony, namely, objectionable vernacular newspapers, and after consultation with the Member for Law and

    2063
    Order cancelled its licence on 14th January. The "Tribune" newspaper itself is not prescribed and is still published.
    Mr. Brockway: Does not the cancellation of the registration of the printing press mean, in effect, that the "Tribune" cannot be printed and that it has had subsequently to be cyclostyled? Is it not the fact that the police have even visited the cyclostyle owners and that the "Tribune" is not now appearing at all?
    Mr. Lyttelton: That is not in accordance with my information, which is what I have given, that the "Tribune" newspaper is still published.
    Mr. Baldwin: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the "Tribune" was publishing anything more likely to create disorder in Kenya than some of the statements that are printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT of this House?
    Mr. McGovern: Does this newspaper have any connection with the London edition, and is it running any brains trusts? If it is giving any trouble to the right hon. Gentleman, would he consult the executive of the Labour Party on the best way of dealing with it?
    Mr. Hector Hughes: In the interests of peace and good order, will the Minister put on record that it is his opinion that it is very undesirable in Kenya to depart from the higher standards of British journalism?
    Mr. Lyttelton: It is extremely undesirable to allow a vernacular newspaper in Kenya to spread sedition all over the country.
    Mr. Brockway: In view of the Minister's unsatisfactory reply, I wish to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Haleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of newspapers and printing presses suppressed, the number of meetings banned and the number of schools closed down in Kenya, since 1st October, 1952.
    Mr. Lyttelton: Seventeen newspapers. 16 cyclostyled sheets and eight printing presses have been suppressed and 188 schools closed down under emergency regulations. I have asked the Governor
    2064
    for information about the number of meetings banned and will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Hale: In these circumstances, would not the right hon. Gentleman consider it appropriate, in the broadcasts to the Kikuyu, to address a few observations to them on the Atlantic Charter. the Declaration of Human Rights and the Devonshire Declaration that the interests of the Africans would be paramount in Kenya?
    Mr. Lyttelton: Those remarks have no relevance to the subject of the hon. Member's Question.

    Kikuyu (African Broadcasts)
    Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give further details of the broadcast by Africans to the Kikuyu in Kenya; how many Kikuyu are known to have receiving sets; and to what extent sets are provided in reserves or in detention centres.
    Mr. Lyttelton: Broadcasts by African announcers and speakers in vernaculars and Swahili total 28¾ hours a week, including 12 hours in Kikuyu. The Post Office records do not show an analysis by races or tribes of wireless licences issued, but a considerable number of Kikuyu are known to have purchased receiving, sets during the last year. Eight hundred "saucepan" receiving sets have been purchased by Africans during the past six months.
    The African Information Services maintain 225 receiving sets in the Central Province and 64 in Nairobi. Receiving sets are now being installed in reception camps in the Rift Valley Province
    Mr. Teeling: Does my right hon. Friend realise that many people have been wondering exactly what is meant by broadcasting to the Kikuyu? In future, would it be possible for us to study this in more detail, because it can be of immense help in our propaganda about what this country is trying to do for the people of East Africa?
    Mr. Lyttelton: It is being carried out energetically. Twenty-eight and three-quarter hours a week is quite a long time. These sets are used in the open and the broadcasts are beard by a great many people.

    Civil Servants' Holidays
    Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the annual cost to Kenya of the three yearly holiday to the United Kingdom of civil servants; the cost to Kenya of transferring officials to take their place temporarily; and the saving if holidays were annual and for shorter periods.
    Mr. Lyttelton: A precise answer to the first part of the Question is not readily available. As regards the second part, the cost must be negligible since such transfers from outside Kenya are exceptional. There is much to be said for more frequent and shorter leave periods, but I doubt whether they would result in any financial saving.

    Police and Military Forces
    Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the rates of pay for Europeans serving in the Kenya Police Force; how many Europeans born in Kenya are so serving; and what has been the increase of pay since the war.
    Mr. Lyttelton: Since the answer contains a large number of figures, I will with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    Comparative rates of pay are as set out in the following table. Information is not available in London as to the number of the European members of the Kenya Police Force who were born in Kenya. I am asking the Governor for this information, if it is readily available, and will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT later.

    KENYA POLICE FORCE

    Rates of Pay of European Officers

    Rank

    1945

    1953

    £

    £

    Commissioner

    1,350

    1,850

    Deputy Commissioner

    1,000

    1,535

    Assistant Commissioner

    —

    1,395

    *Senior Superintendent

    —

    1,185 to 1,320

    *Superintendent and Assistant Superintendents.

    360 to 920

    550 to 1,140

    *Chief Inspector

    450 to 600

    690 to 900

    *Inspectors and Assistant Inspectors.

    250 to 520

    400 to 840

    * Salaries rising by annual increments.

    A cost of living allowance is at present being paid to all ranks at the rate of 30 per cent. of salary up to a maximum of £300 per annum.
    Mrs. Eirene Whiteasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the respective strengths of the military and police forces now in use to maintain order in Kenya.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The military forces are the 1st Battalion the Lancashire Fusiliers, and Kenya Regiment and five battalions of the Kings African Rifles, the East African Armoured Car Company and the East African Heavy Anti-Aircraft Battery, a total of between 5,000 and 6,000. The police forces number about 12,000.
    Mrs. White: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Reuter's correspondent in Nairobi reported on 20th February that the Chief of the Imperial General Staff was holding discussions on the possibility of using South African troops to replace or reinforce British troops? In view of the possible political implications if that policy were pursued, will he assure the House that South African troops will not be used to reinforce our troops?
    Mr. Lyttelton: That seems to be a very long way from the Question which the hon. Lady asked but, in reply, I can say that I am fully aware of all the political implications involved.

    Mau Mau Activities (Casualties)
    Mr. Haleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give the total casualties in Kenya in terms of Europeans and Africans seriously wounded or killed believed due to Mau Mau activity; of Africans seriously wounded or killed in police or military operations; and of Africans under arrest awaiting trial.
    Mr. Lyttelton: Total casualties in Kenya since the declaration of the Emergency on 20th October, 1952, are 97 Africans, eight Europeans and three Asians murdered, and 44 Africans, seven Europeans and three Asians seriously wounded; 161 Africans have been killed and 101 seriously wounded in operations by the security forces.
    Mr. Hale: In view of the gravity and tragedy of these figures would not the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider trying to substitute for a policy of ruling by fear a policy of winning the confidence of the African people?
    Mr. Lyttelton: We cannot proceed with a policy of winning confidence on any lines except those which are now being pursued, which seek to make law-abiding Africans safe, and this cannot be done by failing to punish those who are engaging in murder.
    Mr. Hale: It has not been done up to now. In November there was a chance of putting an end to this. The position is rapidly becoming more difficult and dangerous.

    Loyal and Disloyal Kikuyu
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what success he has achieved to date in isolating the disloyal from the loyal Kikuyu in Kenya; and his estimate of the numbers of each.
    Mr. Lyttelton: There have been no major developments in this particular respect since my statement on 28th January. As I then informed the House, some 10,000 Kikuyu are enlisted in Home Guards and resistance groups and this, together with the closer policing of the Kikuyu districts, has led to an increase of confidence in the Government.
    No estimate of the numbers of loyal and disloyal Kikuyu can be made. The Governor has recently toured the troubled areas and I am awaiting a further report from him.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister agree that in order to restore peace and confidence in Kenya it is deirable to distinguish between loyal and disloyal Kikuyu and offer the loyal ones as much protection as possible? What protection is afforded to the loyal Kikuyu?
    Mr. Osborne: Talk to Leslie Hale.
    Mr. Lyttelton: We are providing all the protection we can. The hon. and learned Member asked me to make an estimate of the numbers of those who are law-abiding and those who are not. I find that impossible to do.
    Mr. Hughes rose—
    Mr. Hale: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) referred to me by name during this Question in words audible all over the Chamber, Sir. Might I ask the hon. Member what was the imputation behind his remark?
    Mr. Speaker: The two hon. Members must settle that between themselves.
    Mr. Hale: Further to that point of order. The hon. Member for Louth was clearly heard to say, at a time when my hon. Friend was referring to non-law-abiding citizens, "Talk to Leslie Hale." In those circumstances, may I protest at what was a despicable observation? It was peculiarly loathsome and despicable, coming from someone who comes from my own county, whom I have known for many years and who ought to know my character and reputation.
    Mr. Osborne: If I have offended in any way I withdraw what I said. I can assure the hon. Member that what I said was not meant to be taken in the way he has taken it. I meant nothing offensive.
    Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. I was on my feet, Sir, when my hon. Friend raised his point of order. May I now put my question? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman find some means of affording protection to those who are distinguished as loyal Kikuyu?
    Mr. Lyttelton: Under the emergency regulations the whole of the measures taken by troops, police and part-time police are designed to try to give protection to the law-abiding and hunt down those who break the law.

    Africans (Right of Assembly)
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is his intention to restore the right of assembly for Africans in Kenya.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The Kenya Government will restore the right to hold public meetings as soon as this can be done without risk to public safety. On 3rd December, 1952, I told the House that there is no barrier to African members of Legislative Council having interviews with their people, but that in the present situation large public gatherings cannot be permitted. In a recent debate in the Legislature the Kenya Government promised to consider carefully and sympathetically applications by individual members.
    Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware of the Motion upon this subject last week in the Nairobi Assembly? Since all

    2069
    desire to isolate the loyal Kikuyu from the disloyal Kikuyu, does he not think it would be a good thing if the moderate African leaders were to meet in public assembly and were able, in public assembly, to put what we all think is the correct viewpoint about the tragic state of affairs in Kenya?
    Mr. Lyttelton: Such measures can he undertaken only with due regard to public safety. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the ban will be relaxed whenever it is felt that public safety would not be endangered. I am sympathetic with his point of view.

    WEST INDIES

      Overcrowded Prisons, Jamaica
      Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent prisons in Jamaica are now overcrowded; and what steps have been taken to remedy this.
      Mr. Lyttelton: Prisons in Jamaica are still seriously overcrowded. The Government of Jamaica are providing additional room as rapidly as their financial resources permit. That includes the construction of one new prison for long-term prisoners.
      Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the overcrowding is worse now than it was a year ago? Does he appreciate that the overcrowded nature of these prisons itself helps to incite people to crime?
      Mr. Lyttelton: This matter is certainly causing me anxiety, but during the last 10 years several prisons have been built. The Tamarinds Farm Prison is an open prison for first offenders, and is being extended to take another 90 prisoners. I hope to make some impact on this very serious problem before long.

      Federation (London Conference)
      Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the present developments in the proposals for the federation of the West Indies.
      Mr. Lyttelton: It is proposed to hold a conference on West Indian federation
      2070
      in London in April, attended by representatives of Jamaica, Trinidad, the Leeward Islands (excluding the Virgin Islands), the Windward Islands and, I hope, Barbados. Those territories which have not accepted the principle of federation have been invited to send observers.
      Mr. Hughes: As the Minister has strongly and frequently expressed himself in favour of the principle of federation in other parts of the world, why does he not pursue this principle more energetically in regard to the West Indies?
      Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. and learned Member will know that circumstances alter cases.

      Mr. Joshua (Treatment, St. Vincent)
      Sir R. Aclandasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the ill treatment by police in St. Vincent of the hon. Ebenezer Theodore Joshua, Member of the Legislative Council; and whether he has held or will hold an inquiry.
      Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir. I have received a petition from Mr. Joshua alleging that he was ill-treated by the St. Vincent police on his recent arrest on a charge of creating public mischief. Mr. Joshua was convicted on this charge and an appeal is now pending before a higher court. I am not in a position to take any action on his petition until the courts have finally disposed of this case and until I have had a full report from the acting Governor in the light of these proceedings.
      Sir R. Acland: As I understand that this man is something of a No. 1 trouble maker from the Government's point of view, is it not rather important to lean over backwards to see that he gets justice and that any complaint of his is investigated, for the sake of winning the confidence of the people in general?
      Mr. Lyttelton: This case will be investigated with every impartiality.

      EAST AFRICA

        Overseas Food Corporation
        Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for how many years he estimates the Overseas Food Corporation is to be run at a loss;

        2071
        and whether he will now turn over the whole project to the Tanganyika Government or the East African High Commission to operate as a production and research unit, as most suitable to those on the spot.
        Mr. Lyttelton: We must expect a yearly deficit, although, all being well, a decreasing one, until the end of the experimental period in September, 1957.
        As regards the second part of the Question, the possibility of closer association between the Overseas Food Corporation and the Tanganyika Government it at present being considered, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
        Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will my right hon. Friend remember that many people feel that the sooner the onus for winding up this scheme and salving what is possible out of it is put on the authorities in East Africa the better?
        Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, of course, but the question arises of on what terms the East African High Commission and the Tanganyika Government are willing to take it over. At present, it is doing useful work, not in production but in experiments on African farming.
        Mr. J. T. Price: Since the right hon. Gentleman is now considering steps which constitute a certain measure of economic planning in this part of the Commonwealth, does he regard these measures also as merely "baloney "?
        Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member is, as usual, somewhat misinformed on the matter. As far as I know it is no part of economic planning to make an annual loss.

        Trade Unions, Uganda
        Mr. H. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action is being taken in Uganda to assist the formation of trade unions; and how far registration of a trade union is compulsory before the union is allowed to negotiate on the wages and conditions of its members.
        Mr. Lyttelton: Every possible help is given by the Uganda Government to those wishing to form trade unions and the staff of the Labour Department includes an officer with experience of trade
        2072
        unions in this country. Recognition of trade unions for purposes of negotiation is a matter for individual employers, but the law requires trade unions to register if they are to have full legal protection.
        Mr. Hynd: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that this labour officer is sufficient, he being a civil servant? Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider appointing a trade union adviser, as we have in most Colonies, in view of the danger of adventurers setting up unrepresentative and unofficial bodies claiming to be trade unions speaking for the bulk of the workers?
        Mr. Lyttelton: I should like to give as sympathetic an answer as I can. The principle is not so easy to follow in a Colony with a background of agriculture, as this has at present.

        Royal Commission (Membership)
        Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the membership of the Royal Commission to examine land and population problems in East Africa is now complete.
        Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir.
        Mr. Brockway: Will it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to consider adding to this Commission a representative of the Asian community, since there are 60,000 more Asians than Europeans in these three territories?
        Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir. The Commission is now complete. It is not representative of any racial groups or sectional interests whatever. It has been selected entirely as an impartial and expert body.
        Mr. Hale: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many European, African and Asian members there are, and what representatives of the trade union movement and of the co-operative movement are members?
        Mr. Lyftelton: The hon. Member could not have heard my answer. The members of the Commission have been recommended to Her Majesty as experts, and are not representative of any racial or sectional interests.

      WEST AFRICA

        Students, London
        Mr. Alportasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what advice is being tendered to the West African Administrations about provision by them of hostel, club and other facilities for West African students in this country, especially those in London.
        Mr. Lyttelton: I have proposed to the Governments of Nigeria and the Gold Coast that their Commissioners in London should take over some of the work for Nigerian and Gold Coast students, which is at present undertaken by the Colonial Office. The two Governments have, in principle, welcomed the proposals and the financial and staff questions involved are under discussion.
        I have also suggested that the Nigerian and Gold Coast Governments might provide clubs in London, similar to Malaya Hall and East Africa House, for students and others from their territories. This proposal is similarly under examination.
        Mr. Alport: Is my right hon. Friend aware that West African students in London will greatly welcome a development of this sort?

        Rolling Stock, Nigeria
        Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many locomotives have been supplied to Nigeria since 1945; and at what dates they were delivered.
        Mr. Lyttelton: One hundred and thirty-two. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of delivery dates.
        Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that about 400,000 tons of peanuts are lying at Kano after two years of Conservative government, and that if only those could be taken down to the coast our housewives would get more than a quarter of a pound of margarine? Will the right hon. Gentleman expedite the matter?
        Mr. Lyttelton: I am very glad that the hon. Member has raised this question, which has been giving the Ministers in Nigeria and myself considerable anxiety. We had a very difficult heritage in these railways. We have now
        2074
        succeeded in increasing the railings from 23,000 tons in the middle of last year to 42,000 tons a month. That is a striking increase, and if that can be continued we shall work off all the backlog by the autumn.
        Mr. Tilney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there had been spent in improving the transport facilities of Nigeria a fraction of the money that was lost in trying to grow peanuts in East Africa there would he no transport problem?
        Mr. Lyttelton: That is a melancholy fact.
        Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that despite all this tale, with the same harvest there is—
        Mr. Lyttelton: On a point of order. Is the hon. Member entitled to say that my answer is a tale, Sir?
        Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the expression "tale." If the hon. Member used it, I am sure he used it in the sense of a narration.
        Following is the statement:

        NUMBER AND DELIVERY DATES OF LOCOMOTIVES SUPPLIED TO NIGERIAN RAILWAYS SINCE 1945

        Type

        Quantity

        Shipped from United Kingdom

        0–8–0

        11

        March to December, 1946.

        2–8–2

        14

        June and July, 1947.

        0–8–0

        4

        March to May, 1948.

        2–6–2

        22

        0–8–0

        12

        November, 1948, to September, 1949.

        2–8–2

        10

        April, 1949.

        2–8–2

        43

        February, 1949, to June. 1950.

        2–8–2

        9

        March, 1951.

        2–8–2

        7

        September, 1952.

        Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of locomotives in running order upon the Nigerian railway; and the numbers of locomotives in the repair sheds at Lagos (Ebute Metta), Enugu and Kaduna, respectively, for the latest convenient date.
        Mr. Lyttelton: One hundred and twenty on 19th February. The number of locomotives in workshops at Ebute Metta, Enugu and Zaria was 23, seven and one respectively.
        Mr. Johnson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we need many more skilled fitters in these sheds, and that if he does not get the transport system working better than it is the whole of the economic system of Nigeria will be upset?
        Mr. Lyttelton: In reply to the narration of the hon. Member, may I say that we have taken all the measures I can think of and that I should be glad to hear of any others. We have filled several outstanding vacancies at the supervisory level with railway and technical staff; arrangements with British Railways for the training of 11 craftsmen and six fitters every two years have been completed; administrative reorganisation of the maintenance and workshops divisions has been completed; and the order of additional locomotives which should have been placed long ago has now been effected.
        Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many locomotives and railway wagons, ordered by the Nigerian railways, are still undelivered; and when delivery is expected.
        Mr. Lyttelton: Forty-two locomotives and 100 bogie covered goods wagons. Of these, 12 locomotives are due in December, another 15 by the end of January, 1954, and the balance of 15 during the second half of 1954. The order for wagons is due to be completed by the end of this year; delivery will begin about the end of August.
        Mr. Dodds-Parker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are a number of locomotives and railway wagons due to be delivered to Persia which cannot be delivered owing to present difficulties? Would he see whether it is possible to obtain them for Nigeria, if the gauge is suitable?
        Mr. Lyttelton: I have tried in various ways to put my hands on anything which may be available and I will certainly follow up my hon. Friend's suggestion.

        Cost of Living
        Sir R. Aclandasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the recent trend in the cost of living in West Africa; what measures he proposes to prevent future increases; and, in particular, whether he will take steps to
        2076
        ensure that shippers pass on to consumers the benefit of the substantial refunds made to them by West African Conference shipping lines from out of the surcharges paid by shippers to the shipping lines last year.
        Mr. Lyttelton: Complete indices are not available, but the recent trend has been downwards in Nigeria and the Gold Coast and slightly upwards elsewhere. I am asking the West African Governments what measures they propose for controlling future increases and will draw their attention to the suggestion in the last part of the Question.
        Sir R. Acland: Should it not be borne in mind both by us and by the West African Governments that between us, geographically speaking, there is this West African Conference organisation, which is a privately-owned transport monopoly upon which the present Government ought not to look too favourably? Ought not its affairs to be fully investigated, and should it not be broken up or brought under public control?
        Mr. Lyttelton: Those are matters for the Governments out there. I shall draw their attention to the suggestion made by the hon. Baronet.

        Gold Coast and Nigeria (Public Services)
        Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in the appointment of Africans to administrative, technical and educational services in the Gold Coast and Nigeria; the estimated approximate rate of appointment during the next five years; and what special educational and other facilities are now being provided for the training of Africans for this purpose.
        Mr. Lyttelton: The appointment of Africans to the public service in the Gold Coast and Nigeria is limited only by the availability of suitable candidates, but I cannot estimate the flow of suitable candidates during the next five years.
        In 1952 the Gold Coast Government appointed a Standing Committee on Africanisation to review progress and training and the Nigerian Government appointed a similar reviewing body on Nigerianisation—if hon. Members will excuse the word—under the Chairmanship of Sir Sidney Phillipson.
        Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that accountancy is most necessary in the training of Africans for these administrative posts and that there is a great shortage in this country of facilities for Africans who desire to train in accountancy? Could not the right hon. Gentleman do something to acquaint business houses in this country of the desirability of opening up some of these posts to African applicants?
        Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member asked me a Question about the public services.
        Mr. Sorensen: My supplementary question was in relation to that.

        Gold Coast Northern Territories (Development Expenditure)
        Sir Edward Keelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what percentage of the revenue of the Gold Coast was spent on the Northern Territories in 1949 and in 1952.
        Mr. Lyttelton: As no separate accounts of ordinary Government expenditure on the various regions of the Gold Coast are kept, the figures required are not available and could not be produced without a great deal of trouble.
        But separate development accounts kept since 1952 show that development expenditure in the Northern Territories from April to September, 1952, was some 13 per cent. of the whole.
        Sir E. Keeling: Will my right hon. Friend agree that in the past the Northern Territories have not had quite their fair share? Can he say whether the Nkrumah Government are trying to redress the balance?
        Mr. Lyttelton: The figure of 13 per cent. from the development fund must be read against the background that there is no mineral development in the Northern Territories, which have chiefly an agricultural life.

        British Visitors (Entry Fees)
        Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which of the West African Colonies charge British visitors fees for entry; and what steps are being taken to simplify documentation for travellers in the West African Colonies who are British citizens.
        Mr. Lyttelton: I am making inquiries into this matter and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as I can.

      COLONIAL TERRITORIES (DEVELOPMENT)
      Mr, N. Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he will take to ensure that investment in the territories with which his Department is concerned is directed, in accordance with the conclusions of the Commonwealth Economic Conference, towards development projects which will earn dollars or save dollars.
      Mr. Lyttelton: T have specially directed the attention of Colonial Governments to these conclusions of the Conference and I am confident that they will be guided by them in carrying out their development plans. I would remind my hon. Friend that the communiqué recognised the need for some basic improvement in the standard of living as a necessary foundation for further economic development.
      Mr. J. Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear to his hon. Friends and others that such steps have been taken constantly by the Colonial Office since the end of the war and that there is nothing particularly new about it?
      Mr. LytteltonIt is a matter of pace.
      Mr. Alportasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many development corporations sponsored by Colonial Governments at present exist; and how far he has been able to decide whether these agencies are performing a valuable additional means of ensuring the opening-up of resources in individual territories.
      Mr. Lyttelton: I know of 22 bodies of the kind mentioned which have been established by local legislation under various titles. I am circulating a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Many of them are confined to making loans for the promotion of industry or agriculture, but some undertake development projects direct. In general, I consider that these bodies make a useful contribution to developing colonial resources but, naturally, they vary widely in importance and efficacy.
      Mr. Alport: Will my right hon. Friend say whether there is any regular cooperation between these colonial development corporations and the Colonial Development Corporation itself?
      Mr. Lyttelton: Under arrangements which have been agreed with the Colonial Development Corporation, the Corporation seek on every occasion to get local participation in any schemes which they undertake.
      Mr. J. Dugdale: Does not this show that public enterprise plays a very useful part in our economic activities in spite of the views of hon. Members opposite, who would like it to fail?
      Mr. Lyttelton: I think the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is highly tendentious. He will not expect me to follow that electric hare this afternoon.
      Following is the list:
      The 22 bodies referred to are:
      Fiji
      1. Industrial and Agricultural Loans Board.
      2. Fijian Development Fund Board.
      Gold Coast
      3*. Industrial Development Corporation.
      4*. Agricultural Development Corporation.
      5. Agricultural Loans Board.
      Jamaica
      6*. Agricultural Development Corporation
      7*. Industrial Development Corporation.
      Lee wards (Antigua)
      8. Industrial Development Board.
      Federation of Malaya
      9. Rural and Industrial Development Authority.
      Nigeria
      10–12*. Eastern. Northern and Western Regional Production Development Boards.
      13–15. Eastern, Northern and Western Regional Development Boards.
      16. Colony Development Board.
      17*. Lagos Executive Development Board.
      18*. Cameroons Development Corporation.
      Northern Rhodesia
      19. Industrial Loans Board.
      20. Land Bank.
      Sierra Leone
      21. Development of Industries Board.
      Uganda
      22*. Uganda Development Corporation.
      * Undertake development projects direct.

      BRUNEI

        Educational Facilities
        Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that although only 48 per cent. of children of school age are being educated in Brunei, there was an actual reduction in the budget of 1951, compared with 1950, for education; and whether he will consult with the Government of Brunei with a view to increasing the educational facilities.
        Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir; the annually recurrent expenditure in 1951 was some 18,000 dollars greater than in 1950. The non-recurrent expenditure on school buildings and teachers' quarters in 1950 (251,000 dollars compared with 156,000 dollars in 1951) was inflated by a revote of some 175,000 dollars from 1949.
        I am satisfied that the Government of Brunei are increasing their educational facilities as fast as they can provide staff and buildings for them.
        Mr. Rankin: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, may I ask whether he is aware that the report submitted to him shows that the amount of money spent in 1951 on education was less than the amount spent in 1950?
        Mr. Lyttelton: I have already explained to the hon. Member that that is not the real difficulty but only the apparent one, for the reasons that I have given.

        Medical and Nursing Staffs (Recruitment)
        Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many vacancies there are in the medical and nursing staff of the Medical and Health Department in Brunei; what efforts are being made by the Government to recruit this staff; and how the salaries offered by the Government of Brunei compare with those offered by the Government of the Federation of Malaya to doctors and nurses with the same qualifications.
        Mr. LytteltonVacancies exist at present for one medical officer, one dental officer, one Matron, Grade II, one sister tutor, one senior staff nurse, six staff nurses, three trained nurses and five probationer nurses.

        2081
        The medical officer and dental officer vacancies will be filled in March; five trained nurses are due in March; arrangements for recruiting a matron and nursing sister are well advanced and are in hand for recruiting a sister tutor.
        As the answer to the last part of this Question is rather long, I will circulate
        it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
        Mr. Rankin: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how, on the average, the respective salaries compare? Are those In Brunei significantly lower than those paid in Malaya?
        Mr. Lyttelton: They are less.
        Mr. Rankin: Significantly less?
        Mr. Lyttelton: I do not want to give a false impression. The maximum scale for a doctor in the Federation who is married and has children is £2,730, and in Brunei £2,093.
        Following is the answer to the last part of the Question:
        A doctor who is married and has children, and who does not hold recognised higher qualifications receives gross emoluments as follows:

        —

        Federation of Malaya

        Brunei

        £

        s.

        d.

        £

        s.

        d.

        Minimum of scale

        1,733

        4

        0

        1,400

        0

        0

        Maximum of scale

        2,730

        0

        0

        2,093

        0

        0

        A nursing sister with qualifications registrable in the United Kingdom receives the following gross emoluments:

        —

        Federation of Malaya

        Brunei

        £

        s.

        d.

        £

        s.

        d.

        Minimum of scale

        866

        12

        0

        686

        0

        0

        Maximum of scale

        1,085

        0

        0

        840

        0

        0

        In both the Federation of Malaya and in Brunei nursing sisters are provided with free quarters.

        Public Service Expenditure
        Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Government of Brunei has budgeted for an expenditure of 7,000,000 Malayan dollars in 1951 and a surplus of nearly 62,000,000 dollars.
        Mr. Lyttelton: The expenditure represents the amount which, having regard to shortage of labour and supplies of materials, was considered the maximum that could usefully and wisely be spent on the public services, reconstruction and development. The large surplus was mainly, if not entirely, due to the rehabilitation of the oil industry and substantial increase in production, with consequential increase in revenue from taxes and royalties.
        Mr. Rankin: Can I take it from that answer that this was a windfall in 1951 and that the right hon. Gentleman does not expect that this revenue will continue in 1952?
        Mr. Lyttelton: Brunei will be a very rich country from oil royalties and it is not money but labour and staff that is holding back these matters.
        Mr. Rankin: I have here a report for 1951 and it states that the net revenue —
        Mr. Speaker: That is not a question.
        Mr. Rankin: Is the Minister aware that I have here a report for 1951 and that it shows a revenue of 17 million dollars and a surplus of 10 million? In view of the fact that—
        Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is imparting information and founding an argument upon it. That is not the real function of a supplementary question.
        Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that the Minister has admitted that Brunei is a rich country, does he not think that some of those riches ought to be expended in improving the social conditions?
        Mr. Lyttelton: I have already stated that the difficulties are those of labour and staff. The estimated expenditure in 1952 was approximately 18 million dollars and was 11 million dollars more than in 1951.

      SINGAPORE

        Detainees, St. Johns Island
        Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many detainees there are on St. Johns Island, Singapore; and what steps are being taken to release those who are considered reliable and to deport those who cannot be reclaimed.
        Mr. Lyttelton: Thirty-six persons are detained on St. Johns Island and 34 in other centres in Singapore. The total of 70 compares with 211 in March, 1952. Those detained are released as soon as it is considered that they are no longer a danger to public security, and those liable to deportation are deported when opportunities occur.
        Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that some of these detainees have been in prison for over two years and that to detain them for such a long time is contrary to British tradition and is likely to create bitterness among these men and turn them from friends into foes? Will he speed up the trial of those who have not yet been tried?
        Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member should really address that question in private to the Front Bench opposite, because since the present Administration came into office the number has been reduced from 1,205 to 70.
        Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that there are men still in prison who have been there for over two years?

        Fishing Industry (Assistance)
        Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been drawn to the 1951 Report of the Director of Fisheries at Singapore, where a decrease in the number of Malay fishermen and an increase in the number of Chinese are recorded; what steps are being taken by the Government to assist the Malay fishermen; what loans have been made for modern equipment; and what steps have been taken to assist Malay fishermen in the formation of marketing co-operatives.
        Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir, I have seen the Report. The various forms of Government assistance mentioned in the Report are available to established
        2084
        fishermen of any race. I am asking the Governor to supply the details asked for and I will circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
        Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that we are discussing in one of our Standing Committees at the moment a White Fish and Herring Industries Bill which seeks to give assistance to our own fishermen? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider assisting the fishermen of Malaya in the same way as we are contemplating assisting the fishermen in this country?
        Mr. Lyttelton: I hardly think that the analogy is one that I can pursue. The Singapore Government have set up a fund of 250,000 dollars for this purpose.

        MALAYA (RUBBER SMALLHOLDINGS)
        Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the production of rubber from the smallholdings in Malaya dropped in 1952 by 30,000 tons as compared with 1951: and what steps are being taken to encourage the smallholders to cultivate rubber.
        Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir; the fall in production reflects a fall in price. Smallholders are being helped financially and technically to replant with trees giving high yields and to improve the quality of their rubber.
        Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that the large estates have all the necessary machinery and facilities for replanting, and will he see that the smallholders are assisted by a co-operative system in the same way as the larger plantations are?
        Mr, Lyttelton: The hon. Member is surely aware that special arrangements have been made to help the smallholder to replant high yielding rubber trees. That is the most effective way which we know of carrying out the objects which the hon. Member and I have in common.
        Mr. Awbery: Has this fact been made known to the small planters?
        Mr. Lyftelton: It is known to everybody who is in touch with Malayan questions.

      ADEN

        Abyan Cotton Scheme
        Mr. N. Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how much cotton produced by the Abyan scheme in Aden has been sold, and what were the proceeds; and what further financial arrangements are being made to expand this project.
        Mr. Lyttelton: Production during the last four years totalled 17,877 bales of 400 lb. each and all have been sold, the total proceeds being £1,719,618. In addition, seed was sold to the value of £86,500 in 1951 and £54,870 in 1952. The Board has sufficient capital to meet its present requirements.
        Mr, Macpherson: Is this not a good example of a gradual and practical approach to colonial development, and will my right hon. Friend encourage it?

        Troop Movements
        Mr. Alportasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement regarding the movement of troops from Aden into the Protectorate areas and Trucial Oman.
        Mr. Lyttelton: There has been a small force of local levies for the past few years in Trucial Oman, the rulers of which area are in treaty relations with Her Majesty's Government. The force is being increased temporarily by a small detachment of Aden Protectorate levies until recruiting has brought it up to the necessary strength.
        Mr. Alport: Does my hon. Friend's answer mean that the total forces which are to be stationed in Trucial Oman will not be more than has been the case in the past?
        Mr. Lyttelton: Broadly speaking, I think that that is true, but I should not like my answer to be regarded as accurate to a man.

      CENTRAL AFRICA

        Federation (Trade Union Officials)
        Mr. J. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that Mr. John Sichalwe, a trade union
        2086
        official, has recently been refused permission by the Southern Rhodesian Government to enter that country; and, in view of the steps at present being taken to bring into being a Central African Federation, if he will ensure that any such Federation makes provision for African trade union officials in all three territories to be given full facilities to visit members and branches of their organisations situated in the other territories in connection with legitimate trade union business.
        Mr. Lyttelton: I am aware that he was refused entry in June last year. As regards the second part of the Question, the Federal scheme does not propose that the rights of trade union officials should be different in this respect from those of other members of the community.
        Mr. Hynd: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, since this Question was tabled, another official of the African Railway Workers' Union has been refused permission to enter Southern Rhodesia to attend a meeting of the joint industrial council which he has previously been allowed to attend, and that this action of the Southern Rhodesian authoritles is not calculated to encourage enthusiasm among Africans either for federation or co-partnership?
        Mr. Lyttelton: If the hon. Member has another case he must put it on the Order Paper. I can only deal with the case which he has mentioned in his Question.

        Crop Estimates, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland
        Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether present estimates of food and money crops in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland are adequate for 1953.
        Mr. Lyttelton: I am consulting the Governors and will circulate the information required in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

        FIJI (MINERAL DEVELOPMENT)
        Mr. G. Longdenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether steps have been taken to survey the possibilities of mineral development in Fiji and the Western Pacific.
        Mr. Lyttelton: In both Fiji and the British Solomon Islands Protectorate geological surveys are being carried out with assistance under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts and in both territories private prospecting is also taking place. In Fiji, in addition, the existing gold mining companies continue exploratory work for fresh gold-bearing ores.

        CYPRUS (TELEPHONE CHARGES)
        Captain Ryderasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent increased charges have been levied on telephone subscribers in Cyprus by Cable and Wireless, Limited; and how the new rates compare with the former charges.
        Mr. Lyttelton: Increased rates to take effect from the 1st January, 1953, are under discussion in Cyprus and it is not yet possible to say what the outcome will be.
        Captain Ryder: Is it not a fact that many subscribers have refused to renew their agreement with Cable and Wireless, Limited, because the charges are to be doubled in March? On the face of it, does not this seem to be a very stiff increase?
        Mr. Lyttelton: I must ask my hon. and gallant Friend to wait until negotiations are further advanced.

        HONG KONG (POPULATION)
        Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the estimated increase in the population of Hong Kong compared with May, 1952; what developments in the expansion of social services have taken place during the past two years; what progress has been made in trade union organisation; and what further improvement in local government is being considered.
        Mr. Lyttelton: As the answer is very long I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
        Following is the answer:
        The population has remained steady during the last nine months at about 2,250,000.
        A full account of the considerable progress which has been made in the social services field will he found in the Colony's Annual and
        2088
        other Reports. Annual expenditure on education has increased by 54 million during the past two years and 38,000 more pupils have been accommodated in new schools.
        A pilot housing scheme for families with limited incomes has been completed and an expansion of this scheme is now under consideration. Over 34,000 persons have been resettled under the Government squatter clearance scheme. There has been an increase of 150,000 in the membership of Kaifong (Neigh-bourhood) Associations which are active in all aspects of community welfare. Plans for a new maternity hospital with 200 beds have been approved.
        Progress in trade union organisation is hampered by political divisions among the Chinese population, but there are now 300 registered unions compared with 280 at the beginning of 1951.
        Legislative provision will be made for the increase in the number of elected members on the Urban Council from two to four before the next election in May, 1953.

        CORONATION OATH CHANGES
        45. Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the changes that were made in the Coronation oath in 1937, and in view of the further changes that have since been rendered necessary, he will before the Coronation introduce legislation to amend the Coronation Oath Act of 1689.
        The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): As this answer is of some length, it would be convenient if I might with your permission and that of the House read it as a statement at the end of Questions.

        N.A.T.O.-A.N.Z.U.S. CO-ORDINATION
        Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the steps taken to secure co-ordination between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Australian, New Zealand and United States Pact Organisation.
        The Prime Minister: I am not in a position to make any statement on this subject at the present time.
        Mr. Henderson: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but has his attention been drawn to the public statement made only a few days ago by Lord Ismay, stressing the need for

        2089
        co-ordination between these two international organisations and stating that the business of N.A.T.O. could only be done on a global basis? Would he agree that that is a correct statement of the position and may we take it that this suggestion is regarded as a matter of urgency and importance, even though the right hon. Gentleman cannot make a detailed statement today?
        The Prime Minister: I have not yet seen the statement of Lord Ismay but, as read out by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it sounds very good. I like it. These matters are being very carefully considered and I think there would be a very general consensus of opinion in this House on what we should like to happen. Whether it will happen or not, I cannot tell.

      ROYAL NAVY

        Aircraft Production
        Mr. Langford-Holtasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will institute a joint inquiry with the Minister of Supply to investigate delays in the production of Fleet Air Arm aircraft, due to protracted negotiations with the aircraft constructors.
        The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Commander Allan Noble): By agreement between my right hon. Friends the Minister of Supply and the First Lord of the Admiralty, a committee was established a few months ago to look into the organisation for ensuring the timely supply of aircraft to the Royal Navy. This committee will, naturally, take into account such delays as have occurred since the end of the war.
        No aircraft of advanced design is produced without prolonged consultations with the aircraft constructors, but I have no knowledge of any instance in which these discussions were unduly protracted.
        Captain Ryder: Can we be assured that this committee will not add to the delay?
        Commander Noble: Yes, I can certainly give my hon. and gallant Friend that assurance. It is a very high level committee and I am certain that any decision which may be taken will be considered from time to time before it is reported.

        Dockyards (Payment by Results Scheme)
        Mr. Albaasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the official committee set up to inquire into the possibilities of extending payment by results schemes in Her Majesty's dockyards has yet reported.
        The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Wingfield Digby): No, Sir. It has taken rather longer than anticipated to complete the composition of this committee, but it will start its investigations shortly. Its work will necessarily take a considerable time.
        Mr. Albu: Do I understand from that reply that the commitee have not yet started investigations, in spite of the fact that the recommendation of the Select Committee on Estimates, out of which this committee arose, was made in a Report which is now nearly two years old?
        Mr. Digby: It was considered advisable to obtain the services of an outside expert, which has taken a little time. In addition, the investigation will be somewhat wider than that proposed by the Select Committee.

        Joint Production Committees (Recommendations)
        Mr. Albuasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the sub-committee of the Admiralty Industrial Council, which was appointed to consider the recommendations of the Select Committee on Estimates of the Session 1950–51 on joint production committees. has yet reported.
        Mr. Digby: Yes, Sir. The report of the sub-committee has been accepted by the Admiralty Industrial Council and steps are being taken to give effect to its recommendations. The main conclusion fully endorsed the existing constitution and functions of joint production committees as part of the regular Whitley machinery, but recommended that certain features of the procedure needed to be re-emphasised.
        Mr. Albu: Can the Civil Lord say in what way we shall be able to find out how the procedure is to be improved, and what action the Admiralty will take to make these committees a working success?
        Mr. Digby: Every effort will be made to improve the working of these committees, but I could not agree to publication of this report.

CORONATION OATH CHANGES
The Prime Minister: I should now like to make my statement in reply to Question No. 45.
The terms of the Coronation Oath were first prescribed by the Act 1 William and Mary, chapter 6. Since then its terms have been changed at least five times. On one occasion only has the change had legislative sanction, namely the change which was introduced as a result of the Act of Union with Scotland. The Treaty of Union had provided that in Scotland the religion professed by the people of Scotland should be preserved to them and confirmed by every King on his accession, and it was thought proper that similar provision should be made for the protection of the English Church in England. The Coronation Oath was altered and enlarged accordingly.
For the many subsequent changes, large or small, which have been made in the terms of the Oath there was no legislative sanction. They were made at various times, and, in particular, after the Act of Union with Ireland, after the Disestablishment of the Irish Church, and also after the passing of the Statute of Westminster. On the last occasion the question whether the changes that were necessary to meet the new constitutional position could be made without an Act of Parliament was carefully considered. and the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers of the day advised that they could.
am advised by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor that this opinion was clearly correct, and that the changes now proposed, which are, perhaps, less substantial than those made in 1937, but are required to meet the new constitutional position created by the Indian Independence Act, 1947, and other statutes, can also be made without legislative sanction.
Her Majesty's Government propose to follow this long line of precedents. To accept the view that changes in the terms of the Oath which are necessary to reconcile it with a changed constitutional
2092
position cannot be made except with the authority of an Act of Parliament would be to cast doubt upon the validity of the Oath administered to every Sovereign of this country since George I.
If, as I am advised, the Coronation Oath can be lawfully administered in the terms now proposed, no useful purpose would be served by legislation. It must be remembered that at Westminster the Queen will be crowned Queen not only of the United Kingdom, but also of other self-governing countries of the Commonwealth. The form of Oath now proposed has been put to each of these countries and none has raised any objection, or has suggested that it is necessary to pass legislation in its own Parliament or in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it would not be possible in the time now remaining before the Coronation to arrange for legislation to be passed by the Commonwealth countries concerned.
Mr. Attlee: May I say, having had some experience of these difficulties, that I think it is extremely satisfactory that agreement has been obtained throughout the Commonwealth on this Oath, and that we should be well advised to allow this to proceed without legislation?
Mr. E. Fletcher: May 1, with respect. put this to the Prime Minister? While no one would wish to throw doubt on the validity of the Coronation Oaths in the past, in view of the fact that the Coronation Oath is a Parliamentary creation, and is intended as a limitation on the Prerogative, is it not desirable, though it may be inconvenient, that any changes that are proposed this year should have legislative sanction, for which, I am sure, there would be no difficulty in making the appropriate arrangements on a non-controversial basis? It is a matter which affects the rights of Parliament, and not merely the rights of the Executive.
The Prime Minister: I think those important and weighty points have been covered by the answer which I have given to the House.
Mr. Healy: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has considered the speech of an important member of the Irish Government in regard to this matter?
The Prime Minister: is the hon. Gentleman speaking for the Irish Government of Northern Ireland or for the Eire Government, I believe it is—the Government of the Republic?
Mr. Healy: The official name is the Government of Ireland, not the Government of Northern Ireland, which is a very small part of Ireland.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a strong feeling in Scotland about the Oath being taken to a Queen Elizabeth II on the ground of historical inaccuracy? In view of his great claim to historical accuracy himself, will he not do something' to meet this very strong resentment in Scotland?
The Prime Minister: I shall be very glad to hear from the hon. Member if he will put his question in the pillar box.

FLOODS (LOST TOBACCO TOKENS)
The following Written Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. FELL: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement about the replacement of tobacco tokens lost in the recent flood disaster by old-age pensioners.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with that of the House, I will make a statement in reply to Written Question No. 15, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell).
Tobacco tokens cannot normally be replaced when lost because, like money or postage stamps, they are freely exchangeable by the holder without proof of identity. But in the special circumstances of the recent East Coast disasters my right hon. Friend has, in order to avoid hardship to those who have lost their coupons, issued instructions that as an exceptional measure tobacco tokens lost by old-age pensioners in the floods should be replaced on application being made. The following arrangements will apply.
Those who have lost their tokens in this way should apply at the post office where they now cash their pension orders for a copy of the form they completed when making their first application for tobacco tokens. These forms are obtain-
2094
able at any post office. The form should be completed in the usual way and a declaration added on it that the previous book was lost in the floods. The completed form should then be returned to the post office on or before 11th March. It will be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. The new books will be retrospective to 2nd February.
In order that full opportunity should be given to those concerned to avail themselves of this concession, Her Majesty's Government would be grateful for any help that hon. Members for the areas concerned may feel able to give in making these arrangements known to their constituents. Copies of this statement may be obtained from the Vote Office by hon. Members who might find it useful for this purpose. The normal arrangements for publicity are, of course, being made.
Mr. Fell: Does my hon. Friend realise that this statement will give great satisfaction to and be joyfully received by, those old people who have suffered in this way, particularly to those who have not been able to have a smoke for a couple of weeks? Do I gather from my hon. Friend's statement that they will be able to get their books immediately on filling up this form and signing this declaration? Could that point be made quite clear?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: They will get their books as soon after filling up the form as is administratively practicable. There will be a few days' lapse while the machinery operates.
Mr. Shurmer: While sympathising with those who lost their tobacco coupons in the recent floods, may I ask whether this would not apply to old-age pensioners who are unfortunate enough to have their homes, or part of them, destroyed by fire, and whose tobacco coupons are destroyed? That is a disaster. They have to lose their coupons. Could not this arrangement be made for them?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is a quite different question.
Mr. Shurmer: It is not.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This is, of course, one of the provisions the Government are making in view of the special circumstances arising from the disaster on the East Coast.

DEATH OF THE SPEAKER BILL
Sir Edward Keeling (Twickenham): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that in the event of the Speaker's death the Chairman of Ways and Means shall temporarily exercise the authority of the Speaker.
I should like to begin, Mr. Speaker, by saying, although I am sure it is unnecessary, that the whole House earnestly prays that your arduous duties will not shorten your life, but that you will live to retire, when you are weary of those duties, to an old age of leisure. I think the House will agree that it is better to introduce such a Bill at a time when the Speaker is apparently in the best of health and is in the prime of life rather than when he is on a sick bed or in his declining years.
As everybody knows, the death of the Speaker puts the House completely out of action until a new Speaker is elected. Without a Speaker the House is not properly constituted and the powers of the Deputy-Speaker lapse. During the last 300 years no fewer than four Speakers have died in office. The last occasion was ten years ago. As hon. and right hon. Members who were here then will remember, when Mr. Speaker FitzRoy died in March, 1943, the House rose immediately, in the middle of a speech, and did not sit again to do ordinary business for a whole week, in order to give time for consultation and for the formalities of electing a new Speaker.
At the time of Captain FitzRoy's death, no urgent business was before the House and, as far as I have been able to discover, on the death of the Speaker on the three previous occasions no great inconvenience of that sort was caused. It is possible, however, that a Speaker might die at a time when the disruption of business would be very serious—if, for example, he should die at a moment when a Budget Resolution had to be passed at once; or an act of aggression which had just been committed by a foreign country, or some other crisis, international or national, demanded an expression of the views of the House without delay; or when a dissolution or prorogation was im-
2096
minent. I am sure that every hon. Member could think of half a dozen other contingencies in which it would be most unfortunate, to say the least, for the House to be unable to sit.
From the point of view of the House itself, perhaps the strongest argument for keeping the House in existence is this. If the Speaker should die at a moment when it was imperative to sit quickly, the need to elect a new Speaker might cause the choice to be made with undue haste, and the House might then be saddled for years to come with a Speaker it would not have chosen if it had had proper time to consider the matter. This Bill would provide such a breathing space.
The Bill is a very simple one. It gives the Chairman of Ways and Means the authority of the Speaker until the House goes to another place to receive the Queen's direction for the election of a new Speaker. I would point out that the Bill does not require us to sit at once. It merely gives us power to do so. If there was nothing urgent to do, the House would probably not sit again between the death of a Speaker and the election of a new one.
The only objection I have heard to the Bill is that it will give an undue advantage to the Chairman of Ways and Means when the election of a Speaker takes place. But, as "The Times" pointed out last Monday, his fitness for election as Speaker would not be judged on his performance as temporary Speaker during a few days. It would be judged on his performance as Deputy-Speaker, probably for some years. In my view, if a Speaker died at a moment when it was necessary to elect a new Speaker within a few hours, the Chairman of Ways and Means would have a greater advantage under the present law than he would under this Bill.
The Bill is supported by Members on both sides of the House, including six Privy Councillors. I would only add that successive Governments and Oppositions have for many years been conscious of the need for Parliament to sit in an emergency. That is why Parliament now adjourns at the end of July instead of being prorogued. In 1938, at the time of Munich, the House was called together within 24 hours. We have plugged that hole in the power of Parliament to take

2097
prompt action. The death of the Speaker is another gap which we ought to fill. If the House gives leave for this Bill to be introduced, the Queen's consent will be necessary before Second Reading.
Mr. Jack Jones: What provision is there in the Bill in the event of the death of the Speaker bringing about the death of his Deputy on the same day?
Sir E. Keeling: The Bill does not provide for that.
Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I am sure the whole House is very glad to see you looking so well, Mr. Speaker, and I should first like to express the wish of the whole House for your immortality.
The chief objection to this Bill is that it alters the constitutional position of the Chairman of Ways and Means, who from being Deputy-Speaker will become Vice-Speaker. I think the House ought to think twice before giving leave to introduce a Bill which alters the constitutional position of the Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means in such a summary manner.
It is not a situation which is likely to arise very often. We are told it has happened four times in the last 300 years.
I doubt whether there can be a single emergency which cannot just as well be coped with by the Executive in the very few days that need elapse before a new Speaker is elected. There is no reason why as much as a week should elapse. A day or two is all that is needed. If there is a grave national emergency, when the House ought to be called together suddenly on something which the Executive could not do, the House could reassemble on the day after the demise of the Speaker, a new Speaker could be elected, and the Crown's assent given.
I think that this is an amusing, academic and slightly pedantic exercise, and I hope that the House will reject the Motion.
Mr. Speaker: Before I put the Question, I ought to say to the hon. Member who has sought leave to bring in this Bill that it will be necessary for him, if the Bill is proceeded with, to obtain the Queen's Consent before the Second Reading.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12.
The House divided: Ayes, 172; Noes, 149.

Division No. 110.]

AYES

[3.45 p.m.

Albu, A. H.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Alport, C. J. M.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Arbuthnot, John

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

Fell, A.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Awbery, S. S.

Fienburgh, W

Joynson-Hicks, Hon L. W

Barlow, Sir John

Fisher, Nigel

Kinley, J.

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

Bence, C. R.

Follick, M.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Linstead, H. N.

Beswick, F.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Llewellyn, D. T.

Blenkinsop, A

Gammans, L. D.

Longden, Gilbert

Blyton, W. R.

Garner-Evans, E. H

McAdden, S. J.

Bossom, A C.

Godber, J. B

Mclnnes, J.

Bowden, H. W

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Bowles, F. G.

Gooch, E. G.

McLeavy, F.

Braine, B. R

Gower, H. R.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Brockway, A. F.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D R

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

Gridley, Sir Arnold

Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Grimond, J.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Burton, Miss F. E.

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Marlowe, A. A H

Campbell, Sir David

Hale, Leslie

Mayhew, C. P.

Carr, Robert

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Morley, R.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

Hannan, W

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W)

Cole, Norman

Harvey, Air Cdre, A. V. (Macclesfield)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Collick, P. H.

Hay, John

Nally, W.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Hayman, F H

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Crouch, R. F.

Heald, Sir Lionel

O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim. N)

Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

Holman, P.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon W D

Davidson, Viscountess

Holt, A. F.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Oswald, T

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Paget, R. T

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcoln

Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

Pannell, Charles

Driberg, T. E. N.

Hutchison, Lt.-Corn. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

Parker, J

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L

Hyde, Lt.-Col H. M.

Paton, J

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Hylton-Foster, H. B. H

Pearson, A

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Watkinson, H. A

Popplewell, E.

Spearman, A C. M.

Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Speir, R. M.

Wellwood, W

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

West, D. G.

Pryde, D. J.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Wheeldon, W E

Reeves, J.

Steele, T.

White, Mrs. Elrene (E. Flint)

Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Remnant, Hon. P.

Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Wilkins, W. A.

Renton, D. L. M.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Williams, David (Neath)

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Summers, G. S.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Robertson, Sir David

Teeling, W.

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Wood, Hon. R.

Roper, Sir Harold

Thonas Leslie (Canterbury)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Russell, R. S.

Tinley, John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

Usborne, H. C.

Sir Edward Keeling and

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Mr. Younger.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

NOES

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Hare, Hon. J. H.

Osborne, C.

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Hargreaves, A.

Padley, W. E.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Heath, Edward

Peyton, J. W. W.

Balfour, A.

Hobson, C. R

Porter, G.

Banks, Col. C.

Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Bartley, P.

Hope, Lord John

Rankin, John

Blackburn, F.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P

Redmayne, M.

Boardman, H.

Houghton, Douglas

Reid, William (Camlachie)

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Rhodes, H.

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Richards, R.

Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Ross, William

Brooman-White, R. C.

Janner, B.

Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T

Jeger, George (Goole)

Schofield, Lt.-Col W. (Rochdale)

Bullard, D. G.

Jennings, R.

Shepherd, William

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Short, E. W.

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Keenan, W.

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Callaghan, L. J.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Cary, Sir Robert

King, Dr. H. M

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Chetwynd, G. R.

Lambton, Viscount

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Clunie, J.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Lewis, Arthur

Snadden, W. McN.

Cranborne, Viscount

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Studholme, H. G.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

McGovern, J.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Daines, P.

McKibbin, A. J.

Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Deer, G.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

Digby, S. Wingfield

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

Thornton, E.

Drewe, C.

Manuel, A. C.

Thurtle, Ernest

Duthie, W. S.

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Tomney, F.

Edelman, M.

Molson, A. H. E.

Vosper, D. F

Edwards. John (Brighouse)

Monslow, W.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Fernyhough, E.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

Wallace, H. W.

Finch, H. J.

Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

Watkins, T. E.

Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Foot, M. M.

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Fort, R.

Mort, D. L.

Willey, F. T.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Moyle, A.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Murray, J. D.

Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

Gough, C. F. H.

Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

Yates, V. F.

Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Nugent, G. R. H.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Oakshott, H. D.

Sir Richard Acland and

Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

Oldfield, W. H.

Mr. Nicholson.

Hamilton, W. W.

Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)

Hardy, E. A.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Edward Keeling, Mr. Assheton, Mr. Bowen, Mr. Ede, Lieut.-Colonel Elliot, Sir Ian Fraser, Mr. Grenfell, Sir Arnold Gridley, Sir Frank Soskice. Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas, Mr. Walker-Smith and Mr. Younger.

DEATH OF THE. SPEAKER BILL
"to provide that in the event of the Speaker's death the Chairman of Ways and Means shall temporarily exercise the authority of the Speaker," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to he read a Second time upon Friday, 6th March, and to be printed. [Bill 48.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [5TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS FOR THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, 1953–54 (Vote on Account).
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £898,676,000, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the following Civil and Revenue Departments and for the Ministry of Defence for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954, viz.:

  CIVIL ESTIMATES

  CLASS I

  £

  1.

  House of Lords

  39,000

  2.

  House of Commons

  300,000

  3.

  Registration of Electors

  300,000

  4.

  Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  1,100,000

  5.

  Privy Council Office

  10,000

  6.

  Privy Seal Office

  2,500

  7.

  Charity Commission

  27,500

  8.

  Civil Service Commission

  117,500

  9.

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  148,000

  10.

  Government Actuary

  14,000

  11.

  Government Chemist

  82,000

  12.

  Government Hospitality

  35,000

  13.

  The Mint

  10

  14.

  National Debt Office

  10

  15.

  National Savings Committee

  250,000

  16.

  Public Record Office

  31,500

  17.

  Public Works Loan Commission

  10

  18.

  Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

  168,000

  19.

  Royal Commissions, &c.

  64,910

  20.

  Secret Service

  1,700,000

  21.

  Tithe Redemption Commission

  10

  22.

  Silver

  400,000

  23.

  Miscellaneous Expenses

  65,000

  24.

  Coronation of Her Majesty Scotland:—

  690,000

  25.

  Scottish Home Department

  340,000

  26.

  Scottish Record Office

  10,000

  CLASS II

  1.

  Foreign Service

  4,250,000

  2.

  Foreign Office Grants and Services

  10,000,000

  3.

  Foreign Office (German Section)

  736,000

  4.

  British Council

  575,000

  5.

  United Nations

  1,500.00

  6.

  Commonwealth Relations Office

  600

  7.

  Commonwealth Services.

  611,000

  8.

  Overseas Settlement

  66,000

  9.

  Colonial Office

  340,000

  10.

  Colonial Services

  7,000,000

  £

  11.

  Overseas Food Corporation

  500,000

  12.

  Development and Welfare (Colonies, &c.)

  5,000,000

  13.

  Development and Welfare (South African High Commission Territories)

  160,000

  14.

  Imperial War Graves Commission

  585,000

  CLASS III

  1.

  Home Office

  1,045,000

  2.

  Home Office (Civil Defence Services)

  4,500,000

  3.

  Police, England and Wales

  10,580,000

  4.

  Prisons, England and Wales

  2,500.00

  5.

  Child Care, England and Wales

  2,280,000

  6.

  Fire Services, England and Wales

  1,255,000

  7.

  State Management Districts, England and Wales

  10

  8.

  Supreme Court of Judicature, &c.

  500,000

  9.

  County Courts

  100,000

  10.

  Land Registry

  10

  11.

  Public Trustee

  10

  12.

  Law Charges

  162,000

  13.

  Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

  35,000

  Scotland:—

  14.

  Scottish Home Department (Civil Defence Services)

  451,000

  15.

  Police

  55,000

  16.

  Prisons

  230,000

  17.

  Approved Schools

  90,000

  18.

  Fire Services.

  21,000

  19.

  State Management Districts

  10

  20.

  Scottish Land Court

  5,500

  21.

  Law Charges and Courts of Law

  63,000

  22.

  Department of the Registers of Scotland

  10

  Ireland:—

  23.

  Supreme Court of Judicature, &c.. Northern Ireland

  13,500

  24.

  Irish Land Purchase Services

  607,000

  CLASS IV

  1.

  Ministry of Education

  73.000.000

  2.

  British Museum

  160,000

  3.

  British Museum (Natural History)

  90,000

  4.

  Imperial War Museum

  10.5

  5.

  London Museum

  6,500

  6.

  National Gallery

  39,000

  7.

  National Maritime Museum

  10,000

  8.

  National Portrait Gallery

  7,000

  9.

  Wallace Collection

  10,000

  10.

  Grants for Science and the Arts

  485,000

  11.

  Universities and Colleges, &c., Great Britain

  13,000.00

  12.

  Broadcasting

  5,150.00

  Scotland: —

  13.

  Public Education

  10,500.00

  14.

  National Galleries

  12,000

  15.

  National Library

  7,000

  CLASS V

  £

  1.

  Ministry of Housing and Local Government

  3,100,000

  2.

  Housing, England and Wales

  9,000,000

  3.

  Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, England and Wales

  20,610,000

  4.

  Ministry of Health

  1,680,000

  5.

  National Health Service, England and Wales

  126,150,000

  6.

  Medical Research Council

  625,000

  7.

  Registrar General's Office

  168,000

  8.

  Ministry of Labour and National Service

  6,500,000

  9.

  Grants in respect of Employment Schemes

  200,000

  10.

  Ministry of National Insurance

  64,000,000

  11.

  National Assistance Board

  42,750,000

  12.

  Friendly Societies Registry

  22,000

  13.

  Central Land Board

  700,000

  14.

  War Damage Commission

  400,000

  Scotland:—

  15.

  Department of Health

  1,785,000

  16.

  National Health Service

  14,600,000

  17.

  Housing

  4,000,000

  18.

  Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues

  2,067,000

  19.

  Registrar General's Office

  21,000

  CLASS VI

  1.

  Board of Trade

  2,030,000

  2.

  Services in Development Areas

  1,600,000

  3.

  Financial Assistance in Development Areas

  4.

  Export Credits

  5,000,000

  5.

  Export Credits (Special Guarantees)

  500

  6.

  Board of Trade (Strategic Reserves)

  12,000

  7.

  Ministry of Materials

  278,000

  8.

  Ministry of Materials (Trading Services and Assistance to Industry)

  7,674,000

  9.

  Ministry of Materials (Strategic Reserves)

  29,290,000

  10.

  Ministry of Supply

  80,000,000

  11.

  Ministry of Supply (Assistance to Industry, Scrap Recovery, etc.)

  120,000

  12.

  Ministry of Supply (Purchasing (Repayment) Services)

  3,000,000

  13.

  Royal Ordnance Factories

  3,000,000

  14.

  Ministry of Supply (Strategic Reserves)

  25,000

  CLASS VII

  1.

  Ministry of Works

  2,335,000

  2.

  Houses of Parliament Buildings

  160,000

  3.

  Public Buildings, Great Britain

  9,322,000

  4.

  Public Buildings Overseas

  654,000

  5.

  Royal Palaces

  165,000

  6.

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

  239,000

  £

  7.

  Miscellaneous Works Services

  250,000

  8.

  Rates on Government Property

  4,000,000

  9.

  Stationery and Printing

  5,150,000

  10.

  Central Office of Information

  500,000

  11.

  Peterhead Harbour

  16,000

  Ireland:—

  12.

  Works and Buildings in Ireland

  70,000

  CLASS VIII

  1.

  Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries

  9,300,000

  2.

  Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Food Production Services)

  15,800,000

  3.

  White Fish Authority..

  150,000

  4.

  Surveys of Great Britain, etc.

  900,000

  5.

  Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands

  27,000

  6.

  Agricultural Research Council and Nature Conservancy

  400,000

  7.

  Development Fund

  500,000

  8.

  Forestry Commission

  2,350,000

  9.

  Ministry of Food

  80,000,000

  10.

  Ministry of Food (Strategic Reserves)

  8,000,000

  Scotland:—

  11.

  Department of Agriculture

  1,230,000

  12.

  Department of Agriculture (Food Production Services)

  1,800,000

  13.

  Fisheries

  427,000

  14.

  Herring Industry

  128,000

  CLASS IX

  1.

  Ministry of Transport

  860,000

  2.

  Roads, &c.

  12,140,000

  3.

  Mercantile Marine Services

  170,000

  4.

  Ministry of Transport (Shipping and Special Services)

  1,100,000

  5.

  Ministry of Civil Aviation

  4,000,000

  6.

  Ministry of Fuel and Power

  1,200,000

  7.

  Ministry of Fuel and Power (Special Services)

  3,500,000

  8.

  Department of Scientific and Industrial Research

  1,890,000

  CLASS X

  1.

  Merchant Seamen's War Pensions

  78,000

  2.

  Ministry of Pensions

  32,000,000

  3.

  Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, &c.

  440,000

  4.

  Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  3,500,000

  Total for Civil Estimates

  £801,206,000

  Revenue Departments

  £

  1

  Customs and Excise

  3,970,000

  2

  Inland Revenue

  11,000,000

  3

  Post Office

  76,000,000

  Total for Revenue Departments

  £90,970,000

  Ministry of Defence

  £6,500,000

  Total for Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments together with Estimate for the Ministry of Defence

  £898,676,000

DEVELOPMENT AREAS AND DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY
4.2 p.m.
Mr. Alfred Robens: The debate today will, I hope, be fairly wide. We shall wish to discuss the distribution of industry, the position of Development Areas and the employment situation generally. The Minister of Labour has been kind enough to advise me that he is unable to be present this afternoon, at least in the early part of our discussion on this matter, which concerns both him and the President of the Board of Trade, because he is attending a meeting of the National Joint Advisory Council, a very important meeting of employers and members of the trade unions. That is quite acceptable to us, and we thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his courtesy in so advising us.
In May of last year, in a debate upon the unemployment situation generally, I said that, unless vigorous action was taken by the Government, I thought, on the trends as I saw them, that there would be a million people unemployed by the end of the year. No one is more pleased than myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends that that is not the case, and that our unemployment figure—that is, of wholly unemployed is at the moment 452,490, which gives the national average of 2.2 per cent. At the same time it does not behove any of us in this Committee to be complacent, because we must remember that the number in civil employment today is 142,000 fewer than in 1951; and that has a very big effect upon our productive effort.
We are also seeing around us signs— and this is causing anxiety among hon.
2106
Members on both sides of the Committee —of mounting short-time working and redundancy. I think I am right in saying that at the last census, taken in November, more than 100,000 workers a week were working on short time. The position is, in my opinion, worse today; we shall see in a few weeks' time. We must also take into consideration the fact that industrial production is down by 3 per cent. compared with 1951, and that percentage fall in our total production is approximately equivalent to the work of 600,000 people.
Bearing all these facts in mind, we must approach this debate in a searching way. We shall desire to ask a lot of questions, and we are out to seek the Government's views and to learn what is their policy in this and other matters. We shall be critical of their policy which has already been announced in relation to the Development Areas, because when we look at the whole scene we see other very ominous trends.
The unemployment plus the concealed unemployment amounts to a very large figure indeed, and one which none of us can regard with other than grave anxiety. If I may put all these facts first so that we can move on from what are acceptable as facts, I would add another very bad feature. During the whole of 1951 there were always more vacancies than there were people unemployed, so that it was merely a question in that year of transferring people who were out of employment into places where there were known vacanies. That was deseribed as over-employment by a large number of people because we had not got all the workers necessary to fill all the vacancies.
Last year, 1952, showed a great change. The reverse has taken place, and today and during 1952 there are and were more unemployed than vacancies, so that even if all the unemployed could be transferred into places where there are vacancies we should still have a large number of people for whom no work can be found. Indeed, I believe I am correct in saying that there are today twice the number of unemployed to notified vacancies, so that I do not think anyone would disagree when I say that the pattern of employment at the moment is a very dangerous one.
Let us look at the distribution of labour at present. It cannot be a matter

2107
of joy to think and to know that there are 22,000 fewer people working in the basic industries than there were 12 months ago. It is not very pleasing to realise that there are 123,000 fewer people working in the manufacturing industries compared with 12 months ago. And although I am a trade union officer attached to the distributive workers' union, I take no pleasure from the fact that there are 23,000 more people in the distributive trades, because it is the wrong pattern, the wrong line. We want fewer people in distribution and more in the basic industries and in the manufacturing industries. Therefore, the Minister of Labour and his colleagues in the Board of Trade and other Departments have this serious pattern of our employment situation to consider in addition to the problem of unemployment and underemployment.
The Labour Party have always put full employment in the forefront of their policy, and the reason is not far to seek. Unless we have full employment in this country, the whole fabric of our social services and the opportunity of increasing the standard of life of the people of this country fall to the ground. We cannot maintain social services, we cannot possibly look forward to increased standards of living, if a large proportion of our people are unemployed, because we not only have the problem and the task of maintaining the unemployed and their dependants but we are also without the productive effort which they would be putting into industry if they were working. So we lose on two counts when we have large-scale unemployment.
That is the reason our party have always stood for full employment. We have taken the risks that go with full employment. We know great problems arise when there are more vacancies than there are people available, but we would rather face those problems than the terrible problems of social injury and misery, plus the lowering of the standard of living, which are occasioned by large-scale unemployment. Britain's economic survival depends on the fullest use being made of the manpower in this country.
Mr. William Shepherd: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what, in his view, is the percentage of unemployment which conforms with the views he is now expressing?
Mr. Robens: I have said that I would rather face the problem of having more vacancies than unemployed people.
Mr. Shepherd: That is not an answer.
Mr. Robens: I think it is a very good answer. I refuse to sit back complacently while there is one person out of work. I want to see everyone in a job and, therefore, I do not accept any percentage as the right percentage for unemployment.
What did we do in order to bring about full employment? My right hon. Friend the Minister for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), when a member of the Coalition Government, introduced the Distribution of Industry Act, which the Coalition Government sponsored and which came into effect under the Caretaker Government. When we came to power in 1945, we implemented that Act. What was the purpose of it? We had a situation in Britain in which there were very high spots of unemployment, and the purpose of that Act was to reduce those high spots. At the same time, we wanted to diversify industry for strategic and other reasons.
While I do not want to weary the Committee with details, let me say briefly that South Wales and the North-East Coast are two such areas where there were these very high spots of unemployment. No impression was being made on the unemployment situation there. And let me add that it does not matter how much trade there is done in this country by manufacturers, there cannot be full employment; there can be full order books, but unless the factories are in the places where there is the population, then there cannot be full employment.
Miss Irene Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman not add to his history that the Distribution of Industry Act, which was brought into operation during the Coalition Government, was based on the Special Areas (Development and Improvement) Act which was passed during the time of the National Government before the war?
Mr. Robens: If the hon. Lady wants to take credit for all that has been done in the past, I do not object.
Miss Ward: It is making it fair.
Mr. Robens: I thought I was being more objective than perhaps I have ever been at this Box. If I am not, I am obviously a complete failure. I wanted to open this debate in such a way that we could have a sound and sensible discussion on a problem that is common to us all. Therefore, I do not mind if all the credit goes to anyone the hon. Lady wants, but I was giving the facts in favour of my argument.
Miss Ward: I come from the North-East Coast.
Mr. Robens: It was necessary to take the work to the people and it was also necessary to encourage the industrialists by different means, of which the Committee are fully aware, to go to those places. In 1945 the first factory was built under this scheme. The total number of factories built to date is 1,621 and the value of those factories is £103,217,000. Work went on steadily in the first three quarters of 1952 on completing factories which the last Administration had approved. In the first three quarters of 1952, therefore, 156 factories to the value of £18,535,000 were built.
In October and November, 1952, the number of factories dropped very considerably because there were not so many approvals in the first period of the present Administration. In those two months, only 42 factories had been erected with a value of £2,060,000. In July of 1952, we on this side were astounded, astonished and thoroughly disgusted because the President of the Board of Trade, acting presumably on the Government's budgetary policy—I am not blaming him personally for this—had to issue what I think is going to be regarded as the infamous circular on this matter. That circular virtually sounded the death knell of the Distribution of Industry Act, because the right hon. Gentleman said that under Section 3 of the Act no further grants were to be made.
What does that mean? Every local authority associated with one of these areas still desperately wants to attract industries and, if they are to do it, it now means that the burden that was previously borne nationally has to be borne locally. We are placing this burden in the main on the local authorities which are least able to bear it. They are in the areas
2110
which were depressed, areas which none of us want to see again. Those areas were beginning to enjoy a new life and to get on their feet, and just as they were getting on their feet, along comes this circular, which knocks them right back again.
These authorities will have to do all they can to continue to attract industrialists to their areas. It means that the rate burden is going to be very heavy. It is obvious, therefore, that we are reversing the tendency which the previous Administration established of accepting the burdens as national ones where it was right and proper to do so. The present Administration are pushing those burdens back on to the local authorities.
Unemployment has not been cured in those areas yet. The high spots have been rooted out, but when we look at the national average of unemployment of 2.2 per cent. we must remember that in the North-West it is 2.9 per cent., in the Northern region it is 3 per cent., in Scotland it is 3.9 per cent., and in Wales it is 3.6 per cent. Those areas all suffered badly in the pre-war years and they are still suffering today from a high percentage of unemployment. If we look within the regions to particular localities, we see a most amazing and startling trend. In 47 per cent, of the territory in Scotland the unemployment figure is over 9 per cent. and if we narrow that down and go to an area like the Western Isles, it is 36 per cent.
Mr. Anthony Fell: Do those figures apply now or over a period?
Mr. Robens: I am quoting the last figures that have been published. Within these regions, which already show a higher average than the national, we have these pockets which are alarming in the size by which they exceed the national average.
In South Wales, about which I have no doubt many of my hon. Friends will want to say something, there is grievous anxiety over redundancy in the tinplate works. We can quote the Home Secretary's figures. He has recently said that within the next two years 5,000 people will be redundant in that industry. I am told by people on the spot that they believe the figure will be more than 5,000.
If we look at the Merseyside Development Area, we find that unemployment

2111
has doubled in a little more than 12 months. In October, 1951, it was 16,700, while today it is 26,000-odd.
Mr. Percy Collick: No. More than 30,000.
Mr. Robens: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. It is 30,000-odd. The figure has doubled in the last 12 months. More than 4,000 of these people are dock workers who are not registered as unemployed, but they are turning up to work regularly on Merseyside and there is no work for them.
The Minister of Labour indicated to us some time ago that he was producing a temporary release scheme for the docks. If he were here, I think he would agree that the scheme has been a failure. It was to enable a chap in the docking industry who wanted to remain in it to leave the industry for a period and find other employment without losing his right to go back. The scheme has been a failure. Why? Not because the scheme was bad, but because alternative work was not available. I understand that only about 600 or 700 people have been so released. We have an average surplus of dockers each day and each week of about 12,000 throughout the country.
What is the precise policy in regard to Development Areas? Is the right hon. Gentleman, by taking the Development Areas out of the Schedule, winding up the Development Area scheme entirely? Does he feel that the stage has now been reached when there need not necessarily be anything specifically done for those areas? Is that circular the first blow at having no more special areas except in name? We find from our contacts that industrialists are finding it increasingly difficult to get approvals and money from the Government, and that credit restrictions are having a very serious effect, as are the higher interest rates.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade only recently—and I paraphrase what he said—admitted that there were limitations as a result of the capital investment programme and the steel shortage which made it impossible to carry out all sorts of attractive projects in the Development Areas and elsewhere. He himself saw that there were projects that were attractive, but because
2112
of Government policy projects attractive to him could not be put into- operation.
New factories and new machinery are indispensable if we are to meet the intense competition which faces us. A good many of our existing workshops should be closed down as being completely inefficient, having high overheads and no real efficiency in management or in the conditions in which men work. Therefore, we cannot afford not to build factories or to have new machinery.
Anxiety was expressed on this matter by the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. She was very active in the Canterbury by-election and she delivered a speech in which she paid tribute to the level-headed leaders of the trade union movement—she probably was not thinking about me at the time—who knew that everything that they had striven for would go by the board unless Britain could sell her goods abroad.
" England,"
she was reported to have said,
"had just lost a £10 million contract with a Latin-American country to Germany. Although the margin of profit of British manufacture was less than the Germans', the price was too high because of the cost of production."
She concluded:
"We must use every possible piece of labour-saving machinery or we shall lose our markets. The time for the argument that such machinery will cause unemployment has long gone by."
That argument does not arise until we are ready to put up new factories and to put new machinery into the factories.
The statement which I have quoted caused very grave concern to the trade union movement. One of the most eminent trade union officials of one of the biggest trade unions in the world, the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, Mr. Matthews, a most efficient officer who has worked closely with the Ministry of Labour on all these matters, wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary, and said:
"Dear Miss Hornsby-Smith,
I note in the 'Daily Telegraph' of Wednesday, February 4th, a report of your statement at Canterbury which made a reference that England had lost a £10 million contract from a Latin-American country to Germany, because the British price was much higher than that of the Germans, due to the high cost of production in this country.

2113
As I am the Officer responsible for the engineering industries within my Organisation, I am collecting specific instances where we have lost orders due to delay in delivery and high costs. I should, therefore, be very grateful if you could let me have the details of the instance to which you refer."
He was anxious that if there were lost orders he might do something about it. He received this reply:
"Dear Mr. Matthews,
Thank you for your letter of the 4th February. I am afraid I am not at liberty to disclose the details for which you ask."
This is a very serious matter, because the trade union movement is anxious to play its part, and because this statement was made at a by-election where statements of this kind were presumably included in order to attract votes. I have consulted the A.E.U., which is the premier engineering union, and they have made many inquiries but have been unable to trace this specific case. I say to the President of the Board of Trade and to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Health that they should know full well, if they contact the trade union movement on matters of this kind, that there is no body in this country more willing to assist in preventing orders from leaving this country.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me this opportunity to intervene. There was a report, in the "Daily Telegraph" only, of 4th February, of an extract from a general statement which I made during a speech at Canterbury on the evening of 3rd February. I was not speaking from notes and I accept entirely the reporter's version, which I will not repeat, as the right hon. Gentleman has just read it out.
The point I was making at the time was that it was essential that British industry should continue to improve its efficiency and increase its productivity if we were to face the increasing competition from countries such as Germany. I am sure that all responsible people would accept that argument.
On this particular example, however, subsequent inquiries have confirmed that the specific information and example about the £10 million contract which I was given shortly before I spoke, from what I thought to be a thoroughly reliable source and which, indeed, I
2114
accepted in good faith, was inaccurate and ill-founded. I entirely accept that I should not have used this information without first having been able to verify it, as normally I would do. I very much regret that I included a false example in my speech. May I apologise to anyone whom my statement may have offended?
Mr. Charles Pannell: There is one point with which the hon. Lady has not dealt. She could have sent something more than a rather terse reply to the trade union official concerned. We look on this as a mendacious invention on a political party platform.
Miss Hornsby-Smith: I have spent many days doing my utmost to verify the statement.
Mr. Pannell: The hon. Lady has had plenty of opportunity.
Mr. Robens: I am sure the House will gladly and willingly accept the statement made by the hon. Lady. I think we might leave that matter there, except to say that it is an indication that the trade union movement is anxious to help in every way it can. Only this afternoon the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of Labour has been meeting the National Joint Advisory Council and I understand, from reports in the newspapers, that one of the matters to be discussed is the question of double-shift working.
There is no argument about that at all. If we are to put a large amount of capital into new machinery, we cannot afford to work that machinery eight hours a day. It must be worked 16 hours a day if we are to get under the competition and get the best use out of the capital that we are investing. But think now of the reaction of the workers. When there is full employment—or what some people want to term over-full employment—the workers feel secure and they are ready to turn to new methods, do double-shift work, try new machinery, and so on. When there is an atmosphere created which seems to indicate that unemployment is round the corner, and they see evidence of that on every hand, that is the time when they say, "We will talk about double-shift working some other time when employment is much more secure."
The Government, therefore, are making it more difficult even for themselves

2115
with the policy they are pursuing of not taking sufficient steps to prevent what is happening now—rising unemployment, concealed unemployment, under-employment, short time and the like. It is easy to exaggerate the anxiety and fear, but even the hon. Member for Kemptown (Mr. H. Johnson), only the other day at Question time in this House, drew the attention of the Minister to the fact that unemployment in Brighton was six times higher than the national average. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not true."] It may not have been true, but nevertheless the hon. Gentleman was so anxious about unemployment in Brighton that he felt strongly enough about it to come here, put a Question to the Minister and make that statement.
There is another strange thing which I mention only to prove the point that there is anxiety in places where one would least expect it. A telegram reached me yesterday. From where? Torquay. It said:
"Torbay now a distressed area. Unemployment figures Torquay 1,300, Paignton 480, Brixham 225. Immediate action essential to obtain light industries. Have informed Charles Williams."
[An HON. MEMBER: "Where is he? "] Brighton and Torquay are places with which no one normally associates unemployment or a great deal of poverty. Nevertheless there is an indication that they are getting anxious.
I now come to the serious situation in the Midlands. The Midlands area has always been prosperous and redundancy was unheard of there until recently. In fact, young people who left school 15 years ago have never known what redundancy was and have always been sure that there was a job round the corner because there were always more jobs than workers. Today, however, in the cycle industry in Birmingham there are 2,000 workers on short time. Every Monday in the cycle industry benches are deserted except for the foremen and maintenance people. There has been a substantial increase of wholly unemployed from about 12,000 to nearly 16,000 from December to January.
When we look at the vacancies in the Midlands area, what do we find? We find that vacancies are mainly for skilled people and that there are few jobs available for the unskilled and semi-skilled
2116
except where special physical qualities are required for particularly arduous work, night work and so on. In the motor industry there are 8,500 on short time, losing a day or half a day, and over the five Midland counties unemployment has doubled in a year, while the vacancies have halved.
I do not say for a moment that the overall situation there is serious. Of course it is not. In fact, their average is only 1.3 per cent. as compared with 2.2 per cent. The serious fact, of which the Committee should not lose sight, is that in an area which for 15 years has been prosperous, where redundancy was almost unheard of, today that ugly word is being heard and short time is being worked.
Does not this upward trend in unemployment and under-employment suggest that there is something wrong with the economic policy of the Government? Does it mean that there is something wrong with the target given to O.E.E.C. of a £350 million balance of payments surplus for the United Kingdom? How are we to achieve that? How are our exports to be financed to build up that surplus and keep full employment? Unless we finance exports and make credit freely available to other countries, they will get into deficit and, if they do so, they themselves will have to cut down their imports which are our exports.
So I ask the right hon. Gentleman what the Government have to say about that. Will he tell us why there are 29,000 fewer people in engineering today than there were 12 months ago? We are told time and time again—and I believe it to be true—that future exports depend upon our engineering industry. Yet we have 29,000 fewer people in engineering today than 12 months ago. Is this due to the complete muddle into which the Government have got themselves in regard to defence? Is this a transitional period in the switch-over in the defence programme? If it is, how long will it last? When are we likely to see an improvement? What plans have the Government to meet this alarming and dangerous situation? What, for example, is to happen about building licences? Are we going to clear them out of the way and will that mean that we are to return to a situation in

2117
which factories can be built anywhere without regard to the national interest?
I ask those questions because I want now, on behalf of all my colleagues on this side of the Committee, as well, I believe, as the vast number of working population outside the House of Commons, to express myself strongly on this matter now, before it is too late.
Full employment is essential on two grounds: economic and social. The first economic need of man in society is a job. He must have an opportunity to work and earn an income. Work is more than a means of securing a pay packet or of increasing production. It is an honourable participation in the life of the community. No provision of doles can compensate for the lack of a job. To withhold from anyone the opportunity to work is one of the greatest possible failures in the economic organisation of society. Therefore, jobs for all is not just an expedient aim to avoid a wastage of human resources. It is the minimum condition for decent social living. That is why we on this side not only believe in full employment, but, when a Government, ensured it
4.40 p.m.
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I welcome the opportunity this debate offers for a general discussion on distribution of industry, on Development Area policy and on the impact of those policies upon full employment. If I might be allowed so to put it to the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), I will continue in the spirit with which he introduced the debate, in a speech which covered a wide field and which dealt forcibly and fully with the points we shall have to consider in the course of this discussion.
There are many facets of domestic policy about which great party differences exist. But on the question of development policy and the distribution of industry there are, I believe, no fundamental party differences. If there are differences—and there are some on all sides—they are not confined to one party or another, and they are concerned with how best we can raise the level of employment, and what is the best way of helping these particular areas of the country which are most in need of our assistance.
2118
As the right hon. Gentleman said—and I agree with him on this—both parties certainly share parenthood for these particular policies. The aim was set out in the Coalition White Paper on Employment Policy in 1944. I think it is worth re-quoting. It read:
"By so influencing the location of new enterprises as to diversify the industrial composition of areas which are particularly vulnerable to unemployment."
The Bill was very largely prepared and was, in fact, introduced by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) in a Coalition Government in which the party opposite played a large and honourable part, and it was made into an Act by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for the Colonies when he occupied my office in the Caretaker Government.
The fact that we share this Act does not mean that we cannot review it or should not look at its policy, and it certainly does not mean that we should not examine its administration at any particular time—because that is the object of the House of Commons and of this debate—or that we should not learn from experience. I hope it does not mean that we should not debate some of the new and rival theories that are developing and being discussed as to how development area policy should be pursued in the future. What it means is that this has been a national effort to try to cure what is a national problem. and I do not think it has been any the worse for that.
I want to put the subject of this debate into perspective. The distribution of industry is not a substitute for the expansion of industry. The real hope for employment does not lie in scheduling areas. It depends upon our ability to put our economy as a trading nation on a sound basis, on our competitiveness, on our will to work long and hard, and on enterprise and adventure. It depends, as the right hon. Gentleman very properly said, on the willingness—and there is willingness—of those in the trade unions and in the ranks of management to do all they can to bring costs and prices down and to put up production.
Those are the fundamentals of full employment in any country at any time. Nor, of course, is the Development Area policy and the distribution of industry the

2119
only means at the disposal of Government. The right hon. Gentleman himself referred to many others: fiscal policy, monetary techniques, commercial policy abroad, Government purchases—as there were in the textile industry during the recession last year. They are all various and different methods whereby Government, sometimes on a large scale, sometimes on a small, may influence the level of employment.
A large part of this debate will, by its nature be concerned with the Development Areas, with, as it were, the receptacles to be filled. But, in the course of our discussions, do not let us forget the important point about filling any receptacles, that is, to keep the tap running. I will turn to what we can and cannot do in this particular sphere of policy. There is one thing we cannot do. We cannot direct an industry to a particular area or site. We can refuse to give it an Industrial Development Certificate, but that does not mean that it will necessarily go to a Development Area or necessarily start anywhere. It may decide not to go forward at all.
I am very glad that that restriction is placed on this and all Governments. When one thinks of the number of factors which must influence an industry or a business in deciding where it ought to go and the choice of site, it is obvious that it has got to think of the nearness to its raw materials or its market, its transport arrangements, the availability of men and women to work, the special skills upon which it may be dependent—a whole mass of factors too complex and too varied, and, anyway, arising in too many cases, to be submitted to the judgment of any particular Government at any time.
If we want men and women to stake their own money in adventures of this sort, then we must pay some regard to their own judgment as to where those risks should be taken. For that reason all Governments have agreed to content themselves with a negative policy so far as the granting of Industrial Development Certificates is concerned. What we do through that negative control and other inducements, which I shall mention in a moment, is not to direct, but to seek to steer industry into those localities where, for a variety of reasons, it would seem to
2120
be most socially desirable to do so. I would say here that that is a task in which industry itself has most worthily cooperated.
I have spoken of what we cannot do, because I think that is important, but want now to say a word or two on what we can do. We can schedule certain areas as Development Areas under the Act, and such areas do have certain advantages. In the first place, they are spotlighted as areas which clearly should have a good share in any advantages which may be going at a particular time. Secondly, the Government have power to buy land and erect factories there. The Government also have power to make certain grants and loans.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Section 3 circular. It is perfectly true that in the economic circumstances we did issue a circular restricting the grants under Section 3. We look at them very carefully and are prepared to consider examined on their merits.
I would ask the Committee to note the factors which determine whether we schedule an area or not. They are set out in the Act itself. The terms are;
Mr. George Chetwynd: That was before the circular.
Mr. Thorneycroft: More has been spent, and we are still spending at a high rate. I do not ignore the economic situation, but any propositions put forward are examined on their merits.
I would ask the Committee to note the factors which determine whether we schedule an area or not. They are set out in the Act itself. The terms are:
"Where at any time it appears to the Board that the distribution of industry is such that in any area … there is likely to be a special danger of unemployment …"
Since the Act was put on the Statute Book, there has always been constant pressure on every President of the Board of Trade to extend the areas and the number of areas. If every President of the Board of Trade gave way to that pressure indiscriminately, it would be the end of this policy which we have so far pursued.
I will quote one other view supporting this, and I think it may carry some weight with hon. Members opposite. It is the

2121
view expressed by Sir Stafford Cripps on the subject. He said:
"The House will appreciate that it would be idle to try and extend the Development Areas over the whole country, as it would mean cutting down the value of the service which can be given to particular areas, if we made it too wide in its cover."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1946; Vol. 420, c. 1574.]
I think that was absolutely true when it was said and that it is absolutely true today.
Later tonight the Parliamentary Secretary will be asking the House to approve an Order relating to North-East Lancashire. That Order is restricted to Burnley, Nelson, Colne, Padiham and Barnolds-wick areas. It may be that some hon. Members in this debate may very properly take the opportunity of urging the claims of their own areas for scheduling. I believe that any boundary is bound to be imperfect, but I have taken great trouble to listen to the views of local authorities in Lancashire and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee representing Lancashire constituencies.
I have considered very fully the claims they have put forward for their areas. I am, however, satisfied that I am unable to extend that area without raising claims from many other places, inside and outside Lancashire, for comparable treatment. This area was chosen because it had experienced very severe unemployment. It was abnormally dependent on a single section of a single industry. It was particularly liable to suffer severe unemployment during recessions and, importantly I think, it was peculiarly remote.
I would add that there must be flexibility in these policies and that our policy of giving help and assistance is not really limited to Development Areas. Help can and has been given to many areas outside Development Areas, areas which are too small to schedule, areas of relatively high unemployment. They may vary from time to time. With the general good sense of the House. we have never provided a list of them. Otherwise, there would be pressure from all sides and every area would want to be included in the list.
Mr. James McInnes: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean, by assisting outside Development
2122
Areas, that factories have been provided on precisely the same basis as those within the Development Areas?
Mr. Thorneycroft: No, I am about to say what happens. In our attempt to steer industries to areas where it would be socially desirable, we are not necessarily limited to Development Areas. To give an example, Portsmouth has suffered since the end of the last war with a hard core of unemployment of 3,000 to 4,000 people. This has been a matter of concern to the right hon. Member for Blyth, just as it is to all of us, and we have made every effort to steer new industries there. Some important schemes have been approved already, and several are in prospect which should materially improve the employment position there in the next few years. I mention that merely as an example to show that we are not necessarily tied down and must not be quite inflexible in our attitude about Development Areas. Help can be and is given in the placing of Government contracts. Only recently, I announced some easing in the tests applied before building licences are issued in those areas where unemployment is likely to be peculiarly difficult.
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: We are all interested in many areas. Would the right hon. Gentleman give some indication apart from the willingness of firms themselves to go into those areas—of the trade incentives which are offered by the Government? For example, what did it cost the Government in any form to induce these industries to go into these areas?
Mr. Thorneycroft: I am going to deal rather fully with the general question of how far we should give direct Government assistance inside and outside the areas and, if I may, I will leave the answer to that question until I come to that part of my speech.
The most I would claim for these various devices about which I have been talking is that they have played a part in helping to preserve employment in the Development Areas. If one looks at the figures of unemployment they appear to bear that out. In the recession which has taken place over the last year, the Development Area employment situation on the whole has stood up to the difficulties rather better than outside areas

2123
For example, in July, 1951, the Development Areas accounted for nearly 45 per cent. of the total unemployment—not 45 per cent. unemployed, but 45 per cent. of the total unemployment. In 1953 the figure was 30 per cent., which is an indication that these areas which, the Committee will remember, were peculiarly vulnerable, have to some extent been strengthened to stand up to the difficulties which beset us. Details of employment figures will be dealt with rather more fully by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, who will wind up the debate.
The right hon. Member for Blyth said that there had been a time when many knowledgeable people had anticipated a worse slide than in fact took place. I am not taking him to task for mentioning the figure of one million. I read his statement, which was couched in cautious terms. As he said, no one could be more glad than he and his hon. Friends were that that figure was not reached. My Tight hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour had a better guess, but he is the Minister of Labour and should have had a better guess. He said,,on 10th November, 1952:
"I shall be both disappointed and surprised if by the end of this year the figure reaches 500.000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 617.]
Of course, it has not reached that figure. The total today is 2.2 per cent., the same as in May, 1952. and rather more than in midsummer, 1951.
Within that picture, which is twice as good as some people expected, there are parts which must cause all of us concern. There are the Development Areas as a whole, which have 3.7 per cent. unemployment, which is a good indication that one should not relax one's efforts to do what one can to help. I am not going round them area by area, but I want to mention two examples. I will not take Torbay or Brighton, but I will say a word about Scotland, where unemployment is 3.9 per cent. I know that Scottish Members are aware both of the needs and the very considerable difficulties in the Development areas there.
Let us take the Highland Development Area, which was designed to be the focal centre for employment for the whole of the Highlands, a vast area almost entirely
2124
dependent on forestry, agriculture and fishing. The total number of unemployed in the Highland Development Area is 900 men and women. It is particularly difficult to attract industry to that area. I will not mention names, but I can assure hon. Members that there was one firm which we tried to get into that area. They wanted to come, and we would have built a factory for them could we have succeeded in getting people there. But there was no one spot in that area where 200 people could be got together to work in the factory. That is the kind of difficulty we are up against in an area of that kind.
We are continuing to do our best about it. We are looking a little further afield and trying a new approach in the Buckie-Peterhead area. That is a rural area where one or two small units of employment may do a great deal of good. We have asked the Development Commission, in co-operation with Scottish Industrial Estates, to see if they can attract industry. I would make a special appeal to Scottish industry in this matter. We will do what we can, and 1 am not ruling out the bringing up of branches of industry from England. But in some areas where small branches would do a great deal of good we ask for the maximum co-operation from industries actually located in Scotland. We wish to give the maximum publicity to the interests of areas such as this. As for the Scottish Development Area as a whole I shall, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Scottish Council, go on seeking to bring industry to it.
Mr. A. Woodburn: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that at present a good deal of unemployment is prevented by the development of the Hydro-Electric Board, and that when that development finishes there may be a large number of people who will fill up the unemployed lists?
Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly bear that in mind. I was about to mention that one of the attractions to which we draw the attention of industry is the hydro-electric power and those natural resources which are being developed in the Scottish areas.
I do not think we should ignore the efforts made by all Governments in those

2125
areas. Apart from the West Cumberland Area, the proportion of Government building to all factory building is higher in Scotland than anywhere else, and amounts to 58 per cent. A further large new Government factory was begun last year, despite restrictions on building. The total of new Government factory buildings and extensions approved for Scotland to date in the present financial year is £1.6 million, which compares very favourably with what was done previously.
If we are to encourage at one end we should try to remove restrictions at the other. In 1949 the previous Government imposed a restriction on new industrial development in Dundee, for reasons which were, no doubt, perfectly good at that time. But I believe some further diversification would help in that area, and I propose to remove the ban.
I want now to turn to another area, very different, but equally difficult, that of Merseyside. It is concentrated, very largely dependent on a great port, and therefore also very largely dependent upon the ebb and flow of world trade, which brings in factors far wider than Development Area policy. Merseyside suffered from particularly heavy unemployment between the wars. The figure ran to something like 28 per cent., and, as the right hon. Gentleman and Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said, when scheduling the area:
"The process is likely to be a hard and a slow one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March, 1949: Vol. 463, c. 1351.]
Considerable development has taken place since the war. Some 35,000 men and women are employed in premises which are new since 1939. Since the war 4 million square feet were completed. Incidentally, since 1st October, 1951, over 1 million square feet have been started, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this is not being neglected. It would appear—I offer these figures with some sense of caution, because I think forecasts of new jobs are always uncertain—on the estimated run of employment that there will be something like 6.000 to 7,000 new jobs in 1953. That does not cure the problem, but it is a contribution.
Mrs. E. M. Braddock: Can the Minister say how
2126
many applications have been received in the Merseyside Development Area, how many inquiries for new factories?
Mr. Thorneycroft: I cannot answer the hon. Lady without obtaining the figures, but I will see that she receives them in the course of the debate.
I have spoken about what can be done and what is being done with reference to particular areas. I should like to consider for a moment the position of the country as a whole. I have tried not to give too many figures, but I want to give a few at this point. From 1st January, 1945, to 30th September, 1951, 4,700 new factories were completed, representing 100 million square feet. At the end of that period 1,450 factories and extensions, representing 45 million square feet, were under construction. That is the contribution made by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite during their period of office.
By the end of 1952, 6.000 factories and extensions had been completed of an area of 140 million square feet, and 1,100 projects of 50 million square feet are at present under construction. I am most anxious not to over-state what is happening. I am always very suspicious of statistics, which I find are available in large numbers, and which can prove almost anything. But what the figures show to me is that the rate of completions speeded up between October, 1951, and December, 1952, and that at the end of that period a larger area was under construction than at the beginning. I do not want to over-paint the picture, but I think those figures provide an absolute answer to anyone who says we have brought factory building to a standstill. We are building them faster, and at the moment there is a larger area under construction than when we started.
Those figures were for the country as a whole. How do the Development Areas benefit from it? Of the 6,000 factories built since the war, 1,600 were in Development Areas. If we take the matter by area and value, the Development Areas, which contain about one-sixth of the insured population, have had about 40 per cent. of the building. I think the Committee will agree that, with the difficulties which confronted those areas, they deserved some assistance of that character New jobs have been provided since

2127
the war in the Development Areas to the tune of something like 300,000.
I wish to say a word about the future policy, an issue in this debate to which I hope hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will direct some of their remarks. I should like to hear from them whether they think the general policy for Development Areas, pursued by this Government and by the previous Government, is on the right lines. The view has been expressed in some quarters that this policy should be dropped and that an alternative policy should be put in its place. It has been said that the Government should concentrate not on scheduled areas where there is unemployment but in any place throughout the country where in their view development could usefully be encouraged.
Professor Cairncross, in an interesting and illuminating Report, summed up the essence of this line of thought in the conclusions of his Report to the Scottish Council. He said:
"The Government should have power to contribute the whole or part of the cost of the erection of factories in any part of the country where conditions warrant this step."
It is clear to those who have studied the Report that Professor Cairncross was prepared to assist industrial growth in promising locations ahead even of the need to reduce unemployment in other areas.
I do not say that there are not powerful arguments that can be adduced for a policy of that kind, but we must face the fact that if it were adopted it would entail not only the repeal of the essential Sections of the Act under which this and previous Governments have been operating, but a reversal of the basic policy which has been pursued. Hon. Gentlemen can develop the argument for it if they wish: I am merely trying to put the position clearly before the Committee. We cannot pursue a policy which has scheduled areas and given special advantages, and at the same time expect the Government to extend help everywhere. Those two are mutually contradictory. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have been considering this Report. I hope that hon. Members on both sides will give us the benefit of any views they wish to
2128
express upon it, for this is indeed no party issue whatever.
For my own part, I would say that as at present advised I do not believe that the time has yet come for some fundamental change in development area policy. I see much force in continuing to pursue it on the lines so far followed and attempting to go on getting the results which I hope that I, and to some extent the right hon. Gentleman opposite, have managed to persuade the Committee have been achieved since the war.
I have sought to present a fair and balanced account. I have certainly not sought to disguise my anxiety and the anxiety of the Government at some of the problems which confront us in certain areas. There is no disguising the fact that the impetus towards industrial building is not as high today as it was in the post-war boom conditions. The trend can be seen in the applications for industrial development certificates They have fallen in the last 15 months. I am giving all the facts to the Committee. Hon. Members must judge. They have fallen to £75 million from £113 million in the corresponding period. The value of the building licences has averaged £8,200,000 a month compared with £8,900,000.
Let us face all these facts squarely. Let us try to see the whole picture, not just the part which happens to suit our argument. All Governments tread a narrow path between two abysses. If they fall down either of them they will find disaster at the bottom. On the one hand, is the precipice of inflation, an investment boom in factory building and a first-class balance of payments crisis. There is no doubt that the nation was falling down that precipice 15 months ago. We caught the nation by the coattails just in time. Let no one be under any illusion as to what happens if we follow that line. At the end of it there is mass unemployment, because we cease to be competitive and can no longer hold our place as a first-class trading nation.
It is equally true to say that there is a precipice upon the other side, a precipice of savage deflation, of neglected re-equipment and of men and women denied the opportunity of useful work. We are equally determined to avoid that. Only those who have walked this path know just how narrow and how slippery it is

2129
and how the wind and the weather, which are not within the control of any Government whatever their persuasion, buffets one in the process.
We have regained that path. We intend to stay on it and, while continuing to administer our distribution and development policy with full sympathy for the needs of these areas, we shall not forget the wider need of building a sound and enduring economy.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. Ernest Thornton: I ask the Committee for the indulgence which is so generously shown to hon. Members undertaking the ordeal of speaking in this Chamber for the first time. It would be remiss of me if I failed to make reference to my distinguished predecessor, the late George Tomlinson. He was respected and loved by hon. Members on both sides of the House. His simplicity, humanity, sincerity and delicious humour endeared him to people in all walks of life. To strike a personal note, I would say that there is one thing which I can claim in common with George Tomlinson. It is that, like him, I was pitchforked into the weaving sheds of Lancashire at an all too tender age, with a six o'clock start, a 10-hour day and a 55-hour working week.
My parents and grandparents were Lancashire weavers before me. I have a family experience of over 100 years of practical work in the Lancashire cotton textile industry. What I have to say is not based on an academic interest but on practical experience of the trials and tribulations of an industry which has known prosperity and the depth of depression. In Lancashire last year we had a serious slump. It was the first slump in the 100-year period to which I have referred which was not attributable to losses of export trade. It was mainly attributable to the failure of the home market.
In the slump of 1921 exports fell by 1,700 million yards. In the slump of 1930 exports fell by 1,300 million yards. I experienced both those slumps. But in the slump of last year exports fell by only 150 million yards which, compared with the average of the two previous slumps, represented approximately one-tenth of the fall in volume. The figures I have quoted referred only to cotton cloths, but if allowance is made for the contraction
2130
in the size of the industry in the last 30 years and for the increase in the production of rayon and synthetic cloths, the figures still provide without any question the point I wish to make, which is that it was the failure of the home market and not the loss of export trade which was responsible for the slump last year.
The slump went deeper and wider than informed opinion expected. I know that we have had a number of people, experts and others, who attempted to be wise after the event, but informed opinion did not expect it to go so deep or to be so wide. If I may be pardoned for saying this in a maiden speech, in my opinion the financial and economic policy of the Government was partly responsible for that slump going so deep and being so wide. Cotton textiles in times of contracted purchasing power are marginal purchases, and a further tightening of the screw could retard recovery in Lancashire and precipitate another recession, if not another slump. I believe the Government are entitled to take credit for the benefits which they think have emerged from the policies they have pursued, but they cannot escape responsibility for other consequential results of those policies which they have undertaken.
If we had another slump or recession, then I believe that the plans of the Government under the Distribution of Industry Act will only touch the fringe of the problem in the County Palatine. The slump last year destroyed the operatives' confidence in the future of our industry. Fear and apprehension are apparent now throughout the cotton textile industry. There is a deep and uneasy feeling in Lancashire today that the Government have written off the cotton textile industry as an important part of the national economy. All too many people are adopting that viewpoint, in my judgment, and today it is of vital importance that the Government should, not only by declaration but also by action, remove this very dangerous attitude of mind.
The most serious single aspect of what happened in Lancashire last year was the steep fall in juvenile recruitment to our industry. In the post-war years, juvenile recruitment had been painfully built up, and last year, in consequence of the slump, we reached a position in which juvenile recruitment was approximately halved. That is a very disturbing factor,

2131
so far as the future and the long-term interests of the industry are concerned. Recovery in the textile industry, which unquestionably has taken place, is less in cotton than in any other textile industry.
Some of my friends who are connected with the University of Manchester have been undertaking researches on unemployment in Lancashire, with particular reference to the cotton textile industry, and they have revealed that the chances of redundant textile operatives getting other jobs are less in Lancashire than in other textile areas. Another point that emerges from their studies is that, in the North-Western area, the ratio of notified vacancies to the number of wholly unemployed continued to decline even between May, 1952, which was at the depth of the slump, and November, 1952, when recovery was well under way. The figures, which I have not time to quote, are illuminating, because they indicate that in Lancashire, not withstanding the major industry's partial recovery, jobs were harder to secure. That is a most disturbing fact.
Given the right policies and the right decisions by industry and by the Government, I am not pessimistic myself as to the future of the cotton textile industry. The pattern of our trade has been reversed in the last 30 years. As compared with 75 per cent. for export and 25 per cent. for home trade, the position is now reversed, and, roughly, 75 per cent. of production is for home use and only 25 per cent, for exports. Therefore, the present size and structure of our cotton textile industry fits fairly well into the pattern of industry as a whole. There are reasons to believe that the trend of the last 40 years, which has been a downward trend, in world trade in textiles, might level off, and might for a short period, even take a slight upward movement.
There are one or two topical points with which I should like to deal. The first one refers to the question of raw cotton. A steady supply of raw cotton at stable prices is fundamental to the policy of full employment in the cotton textile industry, and I should like to ask the Government if every avenue has been explored to see if it is possible to establish an international cotton agreement along the lines of the International Wheat
2132
Agreement. The cotton textile trade unions put this proposition to the Minister early last year. What has been done for wheat we feel could be done for cotton, if there is the will, but I am not unmindful of the very great difficulties. I realise that this calls for international agreement, but my information is that American opinion at the present time is not unsympathetic to such a project.
The present position in regard to the methods of buying raw cotton for Lancashire is most alarming. May I most respectfully strike a warning that, unless the position is handled with the greatest care, there will be a danger of mills stopping in 1954 because they are without raw cotton? This never happened when the Raw Cotton Commission had full control, even in the period when raw cotton in the world was desperately short, or even in the more acute stages of the dollar crisis.
In June of this year, spinners of American types of cotton have to decide whether they will contract out or continue with the Raw Cotton Commission for the rest of the 12 months, and it is expected that spinners will contract out to the extent of 60 per cent. of cotton purchases but—and this is the important consideration—only on the condition that the Raw Cotton Commission is expected to continue to provide cover against the financial risks involved.
Is it reasonable to expect that the Commission, when it is responsible for purchasing only a minor portion of cotton imports, should carry the risk of the whole? I feel quite sure that public opinion will not stand for public funds carrying the risks while private enterprise takes the profits. I have not time, without trespassing unduly on the generosity of the Committee, to develop this argument further, but, in my opinion, it was a mistake to interfere so fundamentally, as was done last year, with the Raw Cotton Commission, which had served the industry so well. If Her Majesty's Government had concentrated, as the trade unions recommended at that time, on improving the operational efficiency of the Raw Cotton Commission the present potentially dangerous conditions could have been averted.
The President of the Board of Trade, in the course of his speech, to which I listened with great interest, referred to

2133
the necessity for keeping costs and prices down and increasing production. I quite agree, but I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to one aspect of conditions in Lancashire which is worrying a number of us; I refer to the Yarn Spinners' Association price maintenance scheme. The right hon. Gentleman should look at the scheme so that he may allay public anxiety about the matter. I do not approach this in any carpingly critical sense.
On balance. I do not object to the scheme. We had experience during the inter-war period of unrestricted cut-throat competition and all that it means, and, probably, in the last 12 months the scheme has given some semblance of stability when stability was needed. But there is need to allay doubts on two points in particular, first, that the consumer is getting a fair deal, and, secondly, that the operatives' participation in higher productivity, whether by re-deployment or double shift working, is not negatived by some price control system which prevents the savings and the cost reduction being passed on to the consumer and thereby enlarging the potential market.
I repeat that I am not approaching the matter in a critical mood. I merely ask that the right hon. Gentleman should look into this in order to allay public anxiety, and if there be anything wrong, then let it be corrected. I could make similar comments about the finishers' fixed price scheme. These matters are important if operatives' wholehearted co-operation in reducing the cost of production, lowering prices and expanding the market is to be obtained.
I also want to refer to the need for standard cloths and bulk contracts. Our merchanting system and the sectionalisation of the industry are against it. I wish to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade upon at least standing up to the sectional interests which seem to be evading their responsibility in co-operating in the establishment through the British Standards Institution of standard cloths for the industry. I also want to call attention to the fact that at the present time Japan is considering schemes of buffer stocks of standard cloths for exports.
The labour force in our industry is about 50,000 less than it was during the
2134
peak year, 1951, and that is, perhaps, just about right. If the right decisions are taken and the right policies are pursued by both the Government and the industry, whether it be through the distribution of industry or the scheduling of Development Areas, I believe we have opportunities for creating in Lancashire a stability which has not been known for a long time.
The time is short and the opportunities may be missed. I hope that the Government will at least do what they can to help create stability for an area which has suffered throughout the 100 years to which I have referred and for people who, with their forebears, have probably done more than any others during the last 150 years in building up Britain's commercial greatness.
I thank the Committee for having listened so generously and patiently to my first speech in this Chamber.
5.35 p.m.
Sir David Robertson: I am very glad indeed to have the privilege of following the successor to George Tomlinson, the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton). On behalf of the Committee, I thank the hon. Member for the very just tribute which he paid to that very great and well-beloved man.
My mind goes back 13 to 14 years almost to the day when I endured the ordeal of making a maiden speech in the House. The hon. Member has acquitted himself very well. He has spoken, with a pleasant Lancashire voice, of the trade that he has been in since his boyhood. The House of Commons always enjoys listening to an hon. Member who knows what he is talking about, and it is apparent that the hon. Member knows this very great British industry extremely well. I would add that the British people, whether they are in the House of Commons or outside it, have a very great affection for Lancashire and its people, whether they are musicians, weavers, footballers, or anything else.
When I made my maiden speech, the late George Tomlinson also spoke in the debate. I can almost recall the whole theme of his speech. It was one of the most outstanding speeches that I ever heard from a back bencher in the House of Commons. That speech and a few

2135
others soon brought him to the Ministerial rank which he adorned so well for so long.
The debate is an important one. I remember the birth of this very fine Act. I should be sorry to see it tampered with in any way, because it seems to me to meet the difficulties which developed through unemployment between the two wars. It is a fine machine which was conceived and introduced during the lifetime of the Coalition Government, although I know it became operative a little later on. When I hear of other schemes, such as the Buckie-Peterhead Scheme, I wonder if they are necessary. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade invited hon. Members to make observations on the point, and I propose to do so immediately. I have looked again at the Act, and it seems to me to put all the power into the hands of the Government of the day to take whatever steps may be necessary to cure unemployment in places where it becomes constant and notorious.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), who opened the debate so ably, referred to the drop in the number in employment and to the drop in productivity. I wonder what the right hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member expects. We have had a period of great industrial prosperity, of full employment, since 1939, and in the postwar period we had to repair the ravages of the war and to meet the hunger of all nations for capital and consumer goods of all kinds. There was a tremendous demand. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there were more vacancies than there were people available. That position had to come to an end some time. There is nothing that any Government can do to maintain a war-time demand and an immediate post-war demand. One can study history or anything else, but it stands to reason that an abnormal demand for goods, built up during a period of six years of war, must eventually come to an end. That was the situation that we ran into.
I do not say that steps cannot be taken to help to increase productivity, but I remind hon. Members opposite—I say this from a long experience of industry— that manufacturers can only make goods against orders. They cannot make goods
2136
on speculation. If productivity is falling, it is not because there is no will to make the goods but because there are no orders. That is true of any industry. The manufacturer who begins to make goods for stock is on the short route to Carey Street.
My sole purpose today is to speak about the Highlands. I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend referred to this matter early in his speech, because the intention of the Act was, as the right hon. Member for Blyth said, to bring work to the people. When we talk of the Highlands, we are talking of one-half of Scotland—not just an area like Cumberland, but one-half of a country, stretching from Kintyre to Shetland.
We have been the greatest depressed area for a very long period, perhaps a century and a half. One hundred and fifty years ago, the Highlands carried one-third of the people of Scotland. Now, they carry less than one-twentieth, and this is not good enough. About 19 out of every 20 children who attend school in my constituency have no chance of remaining at home. If a farmer has six children, only one, of course, can inherit the farm, and there cannot be sufficiently rapid expansion of land to embrace the other five.
History records that no country, and no large area of any country, can ever hold its population on a purely agricultural economy. The placid, kindly, tolerant Englishmen have been much better at staying at home than Scotsmen. The English have worked out their salvation in a most remarkable manner. From Cumberland down to Plymouth, from Southampton up to York, and from Dover to Blyth, can be seen together the twins —agriculture and industry.
The Highland area, which is capable of a massive agricultural development— and Britain may well need it—will never fulfil its destiny in that regard unless there are alternative industries to take up some of the younger people. There have been many hundreds of instances when farmers and their wives and families have uprooted themselves and gone overseas because the parents were unwilling to see their children go into exile. We have had too much of that. While the world have been good to us and has welcomed us wherever we have gone, and in return Scotsmen and Scotswomen

2137
have made a valuable contribution to the well-being of many countries overseas, I demand the right for the people who are born in the Highland area that if they want to stay at home in reasonable comfort and security they should be able to do so.
I do not demand a Black Country. My right hon. Friend almost indicated that the Board of Trade regard the Highland area as a place where someone could at once put up a large industry employing many people. That could not be done today, but it could be done at one time when King Gustavus Adolphus was waging the Swedish wars in the 18th century. The de-populated county of Sutherland, which now has a population less than that of an average English village, gave 6,000 picked fighting men for the Swedish wars; and when the 93rd Highland Regiment was raised at Syre in 1805—its prowess in the British Army became legendary—1,400 picked men were selected in six days. I wonder where we could find even 14 men today.
Mr. H. Hynd: Is not the hon. Member drawing a rather incomplete picture? Surely, he is trying to get the Committee to believe that it is a question of industry coming in to supplement agriculture. Is it not rather that we might to a large extent restore Scottish agriculture to something like what it was before the hon. Member's political friends ruined it to make deer forests?
Sir D. Robertson: I am sorry that the hon. Member made that partisan interjection. The debate has been constructive, on both sides of the Committee, and I am following the same line. If the hon. Member wants to throw stones and gives me notice of it, I shall be ready to throw them back, but what I have to say is too important for me to accept his diversion as more than a joke.
The Highland Development Area was created in 1949 by the right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn), with the best of intentions and with the approval of the House. I always doubted whether the scheme was correct. I expressed my views during the debate at the time, and I indicated that what has, in fact, come about would happen. No one is more sorry about it than I. I wonder whether the Board of Trade have really put their backs into the
2138
scheme. I am sorry to say that I doubt it. It may be that they began full of hope, although one hears that the Board of Trade never wanted a Highland Development Area. That makes me wonder whether they really tried to make it succeed.
The area stretches from the Highland capital of Inverness up to Cromarty, including 36 Highland parishes. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in answer to a Question a few days ago, told me that only three very small firms had entered the area. They went there, I believe, of their own volition, and I doubt whether the Board of Trade did anything to bring them there. Even if I am wrong, the Department did nothing more. The firms built their own buildings, or adapted existing buildings, but there are only three very small firms, and this is making a joke of the whole thing. We want 300 firms there, and in an area of that size we are entitled to have them. It is with my knowledge that when industrialists who were prepared to go anywhere approached the Board of Trade, they were not told of the Highland area. They were told of Lancashire and of Northern Ireland, and I do not find fault with that, but they were told nothing about the Highlands.
I recall making a journey to Canada and the United States in April, 1951, during the Parliamentary Recess, plus a few extra days. I wanted to talk to Americans and Canadians about coming to lend us a hand by opening branch plants. The news of my mission leaked out and a reporter took a statement from me on the boat. few days later—I was not seeking this, but it just happened this way—a report appeared in American and Canadian newspapers that the head official of the Board of Trade in Scotland had called a Press conference to say that Scotland did not want any more industries from the United States or from Canada and that no more factory space was available. When I went as the guest of the Scottish Council in New York, I was shown the Press report and was asked what I was trying to do.
Mr. A. C. Manuel: The hon. Member has dealt with a very important point. He has just told the Committee that during that visit, as I understand it, a high official of the Board of Trade called a Press conference and

2139
stated quite categorically that no further industry was needed in Scotland. The hon. Member ought to go a little further. We ought to stop this thing conclusively. We ought to pin-point it and find where the blame lies. I do not care where it is. We know that there are areas in Scotland which still need employment facilities. The hon. Member ought to tell us where that conference was held and who said these things.
Sir D. Robertson: The people who should have stopped it were the Government of the day. I drew their attention to it. I had to do so, and I had an explanation, which was not quite convincing. I am stating the facts because they have a bearing upon this appalling failure to use the machinery which the House of Commons gave to the Government of the day to deal with unemployment and depopulation in the Highlands.
Mr. Manuel: But who said these things?
Sir D. Robertson: The name of the official does not matter. This conference took place in Glasgow. I should not like to start a heresy hunt. The official concerned has retired, and it may be that he said these things for reasons unconnected with what I was told was the case.
If the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) wants examples, I can tell him of another incident. Friends of mine, who wanted to open a new factory, went to the Board of Trade, who sent them to Lancashire and Northern Ireland. I appeared on the scene and asked, "Why do you not go to the Highlands?" It was only then, and at the request of the head of the firm, that anything at all was said about the Highlands. I feel that I am justified in giving illustrations to prove what I am saying—that the will required is not there.
It may be that it is thought it would be a waste of time for these firms to go to the Highlands. That is not so. The legend that Highlanders are only good for the Army, the Air Force and the Navy or as ghillies on the hills and rivers will not do. The belief that the Highland area is only good for wild life will not do either. Those days are past for ever. The people there no longer tolerate that idea. They demand relief
2140
from the economic compulsion which drives them to leave their homes. It is very hard for those born in the Highlands to be forced away to live in places where they spend their days looking at bricks and mortar. They are used to having the hills and the sea around them. It was the fate of my father's generation to be driven from home. That is the lot of the ordinary people there and Britain can no longer afford it.
Britain must begin using the Highlands. The area is going to be important as a beef producer. I am going up to my constituency in a few days' time with a gentleman who is prepared to reclaim 20,000 acres of moorland, not for grouse, but for breeding the kind of beef cattle my hon. Friend for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) admires and tells us about.
Mr. Boothby: I should be very sorry to see the grouse entirely disappear from Scotland. If they went we would be very much poorer. There is a lot of nonsense talked about the grouse. It is an admirable bird and a very lucrative one.
Sir D. Robertson: That is a characteristic interruption on the part of my hon. Friend. I did not refer to grouse specifically, but merely included them in my allusion to wild life. We have so much heather and so much grouse potential that all that we are likely to lose in my hon. Friend's life and mine will not matter very much.
But so much for the past. Let us look to the future. I should like to say to my right hon. Friend that we should tackle the situation with imagination and vigour and if we have lost heart in the past, regain it. Every year there is a limited number of children born who have creative ability. Some of those turn out to be creative industrialists and commercial men. They can be found in this country, and I am certain we could get a little team together to reinforce the Board of Trade. They should be men experienced in industry, men who know what it is to take a chance, men not reared in our magnificent Civil Service but fellows who have taken risks and have been proved successful. I believe that if we could do that we should do a great deal to overcome the menace of unemployment both nationally and in the Highlands.

2141
We have commodities which are lying unused. In 1952 we imported 11 million bricks from Belgium into Glasgow. They cost £13 10s. a ton. They were brought to Grangemouth over the North Sea and sent in trucks to Glasgow. Yet in my own constituency we have the finest clay in Scotland lying idle and unused. That situation, fortunately, is coming to an end. A company will be formed very shortly and Scotland and England will have the opportunity of putting up the money. That is a private enterprise job.
But it is not the money or the Government that can save industry. It is the people themselves. There is a whole host of things which can be done in the Highland counties. We were self-supporting once and we can become self-supporting now. We send cattle and sheep away on the hoof to people in much less need of work and wages than ourselves. We have nobody more to blame than ourselves. We could keep these industries at home.
If these Highland parishes were originally intended to be regarded as black country when the scheme to help the Highlands was brought in, let us now abandon that idea and do what I asked should be done in the debate four years ago and in Questions a few days ago. Let us take two towns in each county from the five mainland counties, and one each from Orkney and Shetland and schedule them as small Development Areas. Profits can be made in the area. I have some knowledge of it. I have taken up many difficult propositions and helped many lame ducks—I will not say anything about horticulture. It is easier to start an industry of one's own conception on a site of one's own choosing than to rehabilitate an industry which has been a failure.
All these things to help the Highlands can be done. We have the machine at our hand to do it. I hope that now that he is becoming gradually restored to health my right hon. Friend will be seized of the necessity. He will find my colleagues and myself and everyone in my area anxious and willing to help him.
5.59 p.m.
Mr. George Chetwynd: I cannot be expected to follow the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) into Scottish history, but I am sure that he has impressed the Committee with the
2142
sincerity and faith with which he has spoken. I hope that success will reward his efforts for the area which he represents. I wish to make a brief speech because I know that many of my hon. Friends who represent Development Areas wish to take part in this debate. I think it would be wise if the President of the Board of Trade could get as wide a picture as possible of what is taking place in different Development Areas.
What I wish to say about the North-Eastern Development Area should encourage him to persevere in his efforts to carry on with the distribution of industry policy so energetically carried out by his predecessor. The general picture of the North-Eastern Development Area was wonderfully well described in the booklet produced by the North-Eastern Trading Estates Company, "Industrial Estates." I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would wish to pay a tribute to the people who brought out that booklet. It is going to sell the North-East far more than any speeches of ours can do, and it is a remarkable record of achievement.
It describes how over 44,000 people are employed in factories built and managed by the North-Eastern Trading Estates Company, and we have a picture of a successful area at work. There has been excellent progress in finding additional employment and in bringing about a greater diversity of industry in that area. I am sure we owe a great debt to all those concerned for their co-operation—Government Departments, private industrialists, local authorities and so on —which has led to the success in that region.
There has been the most energetic application of the Distribution of Industry Act to the North-East. However, I do not want the President of the Board of Trade to get the idea that he can start playing around with the Northern-Eastern Development Area and de-schedule it. It would be a great tragedy if he were to think along those lines, because there are some significant trends to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) referred, which should urge us to have no complacency about this question, but to remember that for our continued success we must be vigilant the whole time.

2143
It is a significant fact that of all the unemployed people in the country, 46 per cent, of the men and 40 per cent. of the women are in the Development Areas. I believe the latest figures of the right hon. Gentleman showed some improvement, but for a long time those figures represented the position. Almost half of the unemployed people reside in one-seventh of the area of the country. That is significant. But even more significant is that of those unemployed the bulk have been unemployed for a period of six months or over.
We have, therefore, a hard core of unemployed men and women in the Development Areas and little has been done to reduce it in the past five years. At a time when we need every pair of hands that we can get, it is a continued tragedy that there should be this pool of unemployment in the Development Areas. We have made no real impression on that hard core so far. The signs are that it may become more and more difficult to deal with as time goes on and as alternative employment in other industries becomes more and more difficult.
We have no excuse for complacency. In my view, and in the view of the authorities in the North-East—the industrialists and others—the time is not yet ripe for any de-scheduling of this Development Area. The worst thing that could happen at this stage to a Development Area would be for it to be deprived of the advantages of the Distribution of Industry Act by virtue of the fact that it has been successful so far. We have been successful in the North-East, but there is still a long way, to go, and I am sure the President of the Board of Trade will attach due significance to the opinions of the authorities in the North-East.
I wish to come to the main point at issue with regard to the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945. That is the effect of the Government Circular 54/52. There is deep concern among all authorities on Tees-side that no grants under Section 3 of the Distribution of Industry Act are to be given in future
"where authorities have not entered into contracts or commitments on the strength of undertakings by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government that grants would be made in respect of approved expenditure."
2144
The real culprit here is not the President of the Board of Trade but the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I am surprised that no representative of that Department is present on the Government Front Bench to deal with these points.
Under this Section of the Act, which was designed to improve the basic amenities and services of the Development Areas, so far only about £527,000 has been spent in the North-East. There is a reason for that. In the first few years we were so anxious and willing to get the factories there that that was the first priority. The factories are now there; they are well established and ready to expand, and we are in a position to go ahead with improving the basic services to feed those factories; but we now find that as from July last year there is this cutting off of help under Section 3 of the Act.
The President of the Board of Trade said that specific cases could still be considered; I hope he will consider the position of the Tees Valley Water Board, with which I am primarily concerned at the moment, which is trying to meet the huge demand for water created by the great industrial developments in this area. This work is now placed in jeopardy by the Government's economy drive, and in my view it is a false economy to insist upon this cut, as I hope the following facts will show.
In this area of Tees-side we now have new capital development and investment at a low estimate of over £50 million. There are the great new chemical works of I.C.I. at Wilton, the huge development at Billingham and the large and costly extension to Dorman Long's iron and steel works. Three trading estates and numerous other large factories are all making a tremendous contribution to our economic survival. Chemicals and steel are the linch pins of our economy today, and great activity is taking place in a small area where at the present time we have these thriving industries.
But our very success has brought in its train large problems and the fact that we are increasing production of chemicals and steel means that these expanding industries now need twice as much water as they did previously. It is significant that on Tees-side the water supplies are used in the proportion of two-thirds for

2145
industry and one-third for domestic purposes. That is the reverse of the picture in other parts of the country where domestic purposes take two-thirds and industry takes one-third.
To meet the anticipated demands of industry before 1960, the Water Board have in hand development proposals estimated to cost in the region of £7½ million. That is purely to deal with the increases planned and expected for our industry before 1960. It leaves no margin of safety for further advances after 1960. We have received notice that about £1 million of this expenditure already ranks for grant under Section 3.
Negotiations are in progress with the large industrial users to cover the proportion that is due to their demands, and we reckon that some £1¾ million will be left uncovered either by grant or by industry to fall as a charge upon the local authorities. No grant will be made to the Board for this sum of £1¾ million, and the financial liability will fall upon the consumers, other than the large industrial users. That means that it will fall upon the ratepayers, and it is a substantial burden to be borne.
The Water Board has made it clear, without wishing to create any scares, that they are placed in the position of having to adopt one of the two following alternatives: first, they could proceed with the whole scheme of developing new reservoirs and so on in the upper reaches of Teesdale, which will cost something like £6½ million, and face the full adverse financial position which will arise. If they did that without grant, it would impose a penal rate upon the constituent authorities. This is a rate which could not possibly be borne by areas which are just emerging from their former distressed state. We had an experience of this in the 1930s, when the three constituent authorities, Middlesbrough, Thornaby and Stockton-on-Tees, had to bear a huge rate for water works development. Such a burden could not be borne again; it would mean an addition of 3s. or 4s. to the rates and that is a financial impossibility.
The other alternative, equally distasteful, would be to defer any further development of the undertaking. This would mean wrecking the industrial
2146
achievement which has been brought about and ruining any further prospects of expansion, with very grave results to the national economy both in chemicals and iron and steel. This is a prospect which no responsible Member of Parliament can contemplate for one moment. No responsible Government, whether economic planning is considered to be "boloney" or anything else, can ignore the consequences of this act.
It is my belief—and I am supported in this by other hon. Members representing constituencies in the area, and not only in my party—that, unless the decision contained in Government Circular 54/52 is reversed, there is the gravest possible danger that the Board will be unable to proceed with this extension. That means that the existing works cannot continue. It means that our economy is threatened and unemployment in the area is bound to increase. There will be a clear loss of something like £50 million worth of industrial investment and development.
There is no sense in the Government issuing a blanket curtailment of capital expenditure which operates indiscriminately, as does this present circular. It is essential to national survival that these developments take place and it is being penny wise and pound foolish to make an economy cut of a few hundred thousand pounds which will jeopardise the whole livelihood of the area and our
national survival. The essential large-scale iron, steel and chemical outputs here may be made sterile without additional water supplies.
This is a matter of urgent priority and discussions have been going on between Government Departments. I do not minimise the complexity of the case but these discussions have been going on for too long, and it is time that the Board and industrialists in the area knew where they were. A decision in regard to this area is absolutely essential. I cannot exaggerate the danger which would follow a refusal of grant, or the disaster which would overtake this area. It would be criminal folly if the development of Tees-side, which is the pride of the area and a permanent memorial to the policy of the distribution of industry, were to be checked, and we were thrust back into the despair of a distressed area.

2147
Just as in the case of a doctor who has spent years and years building up the health of a patient until he is ready to take his place, with full vigour, in the hurly-burly of life and then, when he has done his job, a surgeon slips in behind and severs one of the main arteries in that patient's body, so this area has been built into a worthwhile flourishing entity and now the Ministry of Housing and Local Government are cutting one of the main arteries which is feeding it.
I appeal to the Minister not to let Section 3 of the Distribution of Industry Act become a dead letter. If he does so he will be ruining not only Section 3 but the whole of that Act.
6.14 p.m.
Mr. R. Brooman-White: The points I want to raise primarily concern Scotland, but in general terms I hope they may touch upon issues which are of interest to Members representing other areas. In his opening remarks the President of the Board of Trade asked for our views about the Cairncross Report, relating to Scotland, and the balance maintained between the existing distribution of industry policy and what he described as new and rival theories.
I do not go as far as to advocate that we should abandon the existing policy, but I do suggest that the Board of Trade should go much further in their present review of the situation. They should really move back to "Square One" and think the whole thing out again from first principles to see what conclusion they reach. We all know that when a policy has been in operation for some time, the precedents build up; the matter acquires a velocity of its own. I am not an engineer and I do not know the correct term; I think it is kinetic energy—anyway, whatever makes something go on rolling of its own weight after it has been running for a bit.
In such cases as this, policy may start rolling away and deviating from the march of current events almost imperceptibly, without people noticing it. The right hon. Member who opened the debate made the point about 1931 and the issues which arose then, which necessitated dealing with great groups of unemployment and trying to build up a secondary defence of light industry in
2148
heavy industrial areas. But are those the correct priorities now? If they are, are they the only priorities? They are certainly not in Scotland. How far are we balancing them properly with the other and new priorities?
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) has spoken most eloquently about development in the Highlands, although that is not a new priority—and the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) has on a number of occasions raised the question of the new coalfield areas. Some hon. Members have new towns in their divisions and they are not altogether happy about the progress of industry in them. The old development policy is probably still very necessary; but how are these things being weighed up? Lord Bilsland of the Scottish Development Council, pointed out that the total of possible new industrial building is not going to match up to our requirements in the immediately foreseeable future.
What is our level of priorities? Should not the whole thing be thought out again on the basis of deciding precisely what we should like to do and what methods are available for achieving it, and then measure that against the existing policy to see how the two things fit together? If they are not fitting properly, let us take the necessary steps to adjust them.
I want to put one or two other considerations before the Committee, although I am not suggesting them dogmatically as alternative policies. I know the limitations of armchair strategy and that decisions and sound views on these matters are extremely difficult to formulate without the facilities of the Department behind one. With regard to the Cairncross Report, I am a little hesitant about the idea of any overall, ready-made, "off-the-peg" solution which would fit all the circumstances. But in the reconsideration of this matter we might move a good deal more in the direction of more flexibility and adapt the policy rather more to the special needs of different areas.
In Scotland we have the heavy industrial belt with its special problems; we have the new areas which are expanding and prospering nearby; we have more outlying depressed or declining areas, and we have the crofter

2149
counties. They all differ in their needs and I am not at all sure that any simple or overall solution can match up to their respective problems. In the case of the crofter counties, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland has suggested one solution, but there is an alternative or supplementary policy which might be considered.
A very small but successful recent experiment has been the establishment in the Highlands of an engineering factory, whose parent firm is in the industrial belt. It was established with aid provided by the local authority, which, in the outlying areas, is perhaps a more flexible procedure than the normal procedure of the Board of Trade. It has been running for only a year, but it has made a profit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland said, profits can be made. The problem is to persuade firms to undertake the great effort and to accept the dislocation and administrative complications of moving up to those areas.
This is a very small firm which employs about five men. It therefore makes no very great contribution to industrial output nor to the immediate solution of the unemployment problem in the area. The point I want to emphasise is this: if hon. Members consider the preliminary calculations which have been made of the wage bill of the firm, they will realise that this tiny unit brings in about £1,500 a year to that area. Perhaps half of that goes into the local shops, £200 or £300 to developing the crofts and another £200 or so to savings. If hon. Members look at this injection of capital into this small outlying area, they will see that even a tiny concern may make the difference between a declining community and a growing community.
These units are so small that a review might be carried out and suitable firms could be approached to see how far such small units of production could be hived off. The Government might then try to discover what inducement will make firms undertake the effort of moving into these Highland areas, instead of expanding more conveniently by opening branches next door to their main works. There are various possibilities—taxation reliefs, for instance, such as have been used in Northern Ireland, as well as the
2150
various experiments tried in America or the simple method of a direct subsidy.
If it is administratively practicable, it might be better if this problem were made the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture rather than the Board of Trade. I would put the emphasis in the right place It is not primarily a problem of production or of unemployment, but of an injection of capital to try to stimulate the growth of agriculture. That must be the real basis of any lasting recovery in the Highlands. The question might be considered not so much as a development of industry policy but as development of agriculture policy.
Suggestions have been made in various quarters that the Ministry of Agriculture have the expertise in featherbedding. I am suggesting the deliberate featherbedding of small industries scattered through the Highlands, so small that the total sum involved to the Treasury in this connection is almost negligible, whereas the total return in stimulation of agriculture by the tonic effect of spreading a small amount of capital might be very great.
I will deal briefly with the problem of other outlying and declining areas and the difficulties involved. The President himself mentioned the Buckie-Peterhead area. I do not believe that the same sort of treatment is required here as in the crofting counties, because the units we need in this case are bigger. When dealing with very small units we can be certain that the Government can carry them on their backs over any rough going they may meet.
The point I want to make about the Buckie-Peterhead and the Campbelltown and South-West Coast areas, as well as other parts of the country, is this: whatever the natural temptation to take urgent steps to meet the great difficulties, with which everybody sympathises, we must be very chary about coaxing industry into such areas. If an industry is on an absolutely sound basis, let us have it; but it would be disastrous to introduce an industry which, having moved to an area as a result of Government persuasion, is on a rather precarious footing and collapses or pulls out at the first sign of economic difficulty.
If people have to move away from such areas now, that is very unfortunate, but it is far better that they should move

2151
when facilities and scope for their employment exist in other areas than that they should be kept clinging around one local industry and then see it collapse, leaving them stranded at a time of general difficulty. If we can find sound industries for these areas, by all means let us find them; but if they are not readily forthcoming, then I suggest that even greater efforts should be made to review the field of Government work and to consider not only new Government work but even transfers or moves within the wide and developing structure of Western defence which might be evolved to help these areas and which would give a firm assurance that work would remain in those areas at times when such work may be needed even more urgently than it is needed now.
The President talked about Professor Cairncross's recommendations. We need not, perhaps, go the whole way with them, but there seems to me to be a great case for increased flexibility, to put the matter at its lowest. It is rather illogical if areas of new expansion, adjacent to the old industrial belt, cannot receive equal encouragement to that given to the old Development Areas. Let us encourage growth.
In the solid core of the old industrial belt perhaps we should continue to take steps to build up our secondary lines of light industry. But if I may express a personal view, I would urge for the present a rather selective approach. We must bear in mind that a certain amount of factory accommodation already stands idle in some places, as hon. Members know, and we do not want to construct new factories too readily when those already built are unoccupied. There are shortages, too, of some types of skilled labour, and we must be careful in cases where new firms will compete in the labour market with existing firms for that skilled labour. I do not suggest that that is the overriding consideration, but I think we must be selective and in particular we should favour those firms with lines of production which can be expected to represent the expanding industries of the future, the infant industries, the seedlings which will grow with time.
Professor Cairncross has cogently said that most industries start small, expand where they start and move only in excep-
2152
tional circumstances. There is a lot to be said for catching them young. Lord Bilsland, speaking the other day, referred to the efforts already being made to attract small new firms in plastics or precision engineering or electronics so as to build up cadres of design experts and production experts and the key men in such new industries around which, as the tide of progress moves on, the old industrial skill and aptitudes of our people can be regrouped. I think perhaps we should give further thought to the problem on those lines.
I do not want to dogmatise on points like this but merely to offer suggestions. I do, however, feel very strongly that our present policy sprung fully armed from the forehead of 1931 thinking and that some of the armament may now be a little out of date. To use rather more controversial phraseology from another context, the policy may be equipped to fight the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. I think we should carefully reconsider the whole problem. My own inclinations tend rather in favour of the doctrine of Professor Cairncross that, when there is a doubt, it is in the long-term interest of the country to encourage growth rather than to try to rejuvenate age. Growing pains may be unpleasant but they are preferable to any danger of paralysis.
6.29 p.m.
Mr. Harold Finch: I hope the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Brooman-White) will forgive me if I do not follow the line of his argument. This debate offers an opportunity of drawing attention to what I regard as a changed policy by the Government towards the Development Areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) has already dealt with the matter very ably. It is having such a serious effect in South Wales and other Development Areas that I am sure I shall be forgiven if I return to this very important subject.
The notorious Circular 5452 which was issued by the Minister of Housing and Local Government in June, 1952, stated quite definitely that future grants in respect of water and sewerage schemes for local authorities would be discontinued. That came as a very severe shock to local authorities which had for some years, under the Distribution of Industry Act, been receiving grants of

2153
80 per cent. or 100 per cent. to assist them in their policies for industrial development.
I should have thought that the Minister of Housing and Local Government would have come to the House of Commons and given some indication that he was proposing to abolish these grants for local authorities, or that, at least, he would have held a conference with the local authorities and explained to them in some detail what he was proposing to do. I do not think the House was treated with the courtesy the Minister should have accorded it on an important subject of this kind.
A heavy burden has now fallen upon many of those local authorities in the Development Areas as a result of the discontinuation of those grants. In many areas it will mean an increase of 2s. or 3s. in the rates which will have to be borne by employers, business undertakings, and ordinary households, and that will certainly deter many employers from going to South Wales in the future. Great help has been given through lower rentals to assist employers to go to South Wales, but the effect of that policy will be wiped out by the increase of rates which will follow the policy of Circular 5452.
Let us consider South Wales as a typical example of a Development Area. Perhaps more than any other place in the country it suffered in the years of the trade depression. As a result of the Distribution of Industry Act, a great deal has been done. Hundreds of industrial undertakings have been established in South Wales—light industries and heavier industries such as engineering—and they have given employment to hundreds and thousands of men and women in that area. In addition, we have the modern steel works at Margam, the nylon spinners at Pontypool, and the switchgear factory at Blackwood, which have found employment for masses of men and women.
Side by side with those advances, however, there has been the great strain imposed on the local authorities in dealing with local amenities and expanding them to match this vast industrial development, and now we find, before those industrial developments have got well under way, that the amenities are to be stopped, because the local authorities will find themselves, because of the Government's
2154
policy, in an impossible position. I would remind the Committee that South Wales suffered for a great many years from the trade depression, and as a result the local authorities were very poor indeed. Those years of trade depression left a heavy mark on the local authorities, and by the time the Distribution of Industry Act came into operation they were indeed in dire poverty.
There was in South Wales a serious lack of local amenities. The Minister of Labour, whom I see on the Front Bench, will perhaps know—and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade can know from his officials in South Wales— that one of the difficulties experienced by the Board of Trade officials there was this same lack of amenities, so that when employers went to look at sites where they might set up factories they were deeply concerned about the lack of amenities and on many occasions said, "We can never get our officials and key workers to come to a district like this. There are not sufficient amenities here. They will never come."
It is a compliment to the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour and the employers that in so many instances they got over those difficulties. But there was a serious lack of amenities; and it has been the policy of the local authorities in South Wales to try to make up the leeway. But they now find that this circular means a finish to water and sewerage schemes. I consider that to be a very serious blow, and one which will cause grievous trouble in South Wales in the near future.
As an instance, I cite the case of the water scheme in the Rhymney Valley in South Wales. It covers five urban areas. Since 1945 or 1946 there have been many developments. Many factories have been constructed there in these years. The requirement at collieries for pithead baths has been met. The National Coal Board have been helping to build houses there. All these developments have taken place. They have necessitated increased water supplies, and it has been necessary to convert six-inch pipes into 12-inch pipes, and to service a reservoir to meet the situation. The provision of pit-head baths was a major item in the miners' charter, and an important part of the scheme operated by the National Coal Board to improve amenities in the mining industry. In this

2155
district it is desired to go on with this scheme, and to make the best of the new industrial development.
It is true that when the scheme came up for consideration by the Ministry, for the first part of the scheme an 85 per cent, grant was allowed, and the work has been carried on, but for the second part of the scheme, which was passed by the Welsh Board of Health and agreed to and confirmed by various Government Departments, the application for grant was not made until after the circular was issued, with the result that we were informed that no grant could be made to the Rhymney Valley in the circumstances. We have had the privilege since of a meeting with the Minister, and he agreed to a grant of 85 per cent. of £7,000, but this scheme will cost something in the region of £320.000, to give an adequate supply of water to those areas.
Where is the money to come from? Where will the local authorities get it? They are bound to supply the water. How are they to get the money? Only by raising the rates, and that will impoverish those areas and be a great discouragement to employers. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to talk about reducing taxation, but what is the good of reducing taxation if rates are to go up? Here is a burden we have to carry. Worst of all, it has to be borne in a Development Area where there has been such a lack of amenities in the past. I plead with Ministers to have another look at this problem. Indeed, unless hon. Members get some satisfaction about this situation, I am really afraid of the position that may arise in South Wales.
We want to know from the Government what their future policy is in this respect. Section 3 of the Development of Industry Act, which empowered the Government to make these grants, referred not only to sewerage and water, but to roads, transport, communications, health and housing. It may be that the Government will issue another circular in a week or so and discontinue grants in respect of those other services.
The roads in South Wales are bad enough as it is. They are in a deplorable condition. Some wind like corkscrews towards the Midlands. They are a severe handicap to employers in South Wales. They are a handicap to the business
2156
fraternity in South Wales. I have spoken of this important matter in this Chamber before. Unless there is an improvement in the roads in South Wales, South Wales will always be under a severe penalty. It will be a heavy burden to carry, and it will be a handicap. If South Wales is to be put on a firm foundation, it will be necessary to improve the road system and to connect up with England by the Severn Bridge.
Those are some of the problems we must face in South Wales as a Development Area. South Wales makes a valuable contribution to our economic recovery through the output of its engineering works, its coal mines and the Margam works; but in any period of depression it suffers a handicap, and I hope that this evening we shall get from the Government an assurance about their policy towards grants to local authorities in the future. Can we have a definite undertaking that there will not be another circular to curtail expenditure by local authorities in these areas? Some of us feel that if we cannot get satisfaction about this, we shall have to carry our protest into the Division Lobby.
6.41 p.m.
Mr. William Shepherd: I must confess that I have no specific interest in this debate by representing a Development Area, but since 1945 I have taken a close interest in what has happened through the Distribution of Industry Act and I want to make a few remarks of a more general and, perhaps, more objective character than is possible by those who represent Development Areas. I hope the Committee will bear with me, and will not think I am unsympathetic to the general intention and purpose of the Act. At the same time, those who represent these areas cannot, perhaps, be as objective on this issue as the subject demands.
The speech of the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) was in some ways unfortunate, because he did not set the problem of unemployment and employment in its proper perspective. I asked him to give us some idea of what percentage of unemployment he regarded as a norm, and he said he wanted conditions in which there were more jobs available than men to fill them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite say, "Hear, hear." The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he wanted

2157
to prevent misery and unemployment, but I invite hon. Members opposite to consider that the very condition of having more men than there are jobs to fill may generate misery and unemployment.
At present, we are obviously facing a re-deployment of our economic strength. The circumstances of the war years and the post-war years are giving way to a different situation, and if there are many many more jobs than there are men to fill them, the edge to our industrial effort may well be so blunted that we become non-competitive—although I do not suggest that we are at the moment— and lose our industrial opportunities overseas, and unemployment will result as a consequence.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the hon. Gentleman advocating that there should be more men than there are jobs?
Mr. Shepherd: I am only saying that a policy once described by the deputy Leader of the Opposition as a policy of "over-full employment" carries with it a real danger to a country of this character, because unless we have the necessary flexibility to meet, and to meet with speed, the changing demands of world trade, unemployment on a large scale may easily be with us.
Mr. M. MacMillan: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us his own opinion of the desirable percentage of unemployment?
Mr. Shepherd: It is difficult at this stage of our industrial development, in the sense that we have only been experimenting for a few years, to try to state the optimum level. We cannot say at this moment. The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) has indicated 3 per cent. as the figure which might be accepted. I do not know what the optimum figure is, and nor does any hon. Member. I am only saying that we must be careful not to take the view that two jobs for every one man is necessarily the right thing for the country in our present economic state.
I wish to say a few words in general about the Development Areas because I am interested in them from the point of view of economic planning. The other day the Colonial Secretary had a few words to say about economic planning. He said it was a "great big bit of
2158
boloney'." I can understand what a "great big bit" is, although it is not perhaps very clear; the Prime Minister is not sure what "boloney" is, and I am even more uncertain what "economic planning" means, but it is interesting to realise that the Act was put into operation by a largely Conservative Administration, and that we have accepted it and worked it willingly.
We say, to the concern of many people who take the view that the Government ought not to consider whether employment exists in a given area or not and that we should allow the ordinary run of economic forces to have their play, that that has not been our intention, and the action taken since we have been in office shows that we do not accept that view. Very often people put works in given areas because of personal preferences, and if we can induce them to put the works into areas where they can serve a wider social purpose we should do so.
In Development Areas generally first-class labour is available. Some of our best workers are to be found in Development Areas and, leaving aside social considerations, many firms would do well to go Development Areas and take advantage of this first-class labour. In South Wales, due to the nature of the mining there, few of the miners' wives and daughters work, yet there are in South Wales women workers who are as good as anywhere in the country, and firms ought to be encouraged to go there. Certainly the new estates have produced new industries, some of them Continental, with new skills, developed over many centuries, brought to us, which have been to our immense advantage.
I say that about Development Areas because I want, to some extent, to be critical of them; but I do not want to be critical in the sense that I believe in unemployment. The right of a man to work is a most important right. Man cannot be dignified unless he can find gainful employment. Employment is indispensable to the dignity of man. When I heard the right hon. Member for Blyth talking about unemployment I thought that he did not quite present the problem in its proper perspective. It is true that on 8th December there were 390,000 people out of work, but the Committee ought to bear in mind how they were allocated in terms of the time that

2159
they were unemployed, because no society can eliminate transitional unemployment.
A short time ago I looked at the figures, and I found that, of those 390,000, 170,000 were either temporarily unemployed or had been unemployed for four weeks or less; 27,000 had been unemployed for six to eight weeks; and 48,000 for from eight to 13 weeks. The long-term figure from 39 to 52 weeks was only 13,000. I do not want to minimise the effect of that unemployment upon individuals, but I think that it is important, when we are discussing this question of the optimum level, to realise how much of this unemployment under existing conditions is in fact transitional, and to realise that there is only one alternative, namely, a system of forced labour, which I am quite certain neither side of this Committee would for one moment accept.
Why do I say that I am slightly critical of the Development Areas? I am critical of them in so far as they tend to cut across the normal trend of economic flow and tend to establish businesses in places not best suited to them, and businesses which may not stand up to the test of time. I do not know the exact circumstances of many of the firms allocated to these trading estates, but I have some reason to believe that many of them may not stand up to the full force of competition. Therefore, it would be unwise to push the policy of establishing industries which have not a sound economic basis. I think that we are taking a risk if we push this policy too far to the point where we are establishing uneconomic industries in unsuitable areas. I am fortified in the belief that the more widely-established these areas are, the less use the policy of Development Areas will be to the particularly bad areas.
I say that, in view of these factors, we should take industries out of the scheduled areas as quickly as possible. The fewer Development Areas we have, the better it will be for those in urgent need. Hon. Gentlemen will, I know, protest and say that they do not want to face the hazards, as they conceive them, of de-scheduling, but I think that it would be to the benefit of the distribution of industry that areas should be taken out of the schedule as quickly as possible.
2160
My second reason for having doubts is the high cost of establishing factories in these areas. We have spent £41 million on factories employing something like 100,000 men, which is a high cost. Because we are going to areas which are, on the whole, undeveloped, where we have to lay on services, we are involved in very high costs per person employed. Is that always a wise thing to do? If we establish industries where it necessarily involves high costs, we shall render those industries less competitive than they ought to be in present circumstances. Therefore, I say that we must have reservations about the speed with which we proceed in these Development Areas.
I do not accept the view—and I hope that no Member of this Committee does —that full employment means a job for everybody wherever he is. I hope that no hon. Member accepts that view, otherwise this nation is doomed industrially. We cannot accept the view that there should be a job for everybody wherever he is. Mobility of labour is absolutely essential to this country.
Mr. Ellis Smith: So are houses.
Mr. Shepherd: That is quite right. Shortage of housing accommodation interferes greatly with mobility, but there are other factors.
Hon. Members will realise that in the '20s and '30s the coal industry was in a very bad state, and there were in South Wales no prospects for men to find employment there. Young men stood at the street corners in their hundreds of thousands. Some of them might possibly have found employment elsewhere, but many thousands did not try. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I say that many thousands did not try. I am only saying that it is quite wrong to foster the idea that there must never be any mobility of labour.
Mr. Pannell: The hon. Member is making the point that full employment does not mean that every man everywhere shall be employed at one time. He goes on to make the point that any number of people might have obtained work if they had moved from the distressed areas. If he does not mean that, he means very little. Is he aware that even

2161
in one of the most prosperous cities—Leeds—with a great diversity of industries, at the height of the slump there was one engineer out of every four out of work? Perhaps he will tell us where they could have got jobs. I can remember the experience of trying at 80 places in three months.
Mr. Shepherd: I think that the hon. Gentleman has got slightly wrong the view which I am trying to put forward. In giving the example of South Wales, I did not do so in depreciation of those men, because I think that there was a good deal to be said for them and against the coal owners in those days. It is perfectly true and very natural that people do not want to leave their home towns, but it is not necessarily the case that we ought to say that we will make no exception to trying to satisfy their desire to stay there.
While in the Development Areas unemployment is higher than the average throughout the country, I suggest to the Committee that that is not necessarily an argument for intensifying the Development Area procedure. We may well have to say that, with all the assistance we are able to give to these people, they will have a higher level of unemployment than elsewhere, and the answer is not to try to intensify the Development Area procedure but to get the people of these areas to move to other areas.
That is why I view with some concern the uncritical emotionalism with which this problem is being approached. It is not a question that ought to be approached with uncritical emotionalism. We ought to realise that there are many reasons why it is undesirable to put into unsuitable areas new industries which will prove uneconomic and which might go down in difficult times, and many reasons why we should try to persuade people to leave areas which are particularly uneconomic for industrial purposes and go elsewhere.
Mr. Douglas Jay: Would the hon. Gentleman have the same balanced view if we pointed out that it was desirable not merely for labour to be mobile but for industries to move into the areas where the labour exists?
Mr. Shepherd: I think that it is a question of striking a balance. I am not
2162
criticising the Development Area scheme in its entirety. I am only saying that to go to the extent of siting industries in uneconomic places where it may not be possible for them to stand up to the severe weather of competition is not a good thing to do. Naturally, we expect employers to play their part. We ought not to press this to the point that people say, "Here we are; if we do not get a job here, we are not going to get a job elsewhere in the country."
Mr. Richard Fort: Is the hon. Member aware of the surveys which have been made and which were summarised in the "Economist" of last autumn, showing that, by and large, the costs of branches which have moved to Development Areas are little, if any. different, after a suitable period of development, from the costs at the original places?
Mr. Shepherd: I am sure that is the case, and if it is so, by the natural flow of economic events people will tend to go to those areas where there is a supply of labour and economic conditions are favourable. I say that we must not try to push this thing too far. I agree that we have a deep moral obligation to provide the conditions in which men can live, be employed and have a happy life. I know that all the economic processes do not necessarily work towards that end and we should take steps to intervene when that is necessary. but there is a real danger of considering the question too emotionally and with too little regard to the economic factors involved. It may be better to have some transient hardship than a permanent impairment of our industry, and that is what will happen if we site factories in uneconomical places.
So far the Act has been a great success and has done a great deal to restore morale in many parts of the country. Many of the areas can now stand on their own feet without the help of the Act, and they ought to be proud to do so. I hope that where there exists a genuine need for the assistance of the Act for social reasons, its provisions will be applied vigorously, that we shall have regard to the need for flexibility and manpower, and shall continue to implement the Act with sympathy and wisdom.
7.1 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Lee: The President of the Board of Trade invited us to make observations about the work of the Distribution of Industry Act, and most hon. Members have tried to do so. The right hon. Gentleman himself made the point that, even under present conditions, which are not too favourable, the Development Areas have stood up pretty well to the test of redundancy in certain industries, and that is an additional reason why we should hesitate about lifting the barriers round Development Areas before making certain that that will not have an adverse effect upon them.
While I say that, the Committee should not infer that because an Act tackled a certain problem in 1945 and has proved itself to be an extremely fine Act, we ought not to look at it any more no matter how circumstances change. The problem we were tackling in 1944 was by no means the problem we are tackling today.
The Distribution of Industry Act was a very fine conception and the Measure has revolutionised many areas of the country. Very many of the depressed areas have ceased to exist and we can now feel that there is a basis of stability in most of them, but we tackled merely the short-term problem in 1944 when the Government were given power to advance public money to any type of employer to encourage him to go into certain depressed regions.
The assistance offered was not particularly directed at siting certain industries in certain areas, and that is a matter we ought now to examine. If British industry is to be able to compete in approaching world conditions, we cannot afford to ignore the costs of our products. If it is obviously uneconomical to put certain types of industry in an area, I should not have thought it was a good thing to subsidise such employers to go there. We should, if necessary, increase the grants to the type of industry which would fit into the circumstances of the area rather than continue to spread the financial assistance over the whole of industry.
If we are looking at the matter from the long-term point of view, we really must try to visualise the picture that we shall create over a period of years in,
2164
say, a great county like Lancashire. I am very happy that there is to be another Development Area in Lancashire, but I should not like to think that the surrounding regions will suffer merely because a certain type of Development Area is being sited in a small section of that great county.
The success which has attended the Distribution of Industry Act should not lead us to ignore the fact that there has been constant full employment in most parts of the country ever since the Measure was put on the Statute Book. It may well be that a number of employers who have agreed to go into Development Areas have done so because they know that they are the only parts of the country in which they could get employees in the numbers they require.
There is also the problem of the type of employee available in each area. I have always expressed the view—I base it on my experience at the Ministry of Labour—that the type of employee available is a matter of fundamental importance to the whole of our Development Area policy. The regional organisations of the Ministry of Labour, which are far superior to those of any other Department, have the responsibility in this respect, and are in close touch with both sides of industry.
The Ministry of Labour study trends of industrial employment possibilities and have records not only of the number of unemployed but also of the type of people who are unemployed. The Ministry of Labour are the Department which trains the "green" labour and look to the future employment possibilities. Because of all these things, I believe it is the Department which should deal with this matter, especially now that we are worried about unemployment tendencies. One of the changes which should take place is that the central conduct of Development Area policy should pass from the Board of Trade to the Ministry of Labour. I could not have said that a year or two ago, for I should then have been accused of empire-building, but these days I am an entirely impartial witness and so I offer the Committee the experience that I had during my time with the admirable people at the Ministry of Labour under the last Government.
I come now to a hobby-horse of mine. Let us look at the National Coal Board's

2165
long-term plan. In Durham, for instance, the tendency will be to contract in the mining industry as a result of worn-out seams, and the National Coal Board want us to consider an expansion in Yorkshire and a contraction in Durham. The Minister has a terrible problem. Most of Durham is a Development Area, while most of Yorkshire is not. I should have thought that a sensible way to look at the matter would be to say that if we are to contract in Durham we must make certain that the thousands of admirable miners in Durham will not be thrown out of a job and that we must in some way induce them to help us in expanding the mining industry in Yorkshire.
Mr. Ellis Smith: And North Staffordshire.
Mr. Lee: Yes, in North Staffordshire also, but the National Coal Board plan refers particularly to Yorkshire. What we should have to do would be to build houses and create amenities in the coalfields where we wish to expand in order to attract the labour from Durham or wherever else it is. I believe it to be wrong to consider what is happening in a Development Area without looking at what may happen outside which may be complementary to it. The Minister must have power to give assistance in that direction instead of having to think merely in terms of what is happening inside the Development Area itself.
I want now to turn to another important question. We are all agreed that much of our future and our ability to trade in this world depends on whether we can expand our production of engineering products. I am very worried about certain tendencies in some sections of the engineering industry. It would, of course, be an exaggeration to say that there was widespread unemployment or under-employment in the engineering industry, and I do not make any such point at all. Nevertheless, we must keep in our minds that these industries are the ones upon which we are going to depend for the life-blood of Britain. They are to provide the means whereby our standards of life are maintained and whereby we can pay our way in the world. Therefore, it is disquieting indeed when we see unemployment or underemployment in any section of the engineering industry.
2166
In this connection I want to quote from the journal "Engineering"
"The engineering industry appear to have reached towards the end of 1952, a position in their post-war development in which they are finding it increasingly difficult to sell their products. It is general knowledge in the industry, as some chairmen have already stated in their reports to shareholders, that most companies, even those with three or four years' orders on their books, are finding the inflow of orders inadequate to maintain production at a profitable level. There is also widespread fear of cancellations if the general world economic situation should deteriorate further."
It goes on to point out that even in a number of industries where it appears there was work for years ahead cancellations are causing the position to deteriorate quite noticeably. If that is the case, there is a great danger in the present position in engineering.
The "Manchester Guardian" in ant admirable leader last Friday said:
"Our best chance of flourishing exports lies in the industries making machinery, aircraft and other highly-finished products of engineering. While the resources for this production are by no means as over-burdened as they were, delivery times are still long, and rapid adjustment to the demands of overseas. customers is difficult."
I should like to know how all this fits into the general pattern, particularly in the armament industry. I believe that to reduce the arms programme for each particular year is the correct policy, but the mere fact that we are reducing our armament production will not of itself ensure that we shall succeed in the second point, the raising of our commercial levels of production. The two things do not necessarily go together.
There is a vast difference in producing arms as distinct from producing turbines or other commercial products which other nations may wish to buy, and this operation of changing over from producing arms to trying to swell products of a commercial nature is a most delicate and extremely serious operation. In the Defence White Paper we are told that there must be a further lengthening of the programme owing to the overloading of the industry and the need for exports. Again, the "Manchester Guardian" put in the same article these words:
"Instead of spending over £850 million on arms in the coming fiscal year the Government will spend about £650 million. A good many of the changes have no doubt already been made. This accounts for some of the short-time working in the metal and engineering

2167
industries while firms that had counted or started on defence work hurriedly turn to other activities."
The House may remember that from the very day in December when the Prime Minister announced the Government's intention of stretching out the period of re-armament, I questioned him and other Ministers on the effects. On 9th December I asked the Prime Minister what steps he was taking to ensure that the most recent changes -in the defence programme did not result in unemployment in the engineering industry. He replied:
"The changes will not markedly reduce the total labour force employed on defence production in the engineering industry. There may be some redundancies at first in a few firms, but the Ministry of Labour are being consulted on the best way to limit the effect of these redundancies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1952; Vol. 509, c. 243.]
I then pointed out to the Prime Minister that if he was not very careful those firms which had already laid out their machinery, the balance of their labour force and the type of materials that they would need for the arms programme would be materially affected in a short space of time and I asked what steps he proposed to take. The right hon. Gentleman did not give me a reply to that question, and I have been worried about it ever since.
I have already quoted the leader in the "Manchester Guardian" which said that there is to be a cut in expenditure on the arms programme this year of no less than £200 million. Does that sound as if there will only be a few redundancies? A total of £200 million in an expenditure of £850 million means a reduction of a quarter, and yet the Prime Minister says there will be no danger of redundancy in those sections of the engineering industry which have been employed on arms production. I asked the Minister of Labour whether he would put the point to the N.J.A.C. which had quite an important part to play in advising us when the programme was being expanded, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not see his way to do that.
If, as the "Manchester Guardian" says, there is to be a reduction of £200 million this year in arms expenditure, it seems to be pretty obvious that there will be wide-scale alterations in the pattern
2168
of production, and that thousands of people in the engineering industry will be affected. I hope the Government realise that, once the balance of engineering production is lost, it can result in wide and serious dislocation, with great demands on industry, accompanied by diminishing products from them. The Government ought to tell the nation that they are satisfied on these particular points.
I should like to summarise the position by pointing out that a number of sectors in the industry are already contracting, while in others the anticipated increase in demand for labour, including skilled labour, will not now take place. We read in the Defence White Paper which has just been issued:
"Many firms and Government establishments have found difficulty in the past year in obtaining enough skilled workers for defence production, though they have been able to recruit enough unskilled workers. The operation of the Notification of Vacancies Order has helped to provide the labour required, while schemes of upgrading and training in industry have mitigated the shortage of skilled workers. The changes which have been made in the defence programme will not result in redundancies on any considerable scale, but many firms which would have needed to recruit large numbers of additional workers, including much skilled labour, will no longer have to do so."
Once we get to the position where skilled labour is becoming unemployed, then it is pretty obvious to any hon. Member knowing the engineering industry that there will be a great increase in the number of unskilled workers who cannot possibly find work in the industry itself.
The sectors which are contracting at the moment are the motor car, cycle and textile machine sections. When I visited Birmingham a couple of years ago as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, there was an extremely heavy vacancy list in the region. I remember asking the regional officers whether they were having any difficulty in getting everybody work, and they said that if the body were warm at all they could get it a job. Since then unemployment has doubled in that area, and vacancies have been reduced to something like a half.
There are some 22,500 engineering workers on short time. If we are to see an expansion of unemployment and short-time work in one section of the engineering industry, then it will not be possible for the engineering unions to agree to a further dilution of labour in

2169
those other sections where there is a demand for labour which cannot be satisfied. This is a most vital issue, as my hon. Friends from the unions will know. How are we going to accept the position where "green" labour is going to be trained for skilled work in some sections whilst thousands of union members are on short time or are actually unemployed in other sections? I hope that the Government will see that this is something which must be looked at, because it is of very great importance.
The Government should tell us at this stage what the percentage of the total engineering production will be for the re-armament programme. It is now between 7 per cent. and 8 per cent., which is too high. What is the right percentage? Is it 5 per cent.? The Government must tell us otherwise we shall not know the sort of programme that they have in mind.
I have been speaking of the sections which are reducing. What about those which must expand? The aircraft industry is an obvious example. Are new developments in the aircraft industry to be sited in approximately the positions of the sections which must now contract? If that took place, we could have an aircraft industry in the place of the motor car industry. Both the motor and aircraft industries work on line production. Their assemblers can be adapted without the need for expensive training. The skilled men could readily change over.
While I am still on the subject of those sections of industry which must expand, I wish to refer to the industry which is the key to our ability to produce high-quality competitive goods which alone can ensure full employment. I refer to the machine tool industry. I believe this matter must be given urgent consideration, because if our machine tools are either too dear in price or are behind other nations' production in design, then the products manufactured on them cannot compete in world markets. Since the war, we, the oldest engineering country in the world, have been spending £100 million upon importing machine tools, about half of them being dollar machine tools.
Hon. Members may recall that during the whole period there has been a strict scrutiny of the sort of expenditure which manufacturers have been allowed before
2170
we gave them permission to purchase anything in the dollar area. In spite of that, the figure which I have indicated has already been spent. Dollar expenditure on machine tools would have been far higher because of imports of single-purpose tools, which is quite inevitable.
The situation revealed is quite alarming. It is fantastic that to increase the efficiency and productive capacity of our manufacturing industries we must lay out scarce dollars in this way. I quote from the White Paper on Defence, which says, in the section headed "Machine Tools "on page 14:
"Delivery of machine tools has continued to be satisfactory."
Satisfactory "seems a funny word to me.
"Of the 35,000 extra machine tools required, about 18,000 were ordered from Europe and the United States in order to supplement home supplies. 13,000 of these had been delivered by the end of 1952."
While we have figures of that sort to show our dependence upon imports of machine tools, we cannot hope that our own position in regard to the expansion of the machine tool industry or its modernisation can be satisfactory.
In 1951 our manufacturing industries in Britain, including the machine tool industry, produced about £735 million worth, and only about half of this total went to our own home industries. It would appear that, while quite rightly seeking to expand our exports of machine tools, we are not enlarging the total size of our output sufficiently, nor are we ensuring that the industry can give home manufacturers sufficient late-design tools to prevent their either using obsolescent ones or having to buy from dollar areas.
I presume that Ministers have read the Anglo-American Productivity Report on Machine Tools which is now available. On page 1, under "Conclusions," the report says:
"The machine tool industries of both countries are in danger of losing large proportions of their markets unless they rapidly increase their productivity."
In our case, we depend so much upon exports that today, they say, we are exporting about 45 per cent. That is the sort of thing we stand to lose unless we modernise our machine tool industry.
The report advocates a return to wartime finish, as regards paintwork and

2171
metal-finishing, in order to get a cheaper product. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head, but I do not agree with him. I have worked on wartime finish and I know that there is no difference in the finished article. We English people are very old-fashioned about this sort of thing, and about having beautiful handles and machines all polished up with a super-finish on the top. We can get a satisfactory job without it, and I hope that the point will be looked at.
As a long-term consideration the report suggests that we should reduce considerably the number of independent companies in the industry by absorption, amalgamation, or by agreed standardisation. There is only one way of doing that, and that is by getting a public sector of the machine tool industry. For my part, I would advocate that that should be done.
I want to finish on a nice note, because that is what I have to do.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's able speech, but I hoped that he would quote a little bit from the Report on Machine Tools which said that, in comparing our industry with that of America, that the best of the Americans' was no better and that the worst was just as bad.
Mr. Lee: I am not attempting in what I have said to show that our machine tool industry cannot bear comparison with the States at all. I am not saying that, and I do not think that is a statement which would do any good to our industry. It is true to say that we depend to such a degree on our exports of machine tools that we must modernise them, and that we are getting behindhand in production in our manufacturing sections because of obsolescence in our machine tools and because the price factor is so important.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) mentioned something which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health should not have said in her speech. We do not like that sort of nonsense being talked, such as that we are not able to compete because of an exorbitant demand that we are making for wages, and so on. In this same respect
2172
I take the greatest exception to a leading article in the "Daily Telegraph" last Friday in which they talk about defence expenditure and say:
"In this connection it is scarcely a co-incidence that the engineering unions, in which Communist influence is strong, are foremost in making irresponsible wage claims. Nothing could serve the purposes of Moscow better than rocketing costs in the industries on which both defence and exports so largely depend."
The "Daily Telegraph" is looked upon as a semi-official organ of the Tory Party. I hope that the Minister who will reply will tell us that that is not the view of Her Majesty's Government. To dub the engineering unions "puppets of Moscow" while asking them to increase the production of arms is about the biggest contradiction that one would imagine. If the leader writer asks for an increase, the editor has a good reply, because he is clearly a Communist stooge or at least a fellow traveller.
I hope that the Government will see to it that the question of re-equipping our industry cannot easily be divorced from the standard of living of the people in industry. On this subject I should like to quote again from "Engineering," which said:
"Re-equipment cannot be discussed in a separate context from manpower.…The work of the Anglo-American Council on Productivity has emphasised that high productivity in the United States is due to no small extent to the constant pressure of the American unions for higher wages."
That is not from a Communist paper, or even from the "Daily Telegraph," but from a respectable journal called "Engineering." It proceeds:
"Such a stimulus has not been provided in the United Kingdom. …The engineering unions have secured important wage increases in recent years, but the amounts which have been awarded and accepted have not been out of keeping with the national policy of restraint. In 1952, after negotiation, an award of 7.4d. a week was accepted, though the initial demand was for £2 per week. In the present critical state of the United Kingdom's economy it would be unwise to advocate the type of unrestricted wage bargaining which prevails in the United States. The absence of this incentive, however, quickly gives rise to the danger that, in contrast to the United States, where speedy adoption of technical advances permits both a higher standard of living and reduced production costs, industry in the United Kingdom will continue to retain its outmoded machinery and to maintain itself in a competitive world only at the expense of the standard of living of the workpeople."

2173
If the unions in the engineering industry—an industry which has succeeded in increasing production to a higher level than that of any other industry in Britain —are to be assailed and insulted by the sort of leading article which appeared in the "Daily Telegraph" that will leave a very sour taste in their mouths. It will not be conducive to the sort of atmosphere in which we get good results.
I hope that the Minister will realise that the question of redundancy and short-time working in the engineering industry is one of great importance, not only because of the quantity of it but because of the atmosphere which it can generate. If he will consult the unions concerned, he will find that they will be only too happy to work with him to ensure not only increased productivity but the right sort of productivity at the right price. If that can be done, and attention given to the matters which I have mentioned, the position will be improved.
7.31 p.m.
Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I will follow the first part of the speech of the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee)—that relating to the Development Areas—and not the second and longer part which dealt with the present troubles of the A.E.U. I cannot pretend to have that lofty detachment about Development Areas that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) has, as a potential Development Area has come lapping up to the shores of my constituency but has, unfortunately, stopped short there. I was most interested when the hon. Member for Newton pointed out the disadvantage that areas close to a Development Area but not included in it may suffer from the very fact of a Development Area being there.
It was with some trepidation, although without any sour grapes, that I heard from two hon. Members opposite, the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) and the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd), how industry was thriving in their Development Areas and how the whole scene was changed as a result of this Act. So thriving was industry, in fact, that they were worried about the supplies of water and other necessities to keep this hive of industry and employment in full operation. One almost pitied poor Torquay and Brighton
2174
who apparently were suffering very considerable unemployment, according to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens). It seemed that life in Stockton-on-Tees and Bedwellty was a good deal more preferable.
That, of course, is an exaggeration, but it shows that, especially in an industrial area such as the one I have the honour to represent, there is a grave danger that a Development Area if it abuts on and adjoins such an industrial area will, like a magnet, artificially draw away industry which would otherwise naturally come into one's own area. Although we ask no special favours if all is equal, when all is not equal then inevitably people who think that they can do well enough standing on their own feet feel very bitter if factories that might have come to them are steered next door.
That argument can be developed too far, but in a natural unity such as the weaving belt of Lancashire there is a great danger if it is to be cut in two, as apparently it is. Those people who are left outside will be at a grave disadvantage compared with those who are to be put in. I wonder if perhaps we should not follow the line of thought referred to by the President of the Board of Trade, who spoke of Professor Cairncross, and touched on by the hon. Member for Cheadle and the hon. Member for Newton. Having had six or seven years' experience of the working of this Act, we should perhaps alter this rigid division between a Development Area and a non-Development Area. Perhaps the gradation should be more even and it should not be a question of either inside the walls or outside the walls. It may be that the whole concept of special privileges for special areas should be less rigid and infinitely less permanent.
Despite the instructions in the Act, it is becoming crystal clear that no scheduled area will ever be de-scheduled. That is wrong. Sooner or later we shall get into a position where scheduled areas show a much lower level of unemployment than many areas outside the scheduled areas, and persist in doing so. Then the areas outside the scheduled areas will feel bitter, will lobby and press to be included in the scheduled areas. Then the poor President of the Board of Trade for the time being will either have to extend the number of areas so that

2175
the position is unworkable or he will have to take on the most unpopular task of de-scheduling, and so far there has been no sign of that.
In the North-East Lancashire area already, since this proposal was mooted, there are towns whose present figures of unemployment are no worse than those outside the designated area. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is not here, but I am sure that he would not mind my pointing out that for January his two boroughs which are within the area show unemployment figures no greater than those for places immediately outside, such as Blackburn. That shows how dangerous it is to take any special moment of unemployment as decisive and to draw the frontier round the towns at that time.
I plead, therefore, for the whole machinery of this Act to be reconsidered. The Act has been very valuable. Obviously it ought not to be scrapped, but there ought not to be this black and white division of people inside the frontier and outside the frontier. One of the grave dangers that it produces is that it militates against mobility of labour. It cannot be too frequently shown that everything the Government, local government and employer and employee are doing at the moment is militating against greater mobility of labour.
Local authorities, rightly because they have a duty to their localities, prefer in their housing lists people who have lived in the areas for many years. Employers like to keep in their own industries as many people as they can, and so do the trade unions. The trade unions rely on their membership. All these considerations militate against people moving their houses and changing their jobs. As long as that goes on there is no hope that British industry will become competitive and able to meet new demands quickly and cheaply. I am afraid that the workings of the Development Areas are also tending in that direction. If they are, that is another reason why this rigid division should be reconsidered.
We do not grudge the Development Areas their luck. We do not grudge— although it is difficult not to—even the new Development Area its luck. But, at the same time, we feel most disappointed
2176
that an industrial area such as mine, which has done very well in its efforts to diversify its industry, should now have this artificial magnet placed on its frontier. Inevitably this will mean that any industrialist thinking of coming into North-East Lancashire will almost certainly not come into my constituency because of the artificial advantages he will achieve by going next door.
I hope, therefore, although it is too late to change the proposed frontiers of this new Development Area, that the whole rigidity of Development Areas will be seriously reconsidered and that the question of allowing those industrial areas which do not come within the charmed circle to partake of the advantages will be most carefully weighed.
7.40 p.m.
Mr. J. D. Murray: The huge constituency I represent is causing great alarm and anxiety to all responsible persons within the area and to many important individuals and organisations outside it. If I were to respond to the request of the President of the Board of Trade that we should express our views, I should say that the present alarm would be nothing compared to what it would be if there were to be any change at present in the set-up under the Distribution of Industry Act.
I well remember the time when over 20 collieries were at work in my constituency and were working at their peak. The position of late, I am very sorry to say, has changed considerably. Now, instead of over 20 collieries working, only about 10 or 12 are at work and some of them with considerable reductions in personnel and with a very bleak outlook for the future.
For some years, miners in my constituency have been travelling 20 to 25 miles a day to earn their daily bread. This means that for 10 hours at least they are away from their homes and families. It means also the extra weekly cost for transport, and their standard of living is considerably reduced. Therefore, I beg of the President of the Board of Trade to take notice of the stark reality with which my area is faced. I want the right hon. Gentleman now to see the trend of events.
Just over a year ago, a good number of miners were transferred from New

2177
Brancepeth Colliery to Brandon, which is practically at my doorstep, but a few months ago a further 300 miners were transferred from the Roddymoor Colliery, near Crook, which is over seven miles away. I hope, therefore, that the President of the Board of Trade, together with the Minister of Fuel and Power, will at least do something to help us in our terrible plight.
I appreciate the desire of the National Coal Board to keep the miners employed and that we must get as much coal as it is possible to produce, but to transfer 500 miners from one pit to another is only a short-term palliative. It is no solution whatever to the problem, and it will certainly reduce the life of any colliery to which these men are transferred. It is the old, old story over again —we cannot have our cake and eat it.
I represent a large constituency with three urban and two rural areas. In the 1931 Census, the population was 84,222, but in 1951 it had dropped to 75,191, or a reduction of 9,031 persons in 20 years. That is a serious situation. During that period I knew men in the Crook urban district area who never did a day's work for over 12 years. That is a terrible calamity for any man to have to face. I am one of those simple individuals who does not believe that it is a good thing to pay a man for doing nothing, and there were hundreds of them who for 10 or 12 years never could do a day's work simply because the work was not available and had to be kept, fed and paid.
I had personal experience of unemployment on at least two occasions, each time for four years. I was four years unemployed before I came to the House. I know from experience of the sorrow, the suffering, the struggle and the lowering of the standard of life that men and women have undergone. Sometimes when I have looked at some of those men and then looked at myself I have felt ashamed of their condition when they become shabby, when they could not get the clothes that they ought to have or the food necessary for their children. Experience is the greatest teacher of all. and I have been through it.
I am anxious, therefore, to know whether the Minister will use his good offices to steer new industrialists into the North-West Durham area. I have letters from every council in my constituency
2178
revealing the worry and anxiety of both councillors and their officials regarding the future of the area. They are anxious to know whether the Government have any plans ready now, or are waiting until all the coal seams give out. Are the Government going to wait until every colliery stops before they do anything? I remind the party opposite that procrastination is the thief of time.
Neither I nor my people have forgotten 1932, when one in three of all the insured population were unemployed and the proportion was much higher in places like Jarrow. I impress upon the President of the Board of Trade the seriousness of waiting until the worst has happened. When men are turned off or a colliery is closed down, the state of people's minds is entirely changed, especially among the young people, who have their lives to live and their families to bring up.
These young people want security. They want at least to feel that there is a decent chance of earning a decent living in the good old British way of working for the things that they like and enjoy. I have heard them say that they would get out while the going was good. There were 800 men and their families turned out on to the streets at Browney four years before I came to the House. I know what I am talking about, and I know what it means to those men. Does anyone blame these young people for wanting to get away? We would all do it if placed in similar circumstances.
The worst of this situation is that the young people go first; the best people go and they leave the older people who have to depend on others. As I see it at the moment, migration is our only hope unless something is done, and I would remind the Committee that migration is no solution of this terrible problem. I understand that the purpose of the Distribution of Industry Act is to reduce the need for migration; in other words. to bring the workshop to the workers. That is what I am asking the Government to do. In my constituency one thing is as sure as night follows day—that coal production will decline year by year. Not only will it decline, but eventually it will finish altogether. Therefore I say earnestly and very sincerely to the President of the Board of Trade, "Now is the time for action."
Dr. Barnett Stross: My hon. Friend has told us that he does not believe in migration as a solution of the problem and he followed that by saying that coal production in his area will decline and cease altogether, perhaps in the foreseeable future. Does he object to migration, say, from his area to an area like that of north Staffordshire, where there is valuable coal sufficient for two or three hundred years yet?
Mr. Murray: I do not entirely object to migration to a certain degree. In fact, I have already said that the first people to go are the young, and I know that common sense has to be used. Another matter to which I would call attention is that in this area there is a vast amount of fixed capital in schools, shops, clubs, public houses, cinemas, local authority offices, council houses, private houses, churches and chapels. All these have to be maintained or the fixed capital in them will be allowed to deteriorate and waste.
A further matter which gives great concern to me is the fact that all the councils in my area are doing their best to provide the necessary houses and services for the people, but that can mean a terrible disadvantage to the councils unless more new industries are steered into the area to assist councils labouring under the very heavy rate burden. The immediate concern in this area is the growth of financial difficulties due to a lack of balanced building development.
We require more factories for male labour, more shops, more schools and so on which contribute large sums but require few services. We need something like the tobacco factory on the Newcastle—Whitley-Bay Road which has a rateable value of £10,000. The approximate post-war capital expenditure on houses and sewers alone in the area I represent runs into millions of pounds. It can be seen at a glance that we require some alternative employment to meet inevitable redundancy. This would assist my area tremendously.
It must be remembered that the whole of Durham County was scheduled as a Development Area and lost 48,000 people by migration during the depression between 1931 and 1939. In 1951 we had a population of more than 22,000 below the level of the population in 1939.
2180
Durham was the only county in England except London to have a smaller population in 1951 than in 1931.
I am asking for special consideration for Durham which the county richly deserves. In my division councillors have a very difficult job. Uncertainty in planning for the future is very great. They have a terrific housing problem and they have various other schemes which need serious care and thought before embarking on them. They should be given all the information possible from the National Coal Board in regard to future projects. It is no earthly use having a beautiful house to starve in it. The men must have work in order to pay their rent. An unemployed man simply cannot meet his obligations and live at the present time. What are the Government going to do? Are they going to leave this area so that eventually it will become a National Assistance area?
In opening my speech, I said that there was alarm and anxiety among important individuals and organisations outside the division. I think it only fair to justify that statement. A report from the North-Eastern area says:
"The Northern Industrial Group and the North-East Development Association believe that the facts call for action. The National Coal Board must be pressed to give their estimates of any reduction in the numbers likely to be employed in coal-mining in the various parts of West Durham over a period of some years ahead and also to indicate to what extent and in what ways they plan any additional employment other than in the pits in the area.
The Group and the Association take the view that as a solution to the problem migration is a desperate resort and must be avoided by making every effort to provide alternative forms of employment in the right places, on the scale and at the times needed in order to prevent it.
The Government is the authority which can find out the facts from the Coal Board "—
I have tried many times but cannot get very much information. That is why I say that the Government are the authority and agree with these people—
"and which can take action under the Distribution of Industry Act to deal with the employment problem. To that end the President of the Board of Trade is being asked by the Group and the Association to receive a deputation to discuss problems and advise the two organisations on what action is intended.
The Group, together with the Association, in the light of this Report, are determined

2181
that the problem which it examines shall be tackled without delay and in the most positive manner possible."
I suggest that this is very strong language from a group of people anxious and willing to help. They sincerely believe that "Prevention is better than cure." I think that proves my contention that organisations and individuals outside the area are very much interested in this matter.
I have talked about labour with those industrialists already in the area and I have yet to receive a complaint from any of them. In fact their attitude is that it is "entirely satisfactory." Good sites are readily available scheduled and improved for industrial development. Sewers, gas, electricity and water supplies are laid on. Labour can readily adapt itself to meet all the requirements of those who care to come. Transport arrangements are very good indeed and well able to meet all needs.
I hope that what I have said today will not fall on deaf ears, but that we shall find a ready response from the President of the Board of Trade. If he rises to this occasion I can assure him that all the councillors and officials in North-West Durham will co-operate to make any effort a huge success.
8.1 p.m.
Mr. Ralph Assheton: I wish to intervene only for a few moments to discuss a point which is a matter of great concern in my part of the country. Some time ago it was suggested that a Development Area should be formed in North-East Lancashire. I had some doubts about that proposal, because I had fears and anxieties as to what might happen. I am sorry to say that some of my anxieties have proved to be justified. The President of the Board of Trade decided to make certain parts of North-East Lancashire into a Development Area. North-East Lancashire is an entity. The ancient Hundred of Blackburn has been a political entity for a thousand years, and it has been an economic entity for most of that time. One cannot make a sensible job of cutting it in half.
When the Order is discussed later this evening, whether I speak on it or not, I shall not be an enthusiastic supporter of it. I do not want to go so far as to say that I shall oppose it, because that
2182
would be adopting a dog-in-the-manger attitude. Neighbouring towns to mine will get some benefit from it, and so I am put in a difficult position which I hope will be appreciated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour who is to reply.
When this proposal was made I led a deputation of hon. Members from both sides of the House to meet the President of the Board of Trade and to ask him to include the whole of North-East Lancashire in the area. We put our case as best we could, and the right hon. Gentleman received us very kindly. But he did not give us a satisfactory reply. I and other hon. Members pointed out that it was not wise to go on the figures of unemployment for any particular date. We indicated to the President that on looking back into the past it would be found that when serious unemployment affects that area it is apt to come from one direction down the valley until it fills up the whole area. That is what has happened in the past.
We tried to persuade the President of the Board of Trade to include the whole of the area, and I would draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that our case has been proved by events. If we look at the figures of unemployment today in the area which the Minister has delienated, we shall find that with one small exception the unemployment is no more severe there than it is in the area he has excluded. The constituency of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is suffering to about the same degree as is mine, and as is the constituency of the hon. Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle). That justifies our suggestion that it is unwise to base a decision upon the facts as they exist at any one time.
I wish to ask the President to do something to prevent the damage which can arise from his decision, and I would illustrate my point by giving an example of something which happened to me last week. One of my constituents came to me and said he wished to increase his business, to develop it and to add to his existing factory. If he was not able to do that he said he could obtain accommodation quite near which would serve his purpose. He told me that he had been to a certain Government Department, which shall be nameless, and had

2183
been told that he had a much better chance of getting orders if he went to Burnley.
It is all very well to talk about drawing new industry into North-East Lancashire, but if it is drawn from Blackburn to Burnley I shall complain, and so will the hon. Member for Blackburn, East. We cannot stand for that. It is not really fair that this magnet, as it was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), should be placed next door to us. It is hard because we are nearly as badly placed as they are, and later on we may be in a worse position. That magnet is supposed to draw business and trade from the south of England or from some other wealthier parts of the country which have already plenty to do. If it manages to draw trade to Burnley or to Nelson and Colne, although I shall be sorry it is not going to Blackburn, I shall be glad it is going to Burnley and to Nelson and Colne. But if trade is to be drawn from Blackburn to Burnley, I warn the President, that is something we cannot stand for. I ask for an assurance that he will make certain that in the working of this Act such a thing will never happen
8.7 p.m.
Mr. David J. Prude: We have listened to one of the finest debates in this House in recent years. I detected heart searching and mind searching and a genuine desire on the part of everyone who has spoken to try to find ways of improving our national position. The President of the Board of Trade told us that we have to make certain efforts. He asked certain questions. He asked whether the Act was a success? Would we require to abolish the Act?
The debate arose principally upon the fact that one district in Lancashire is to be scheduled as a Development Area. That district should not play too much upon the fact that it is to be scheduled. In the constituency which I have the honour to represent we have a district which was scheduled, and nothing has been done. The President spoke of the possibility of his Department steering industry. That may or may not be successful, but everyone will agree that if his Department makes a wild slap-dash approach to any area which shows an incidence of unemployment at any given
2184
time, then Government policy will resemble a little dog chasing its own tail.
In certain districts in Scotland we have had the introduction of workshops and factories which have been described as only running half-time. That means there has been a misdirection of industry. Let me give one example. One fine firm in Edinburgh of world-wide reputation, Messrs. Ferranti Ltd., had for many years contemplated using the reserves of labour in the Calders area of Midlothian. Every morning 'bus loads of people are brought to the City of Edinburgh after a 55 minutes run and the girl who works in Edinburgh is 18s. 6d. worse off than her sister who stays at home because she must pay those transport charges. Messrs. Ferranti made up their minds that they would set up business in the Calders area, but this year the Board of Trade apparently took the responsibility of directing Messrs. Ferranti to Dundee, irrespective of the fact that in the last days of the Labour Government the Chamber of Commerce of Dundee had petitioned the Government not to send any more light industries to Dundee. So we must regard that performance under the Act as requiring a certain amount of revision.
Mobility of labour is a phrase often quoted from the other side of the House and it slides off the tongues of hon. Gentlemen opposite with an oiliness which sometimes makes a chill run down my spine, because I have been a mobile unit. Instead of coming from South Wales into England, at one time during the period between the two wars I went from Midlothian down to Durham. When the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) talked of 1935 and of coal miners being idle, let me tell him that all over Britain half a million miners were either temporarily or permanently unemployed and that that figure was common to all the years between 1927 and 1938.
It is all very well being mobile, but if the hon. Gentleman will come with me to the Lanarkshire coalfield and to Fife and Midlothian we will show him glaring examples of the mobility of labour. Pits were shut down in Lanarkshire which at one time produced four-fifths of the coal supply of Scotland. As many as 50 collieries have been shut down in a few

2185
short years in Lanarkshire. The county councils of Fife and Midlothian and the Coal Board have responded in such fashion that they have built houses quicker than has ever been known in the history of Scottish house building in order that men may be transferred there.
Will those Lanarkshire men consent to uproot themselves and their families from all their local associations and go to a new house in Fife or Midlothian if there is no employment for the other members of the family who do not work in the pits? In the County of Midlothian we have more seams than anywhere else. We have 41 workable seams of coal, 20 on the north bank of the North Esk, 14 on the east bank of the South Esk, and above the confluence of the two branches of the Esk there are seven workable seams and the finest deposits of clay in Britain for pipe making and brick making. Also on the banks of the River Esk there are 10 paper mills where the workers are only employed four days a week.
I think hon. Members will agree with me that here is a case, not for the scheduling of an area, but for sympathetic consideration on the part of the Board of Trade for the introduction of new industries in order that the great experiment on the part of the Coal Board of transferring miners from one part of Scotland to another shall not be torpedoed. I do not want to convey the impression that I am critical of the President of the Board of Trade. On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman has been courtesy personified. He has approached the problem when I have presented it to him with the greatest amount of sympathy—in contrast to those who went before him who, when the proposition was put before them, faced me with the President, two other Ministers and two top-ranking Board of Trade officials, one brought from Scotland, to impress upon me that it was absolutely essential that those girls should be brought from the Calders area or the economy of the City of Edinburgh would crumble. I was too flabbergasted even to argue, but I looked at the Board of Trade official and thought, in sorrow, "And they are paid a salary for doing it?"
I want the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour to think in terms of economics. Here is misapplication of labour because transport is being used
2186
to take it to Edinburgh where it is not required. The transfer of Labour from Lanarkshire has given Midlothian such a reservoir of female labour that we cannot employ it. Unless we get a little assistance from the Government, there is no doubt that Scotland will have a large incidence of unemployment.
It is true to say that of the Calders area we have not got thousands of unemployed. Indeed we have less than 200, but that is because the Calders people are industrious and are not afraid to travel long distances in order to earn their living, rather than to sign on at the employment exchange. However, under 200 represents a greater degree of unemployment than 2,300 would, for instance, to the City of Dundee. Not that I have anything against the City of Dundee which, from the point of view of industrial history, has had a very drab existence indeed. I do not for a moment grudge them Messrs. Ferranti, but I suggest to the Minister of Labour that that factory in the Calders area would have gone a ion?, way towards improving the conditions in the constituency which I have the honour to represent.
In the southern portion of the constituency we also have a great problem. In the County of Peebles we have only one industry upon which the people can depend for a livelihood. When tweed goes wrong the livelihood of the people of the county is in danger. Here again is a position which requires the most delicate treatment. Here, again, the Scottish Office can assist. They know the conditions perfectly well and it is no use talking about industrialising the Highlands when everyone must agree that there is a stumbling block in the transport charges.
The remarks of the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Brooman-White) had a certain amount of logic in them when he spoke of the small unit. For instance, Stornoway has a high incidence of unemployment, perhaps the worst in Britain. It had a patron in the late Lord Leverhulme, who attempted from the standpoint of a millionaire to try to solve the problem in a large way. It should be remembered that in the First World War we drew from those islands 6,600 men to our naval forces but in the Second World War we could only get 3,300.
Any attempt to solve the Highlands problem without a nationalised transport

2187
system is flinging good money after bad. We should copy the Commonwealth countries. In South Africa, when it is not possible because of a dry season to feed the sheep on the lower parts of the Karroo, they are put into the trains free and taken up to grass which is growing in the higher regions. We must have more initiative in regard to earning our bread and butter. I am appealing to the Minister of Labour not to be afraid to cast his eyes across the Border, because Scotland can yet play her part in regard to our national economy.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: I want to make only one comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde). He said that any attempt to solve the Highland problem without a nationalised transport system was doomed to failure. I would not follow him on that point, but I would say that any transport system which we have in the Highlands must be efficient and cheap if we are to reach a satisfactory solution of our problems. The hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles believes that nationalisation will do it, while I do not, but I am sure we all agree that the transport system must be both efficient and cheap.
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board Trade posed a question in his speech, and asked hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to give him their views about it. It was whether the policy which the last two Governments have been following in regard to the Distribution of Industry Act was right or not. My right hon. Friend put the matter very clearly, and he asked whether we were doing our best in our present policy to bring industry into places where there are spots of unemployment; whether we should bring employment to those places or whether the Government should assist in industrial growth in the most promising locations. That brings me to the problem with which I wish to deal, because my right hon. Friend also mentioned the question of bringing industry to the Highlands, and these two things are very much linked together.
I do not think there is any dispute about the intentions of the Act. It was
2188
meant to provide for the development of certain areas by the introduction of premises in order to secure a proper distribution of industry, and the only point on which there might be dispute concerns the way in which the Act has been administered. What has this Act done for the Highlands? As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) said, precious little. Yet the Board of Trade and the Treasury have immense powers. We are faced with what is called the Highland problem—the problem of bringing industry to a very great area in Britain.
I do not think that anybody would dispute the desirability of spreading industry more generally throughout the country, or the desirability of inducing industry to go North. After all, the Highland area is the only place in Britain today where we have got the necessary space, but we have also got highly intelligent labour, hydro-electric power being developed, and—a consideration which should not be far from our thoughts—certain strategic advantages in that the hills and glens of the Highlands are very difficult for air attack. What we need most of all is not so much small pilot schemes, but the provision of basic services, the tackling of the essential transport problem, with the provision of better roads and cheaper freight rates.
There are three factors which are militating against any development in the Highlands. The first is high freight costs; the second is the fear of a labour shortage by the industrialists; and the third is the credit shortage at the present time. On the question of freight charges, I want to say that the Government must face this problem if we are to have development in the North, and especially where it is desirable, but the Government must realise that they will have to bear much of the cost of any Northern development for several years to come. If necessary, the Government must subsidise transport charges in Scotland to a greater degree than they do at present, because their present efforts are not curing the de-population problem.
With regard to the fear of labour shortage, the Minister touched on the case of a firm which wanted 200 employees and could not get them. I wonder if that firm was one which I know, which wanted to go to Fort William and asked

2189
if they could have 200 women. They were told by the Ministry of Labour that they were not available. Yet, there are 10,000 people who live in that area. I never heard such nonsense, but that firm went elsewhere. The policy of the Government is to try to give industry to places where there already is population, and they are not working on the line of developing likely localities, although they have in mind the development of Peterhead.
If, however, we establish an industry and build houses for the workers in the North, it will not only help the Glasgow employment situation but will assist the Glasgow housing situation as well. There are a great number of Highlanders in Glasgow who would be glad of the opportunity of working in the Highlands, and there is this further consideration. If we look at the employment exchange figures of unemployment in the Highlands, we find that there is practically none at Fort William. Of course there is not, because there is only one large employer in the district, and if a man loses his job he does not go to the local employment exchange but goes to Glasgow, and so the Glasgow figures rise. That is the way we ought to look at it, and we ought to realise that we can help the whole country by assisting likely places to develop.
We have large deposits of dolomite in the Highlands. We could also make cement there, but there is not one single cement factory in Scotland. One firm is doing processing, in the Lowlands, but no one is doing the whole job. Then there are great opportunities for industries for satellite factories in the Highlands, but the Government must do more to overcome the problem of the basic services which are now lacking, especially in regard to transport and freight charges for transport. For instance, we have a small concern in Inverness which makes the fastest welding machine in the world, but they have to pay a zoning charge of £2 and increased freight charges on the products they send from Inverness to whatever port from which they are shipped.
It would be in the greatest interests of this country if we had a real plan for development in the North of Britain. There is no reason why the South-East of Britain should have such a large population while so little is done at the
2190
same time in the North-West, and I submit that one large centre in the neighbourhood of Inverness, comprising 250,000 people, with factories of various kinds and all the wealth which they could provide, should be the end to which we should look forward in due course.
There are good natural harbours in the North-West of Scotland, some 200 miles nearer New York than Southampton, and we should make much greater use of them. It would be entirely to the advantage of Britain if we had more than one centre to which the great trans-Atlantic liners sailed. I look forward to the time when trans-Atlantic liners will arrive in the North of Scotland as they are beginning to arrive in the Clyde. We know there are difficulties, but there is no harm in thinking ahead. I submit that the Government have to do very much more than they have done in the past if they want to see industry brought to the North of this country.
8.30 p.m.
Mrs. E. M. Braddock: The President of the Board of Trade asked for suggestions on this subject. I have listened to practically the whole of the debate, and all sorts of suggestions have been made to him, but I am sure that the suggestion which I shall make will not be accepted in any circumstances, although I believe it to be one which would have the most effect. It is that his Government should get out of office as quickly as possible in order that the policy of the previous Government can be continued. I know that that would have the best effect on the country. Indeed, I do not intend to make any suggestions to him about how the present situation could be altered, because I know that Government policy is making it impossible for any alteration to be made.
It is quite obvious that the situation is determined by the Government's financial policy. The Government decided that there would be fewer imports, so that obviously there are fewer exports and, in consequence, fewer transport men are needed, fewer dockers are needed and fewer seamen are needed. The Government's financial policy is entirely responsible for the difficulties of the Development Areas.
Merseyside and Liverpool have the greatest task of all. Our unemployment

2191
problem, stretching right back to 1919, has been one of the utmost difficulty. At that time, one in seven of the working population of Liverpool was out of work, and that figure continued for a very long time. When the Labour Government took control in 1945 and began to work the Distribution of Industry Act, we knew that it would take a long time to deal with the problem of Liverpool. The application of the Act which gave permission for the establishment of Development Areas brought a steady improvement, although the political section responsible for the administration of Liverpool vigorously opposed any suggestion that Merseyside should become a Development Area. Later in the life of the Labour Government, however, Merseyside became a Development Area.
Liverpool has had all the advantages of legislation from every point of view. The local authority took Parliamentary powers to itself in 1936 and was enabled to develop industrial areas, to lease land to manufacturers and industrialists, to loan them money and to see that factories were placed at their disposal. Later, the Development Area was scheduled and, as a result, in 1951, as part of a very gradual process and as a result of decent, sensible, sound administration and a decent monetary policy, we had reduced unemployment in Liverpool and the Merseyside to a figure lower than that attained in the history of any other Government.
I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour that the people of Liverpool have very great respect for the type of legislation which the Labour Government were putting into operation. They had hopes of security. They were assured that the difficulties which, under other Governments, had seemed to be insurmountable, were at last being dealt with swiftly, and many of them made arrangements to improve their housing accommodation. They had lived in very bad housing conditions, for some of the housing conditions of Liverpool are amongst the most shocking in the country. As a result of the legislation being operated by the Labour Government, people were given the chance of permanent employment, and were able
2192
to obtain new houses when their names were reached on the housing list.
One of the biggest tragedies of my "surgery "every Sunday morning is when working-class women come to me with tears in their eyes to tell me that they have been living in desperately bad circumstances for a long time, that they have been offered new housing accommodation but that they cannot afford to accept it. They tell me, "My husband has not the security of a job and I cannot afford to pay the rent charged for the new house. I have been waiting a long time for accommodation, but I have still to remain in the bad housing circumstances I have been in so long."
That is very bad indeed, but it is part of a decided policy of the Tory Party. It is due to the fact that the Tory Party are concerned mostly with how much profit can be made out of an industry before they decide whether it is possible to bring it into operation. Our point of view was different. We decided what sort of things required to be manufactured. It was not a slap-happy sort of arrangement whereby people manufacturing things out of which they could make the most profit were allowed to go on making those things irrespective of the demands of the export trade or the home trade.
I quite agree that there is point in what the Colonial Secretary said yesterday or the day before—that economic planning is a "big bit of boloney ": that we cannot have economic planning and freedom. Of course we cannot. We cannot have freedom for industrialists to exploit industry from a profit point of view and at the same time have State economic planning. We have to decide which we want, and I know that the industrial workers of this country in the main desire the effect of decent, sound State economic planning rather than the slap-happy methods of huge profits that were adopted and are again being adopted by the Tory Party. It is a question of deciding what we want.
My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) said this had been a good debate. I think it has been a rotten one.
Mr. Raymond Gower: In the midst of these remarks, would the hon. Lady agree in any degree at all that at the time when this Government took

2193
office there were some financial difficulties on the national front, and second, would she agree in some degree that international competition has been aggravated in the last year or so?
Mrs. Braddock: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that interjection, because it gives me an opportunity of saying something which, perhaps, I would not have said otherwise. Of course there were financial difficulties, but there had been two occasions before when there were financial difficulties, which were overcome not by decreasing the number of people working in the country but by increasing productivity and increasing the numbers working. The Tory Party have talked a lot about the mess that the Labour Government left the country in. Believe me, the people in Lancashire want to get back to that mess, because it meant complete employment.
Mr. Gower rose
Mrs. Braddock: I am not giving way again. If it is a question of living in a mess, with decent security and full employment, I know that the people I represent would sooner live in that mess than in the poverty and misery and unemployment that are forced upon them by the activities and the financial policy of the present Government.
Let us look at the situation. The President of the Board of Trade said that we could get out of this difficulty with the will to work long and hard. Who is to work long and hard? And how in the name of goodness can people work long and hard if they find they are thrown out of work and are on the labour exchange? The will to work long and hard? The working people of this country have done nothing else all their lives but work long and hard. I want some of the people who have never done a hand's stroke of work in this country, and have lived decently and well on the exploitation of those who were willing to work hard and long, to do a bit instead of talking so much. When we get to that situation we may perhaps talk of the rest of the population working long and working well.
The unemployment figures in Liverpool are growing every week. Let us look at the situation at the docks, because, peculiarly enough, the figures of those men unemployed on the docks, or
2194
not employed from day to day under the scheme, do not appear in the records of the Ministry of Labour. When there are difficulties in an area the figures given for the area are never added to the total number of unemployed. Let us see what the position is at the moment, not on Merseyside but in Liverpool.
On 31st January, 3,431 dockers were stated to be surplus to the needs of the docks. In January, 1951, there were only 160 surplus. That is very peculiar. I do not see how the Tory Party can explain why, immediately they get the reins in their hands, all these figures increase. They say it is never their responsibility but always the responsibility of someone else, but that sort of thing has always happened, mostly in industrial areas, at any time in our history when either a Tory or a National Government have had control of our administration and legislation. In Liverpool the number of unemployed is increasing week after week. In Liverpool alone there are well over 20,000, and in the Development Area of Merseyside there are just on 32,000, whereas in October, 1951, at the time of the Labour Government, there were fewer than 16,000 in the whole of the Merseyside area.
It is no use asking for suggestions to be made, because the Tory Party have no intention of taking any notice of suggestions. The suggestions that we make are our policy, and we cannot possibly ask them to accept our policy when it disagrees fundamentally with their policy and the way they want to see things done. It is no use shedding crocodile tears about the number of people who are becoming unemployed, because that is all part of the necessary formula for the maintenance of a capitalist system in this country.
The sooner the Tory Party realise that they will not be able to do to the present youth of our country what they did to our youth in 1918 and onwards, the sooner they get into their heads that either they must take some action about this growing unemployment problem in the Development Areas and in other parts of the country or else our youth will get rid of them as quickly as they can so that they may have the chance of some sort of decent existence and some chance of permanent security, the better.

2195
The special powers which Liverpool has are being used. On top of that, the Development Area Council have been trying desperately to attract people to the Development Area. I interjected in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade to ask how many requests there had been for factories or to investigate the opportunity of putting up factories in the Merseyside area. In November of last year there was not one; no possibility of dealing with the increased unemployment problem of the Merseyside area. Nobody is asking to look at sites, and nobody is asking about the possibility of putting up a new factory. Why? Because of the financial difficulties the Government have put in the way of manufacturers extending their premises or opening new factories and new businesses.
This has been a friendly sort of debate, with everybody patting everybody else on the back and saying what an excellent sort of fellow the President of the Board of Trade is. I do not dispute that. What I do say is that it is useless for us to make suggestions or to talk about the Development Areas and what can be done in them while the present Government, with their present financial policy, have control of our financial position.
If when my right hon. Friend winds up this debate he puts the point of view of our workers and what they are thinking, he will echo what I am saying. He may make suggestions about what might be done to save the Tory Party from committing political suicide—although I hope he does not, because I should like to see them commit political suicide. He may make suggestions about it. The suggestions he may make will no doubt be very useful ones, but I believe that they will fall on deaf ears and on very barren ground because I believe that the Tory Party have not yet learned the lesson that the administration and legislation which they could use in the years before the war and between the wars is not the sort of legislation that most of the people in the Development Areas, or in those parts of the country where unemployment is growing very desperately, are likely to believe will give a decent policy.
The whole situation in the Development Areas and Merseyside is this:
2196
Every section of industry, the local authority, the Industrial Council, the Advisory Committee and the Development Council itself have been pressing upon the Board of Trade the drastic results of their financial policy. This pressure is not coming only from the Labour members of the council and the Labour members of the committee; it is coming from the local authority and from every branch of industry in the area.
The Parliamentary Secretary knows that not long ago I led a deputation to him on this matter. He knew absolutely nothing about the position, and nor did his officers. They could not give us the information we wanted. I had to tell him what was the situation. It was deplorable to discover that his hands were tied completely, and he could not make any suggestion about what might be done to ease the situation, because he had had his instructions from his party chiefs and from the Treasury that there was to be no additional finance allowed to the Development Areas where unemployment is growing. So as far as I am concerned, it is no use making a suggestion, except the one that the sooner the Government get out of the way and give us an opportunity of building things up properly, the more the people of this country will be satisfied.
8.47 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Thompson: I am pleased to have the opportunity of speaking after the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) and of righting some of the false impressions she may have conveyed to the Committee. May I say that my party both in the House and in the country has pledged itself in so many words and in the spirit of its doctrine to avoid a recurrence of unemployment so far as it lies within its power to do so. We stand in that respect not only pari passu with the party opposite but, I am sure, as the whole community of this country stands, resolved not to see the kind of conditions return to which the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Murray) referred.
The tenor of the hon. Lady's remarks was to blackguard my party not with an imputation of what we had done or about what was to happen but with the imputation that we were deliberately designing our policy to create unemployment.

2197
[HON. MEMBERS; "Of course you are."] There could not be a worse type of accusation to make of a public policy or one more inaccurate, as the hon. Lady herself knows.
Let me remind her that the party which is in control of our affairs in this country is the same party as is in control of the city on whose behalf she assumed to be speaking. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is why we are in such a mess."] In 1936, that city took powers to itself which are roughly equal to the powers which the Government of the day took in the Development Area. The Tory Liverpool City Council took powers to attract a diversification of industry to the city in order to provide alternative employment in an area which greatly needed it. That was no wicked capitalist attempt to keep out of employment those who needed work or to see that the great millstone of unemployment remained about the neck of one man or woman one day longer than necessary.
The party at present governing the country is motivated by the same spirit as that Tory council, and my hon. Friends and I completely, absolutely and in every degree share with the Tory Liverpool Council their abhorrence of the burden placed upon a man when he is unable to provide for the well-being of his family by his own efforts and ingenuity. We recognise that no human dignity compares with that where a man can provide for the necessities and well-being of his own family. I hope that disposes of the unjust and unworthy imputations of the hon. Lady.
All of us are concerned at any tendency for the unemployment figures to increase, but let us remember that the Conservative Party came into power at the time the Labour Party ran away from the consequences of its own policy. Fifteen months ago it became clear that the balloon of artificial prosperity and full employment which the Labour Party had built up was on the point of bursting. By a vigorous and far-sighted policy, the Conservative Government have prevented the worst happening. During the months which have ensued we have endeavoured to maintain the best possible conditions for all our people.
2198
I wish to say to my hon. Friend who will reply—I know he is as concerned about all aspects of this as any one of us is—that there are many other things a Government can do besides declaring an area a Development Area. There have been instances of factories attracted to the Merseyside Development Area, either before or after its declaration as a Development Area, which are now able, for reasons of international trading difficulties, to employ fewer than the maximum number they are capable of employing. I should like my right hon. and hon. Friends to direct their attention to some of the fringe problems by providing work by way of defence orders, and so on, for factories in the Development Areas. There are many other aspects of the matter to which I should like to direct the attention of the Committee, but my time is limited.
In a Development Area such as Merseyside, many factories are capable of providing further employment and so reducing the numbers remaining unemployed provided that we can gain places in markets overseas. I have previously mentioned our trade with Brazil; I believe we have not been as vigorous as we should have been in settling the problem, which has now gone on for a long time. There must be other instances. We could well do with more merchant adventurers among our industrialists. I want to see more of the spirit of merchant adventuring in my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Board of Trade, and I very much hope that later in the debate we shall be told that these problems are being tackled in that spirit.
The Chairman: Mr. Ness Edwards.
Mr. M. MacMillan: I wonder if my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) would excuse me for one moment, because I want to ask him if he will be good enough to put to the Minister some questions concerning the Scottish position. No Member on this side of the Committee from the Scottish development or other areas has been called in this debate, while three Tories have been given the opportunity of putting their point of view. If my right hon. Friend will now make our representations and put the questions to the Minister, it will enable the Minister to reply to the representations we would have made had we had the opportunity.
The Chairman: I think that remark was meant to be offensive. It was rather personal and I resent it. I do my best to call Members representing all parties and the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) had no business to make a remark like that. Mr. Ness Edwards.
Mr. MacMillan: On a point of order.
The Chairman: No point of order arises. I have said what I have to say.
Mr. MacMillan: I do not know whether it is in order—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Nol—to refer to a private conversation with the Chair. You told us that three Scottish Tories were a fair proportion to one Scottish Socialist.
The Chairman: What was said to me was most offensive, and I have said all that I have to say about it. I do my best, and I will not stand remarks like those made by the hon. Member.
8.57 p.m.
Mr. Ness Edwards: I am sorry about this misunderstanding which has developed, but let us get back to the debate. The speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) and that of the hon. Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson) raised the temperature a bit, and if I am to take sides, my hon. Friend need not worry. I shall be on the right side, and I think that when I have finished she will find that she and I will not be too far apart.
This debate was staged for the purpose of discovering the Government's mind in this matter, and I am sorry to say that we have not discovered it. We have discovered certain differences among hon. Members on the other side of the Committee, and we have had a Ministerial declaration here tonight completely at variance with a Ministerial declaration made outside some days ago. I shall try to develop that point in the course of what I have to say.
First, I am sure we are all pleased at having seen the President of the Board of Trade making his first speech today since his illness. We hope he will soon be restored to full health and to that oratorical vigour for which he
2200
has been known for many years in the House. Secondly, I should like to refer to the very excellent maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton), who succeeds a late colleague of ours who was deep in the affections of every one of us, the late George Tomlinson. My hon. Friend made an excellent speech, and I am sure we shall welcome his contributions in the future.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) opened the debate in a very unimpassioned way. He surveyed the whole field and, I thought, he deployed the general position to the attention of the Committee. He indicated the apprehension that was being felt in many parts of the country, and the debate has shown that the apprehensions are not limited to one side of the Committee but are widespread. People are wondering what is going to happen. What he did say was not said in any state of panic, but it is a fact that throughout the country in responsible circles the position is regarded with very great seriousness.
I closely followed the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, and I came to the conclusion that, when looking at the number of briefs which he has in his office, he must have taken one that related to 1950 instead of to conditions under the present Government. His speech was identical in sentiment with the speeches which were made when we were on the Government side of the House, and identical in sentiment with the original White Paper presented to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) when he was President of the Board of Trade in the Coalition Government.
I was pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that, as a matter of principle, we were all agreed upon the purposes of the Distribution of Industry Act. That was a very excellent declaration and showed far greater statesmanship than the "boloney" speech made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies outside the House the other day. Here was a Minister approaching his problems with a sense of responsibility and trying to bring his mind to them. All that the Colonial Secretary did was to bring his prejudices to bear on the problem. The

2201
President of the Board of Trade is maintaining the reputation which he established in his very early days here before the old House of Commons was burned down, when he was one of the young Tories and achieved great admiration on all sides.
We have had the usual statistics, declarations about identity of policies, and assurances that there has been no change in policy and that the old policy of taking the work to the people instead of driving, the people to the work was still the policy of Her Majesty's Government. I agree as to the limitations of that policy, because we were faced with exactly the same limitations when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and used to preside over the Distribution of Industry Committee. We found ourselves up against exactly the same limitations as those to which the Minister referred, and so we make no great criticism.
He seems to have left out from his speech anything about the usefulness of the Act. Doubts were expressed by other hon. Members on that side of the Committee. I must therefore make it clear that the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, saved South Wales—[An HON. MEMBER; "And the North-East "] —and other Development Areas of this country. Action taken under that Act will be a permanent monument to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, who was more responsible for it than any other statesman in the last 20 years. We all recognise the good will that has been created, and I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's agreement with that.
He declared that the policy had not been changed, but he posed three questions. First, he asked whether or not the time had come to change policy. So long as unemployment in the Development Areas is higher than the average of unemployment in the country, the time has not come to change policy because our job has not been done or our work completed. Until we have reduced unemployment in the Development Areas to the national average, there should be no tinkering and tampering with this very important issue. That is my conclusion, and I think I carry my hon. and right hon. Friends with me on that point.
2202
The next point in the Minister's speech was when he said that for the 12 months ended 31st December, 1952, 6,000 new factories had been licensed. Surely that was not the position?
Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Up to the end of 1952, during the whole post-war period, 6,000 have been built.
Mr. Ness Edwards: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. What is the number built in the non-Development Areas compared with the number in Development Areas since the right hon. Gentleman took office? I am speaking from memory, but in the period 1947–48 I think that 50 per cent. of the new factories were licensed to be built in the Development Areas and 50 per cent. outside them. The figures may have varied 2 or 3 per cent. I want to know whether there has been a substantial change in the location of industry practice by the Location of Industry Committee. Have the proportions changed? That is what we did not get, and until we get that information I am afraid we must be suspicious as to whether or not there has been a change in policy.
The next point which was repeated a number of times in the admirable survey of the right hon. Gentleman was that there had been no change of policy. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. There has been a change in policy. Is it the case that the President of the Board of Trade does not know what the Treasury is saying? Is it the case that the President of the Board of Trade does not know what the Minister of Housing and Local Government is saying? I admit that he has been absent from his office and I am prepared to make all sorts of concessions, but here is an important question and I want to draw his attention to what has been happening.
The position in the Development Areas is that the industrial needs have been largely attended to, though there are spots here and there in most of the Development Areas where the supply of jobs exceeds the supply of people. It is equally true that there are other parts of the Development Areas where the supply of jobs falls far below the availability of labour. Taking the country as a whole, however, we have certainly beaten the main problem of supplying new jobs. That has been absorbing the

2203
time of Government, of estates management committees of local authorities ever since the end of the war.
What is happening is that having largely put the industrial side right, we now start upon putting the amenity side right by building houses, making roads, supplying water, providing for drainage. All those amenity schemes are now going forward and Section 3 of the Distribution of Industry Act now becomes of great importance. At one time it had not the significance that it has now. Our job in the Development Areas is only half done, and unless we build up the amenity side we are cutting the throat of our own policy.
It is no use putting the factories there unless the public amenities are attended to. Key men will not go and live in some of our villages in the condition in which some of those villages are today. How many hon. Gentlemen have had the experience of meeting industrialists in the valleys in the Development Areas? They send a bunch of key men down to look at the areas and they say, "We are not staying here." So they cannot bring the jobs to that area. We must put that right if we are to attract key men from other areas into the Development Areas.
That is one reason. Of course there is the overwhelming reason that people living in the Development Areas are entitled to as much humanity in their surroundings as those living outside the development areas. We have lived among the dust, the slush and the muck heaps long enough, and it is time that it was put right. The right hon. Gentleman knows all about Section 3 of the Act. On 27th June there was issued Circular 54/52, to which reference has been made. It was astonishing that nothing was mentioned about it by anyone here until November. Here was a circular relating to Government policy, issued behind the back of Parliament, and none of us knew anything about it.
The President of the Board of Trade made an announcement about scheduling that part of Lancashire which is the subject of tonight's Order, and he did not know a thing about it. When I asked him whether he knew that Section 3 had been suspended, he did not know. It is astonishing that behind the back of Parliament this important change of
2204
policy depriving local authorities of millions of pounds, should be indulged in just prior to the Recess.
On the face of it, the circular is very innocuous. It makes a reference to the Chancellor's speech, and it says this:
"We need a sustained effort to put economy first: an effort which my colleagues have agreed to make and in which I ask all local authorities and other public bodies to share to the full I cannot stress sufficiently the importance of economy in the sphere of local government as well as national government."
That is the only declaration of policy in relation to this problem ever to be made in the House, and it was made in the Budget speech. I am sure that not one hon. or right hon. Member suspected that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer was doing under that paragraph was to cut the throat of the Distribution of Industry Act.
One has to turn to the appendix to the circular to discover that in paragraph 6 it says:
"Distribution of Industry Act, 1945. It has been decided that grants under Section 3 of this Act for water supply and sewerage shall not be made in future, except in the cases where the authorities have entered into contracts or commitments on the strength of undertakings by the Ministry that grants would be paid in respect of approved expenditure. Where there has been a provisional undertaking to pay a grant, but there is no contract or commitment to expenditure, the undertaking will lapse."
Did the right hon. Gentleman know about this? This is a change of policy, a suspension of one of the most important provisions of this Act of Parliament. Despite that, the right hon. Gentleman said today that there has been no change of policy and that the Government were continuing to make grants.
Mr. Chetwynd: By a Minister not responsible.
Mr. Ness Edwards: It does not affect the right hon. Gentleman's Department, but it does affect the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will now agree that there has been a change in policy and that there is not now an identity of activities between his Department and the activities of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland when he held that office. It is this change in policy which is having such a serious effect upon the Development Areas.

2205
Let me go one step further. The man who should be in the dock is not the right hon. Gentleman but the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Where I blame the right hon. Gentleman is that he has not only misled himself about this—I am not questioning his bona fides—but he has misled the House. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will have an adequate answer to this charge.
Mr. Watkinson: He will.
Mr. Ness Edwards: In that case I had better anticipate him a little, I had better deal with what the Minister of Housing and Local Government had to say. I hope the policy has not changed again since 18th February, because I now propose to quote the letter from the Minister of Housing and Local Government. This is what he says:
"In my letter of 9th December I promised to look again at the water and sewerage schemes in South Wales and see how far I could ease the effects of the decision that grants under the Distribution of Industry Act must be discontinued. I am afraid that for the reasons explained in my letter, I cannot vary the decision as far as new works are concerned."
Mr. Manuel: How can he get round that?
Mr. Ness Edwards: It is up to the Minister who is to reply to prove that what the Minister of Housing and Local Government said is all "boloney." If he does prove it, it only shows the incompetence of the Government.
I will carry the matter a step further to show the effect on local authorities. A series of Questions to the Minister of Housing and Local Government shows that in the North-East Development Area 11 schemes, costing £7 million, have been refused between June and October. Previously they would have been eligible for 85 per cent. grants, but on the North-East Coast alone from the end of June to the end of October schemes costing £7 million failed to rank for grants under this Section of the Act.
In the same period, 12 schemes which would have ranked for grant in Scotland have been rejected costing nearly £2 million. In South Wales the situation is most serious. There 29 schemes costing £2,500,000 in four months which were entitled to grants and have been approved for grant by the Welsh Board of Health and encouraged to proceed, have been
2206
turned down by the Treasury. Is not that a change of policy? They were approved by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and it was said that they would rank for grant, but the Treasury says, "No." So the "long hand" of the Minister of Housing and Local Government does not know what the "short hand" of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing.
This is really a terrible business—51 schemes providing water and sewerage in the Development Areas and costing more than £12 million in four months have now been excluded. Will the hon. Gentleman be able to tell us something about it? How many schemes have been refused up to date? If they rejected £12 million in four months, as further months have elapsed since then, what is the size of it now? If the President of the Board of Trade disputes that, he might look at the answers supplied by the Minister of Housing and Local Government giving the precise figures which make up the total. He will find them in HANSARD, and I am sure that his staff will be able to dig them out for him.
The Rhymney Valley Water Board has been mentioned. They proceeded with a comprehensive water scheme as a consequence of an investigation by the Welsh Board of Health made for the head office of that Ministry. They have been paid grant up to a certain point. The National Coal Board wished to start three housing schemes. There were to be two new pithead baths and one electricity generating station, plus the active housing policy of the local authority. The Welsh Board of Health approved the scheme, which amounted to £328,000, and said that it would rank for grant. They said that the pipes for the scheme could be ordered and they gave a certificate to enable the authority to get the pipes from steel control. But when the authority applied for the grant, they were told they could not have it.
If they cannot have that grant, and although they modify their scheme, the rates will be raised by 2s. in the £. That is an extremely serious matter. This is a mining area, a Development Area. The Minister of Housing and Local Government have said they can have the houses. but the Treasury say they cannot have the water and the drainage. The same thing

2207
applies to the pithead baths and to the new industrial development. It will mean that the rates in the Rhymney urban district will go up from 30s. to 32s. in the £. What a condition of things in which to attract new industries. In the Caerphilly urban district the rates will go up from 26s. to 28s. in the £. These authorities have a statutory obligation to supply water for a rate that they will not be able to collect. That is the situation, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us something about it.
My hon. Friends have quoted other cases with which I will not deal, but I put these questions to the Parliamentary Secretary. What projects have been authorised under the Act since June, 1952? What advance factories have been authorised since that date? What factories have been authorised and built at Government expense since 1952? Has there, in fact, been a change of policy in that respect? I hope we shall obtain answers.
I come now to the wider question of the employment policy generally. I do not know what has happened to the Ministry of Labour. It used to be one of the most important Ministries in the Government. The voice of the Ministry was heard in the House in all major debates. It made declarations of policy regarding the deployment of labour. I am not saying this in derogation of the Minister, who is probably one of the most courteous Ministers of Labour we have ever had. But I must say that his Ministry does not seem to loom large in the affairs of the Government in these days. It used to decide the location of industry, and that is why I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us whether there has been any change in the location policy. I was astonished to find that so many new factories had been built outside the Development Areas while there was still much unemployment within them.
I go one step further. What do the Ministry propose to do about this falling tempo of production? It looks as if a malaise is coming over the productive forces of this country. Everywhere one looks there is a manifestation—I put it no higher than that—of all the signs of unemployment. What do the Ministry
2208
say about the position? What about the tremendous change in connection with tinplate at Llanelly. We all welcome the good news from Margam. There are also Cardiff and Barry and the docks there. They are very much in the doldrums, but we see the Government doing nothing and saying nothing about them.
There is hardly a dock in the country where the fear of unemployment is not growing and where the burden of the dock labour scheme is not extremely heavy. We have not been told about that. My hon. Friend the Member for the Liverpool Exchange referred to the extremely difficult position around Merseyside. I know that it is an old problem. Have not the Ministry anything new to bring to it; or are they going to let it fester and get worse?
There is also the position in the Midlands and the apprehensions in the engineering industry. We have not heard a very optimistic story from the textile industry either. We have had all sorts of apprehensions expressed by Scottish Members. We must not forget that we still have the Development Area problem with an average unemployment higher than the unemployment in the rest of the country. Perhaps the Minister of Labour has no plans. He may believe, though I rather doubt it, in the "boloney attitude of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I should be sorry to see the Ministry get into the state where they do not attempt to project plans for the purpose of dealing with problems as they arise.
The Minister of Labour has pleaded for industrial peace and co-operation, and his Government are devaluing the wages of the men employed in the industry, cutting subsidies and sending up the prices of food. The President of the Board of Trade said that we must get prices and costs down. I suppose that he would say that one way of doing that is to take subsidies off food. The Minister of Fuel and Power wants more coal and more miners. The Minister of Housing and Local Government tells the local authorities to build the houses, and the Treasury say that they will not give the grants to provide the amenities that make the houses effective.
The future of this country is at stake. What I am trying to say is above party. The pattern of industry and of production

2209
is being changed by external events. No matter what Government we have they will have a tough task to get the country back on to its feet. I do not know how many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen saw the series of articles in the "Sunday Observer" under the heading, "Re-thinking our Future." I should like to see much more of that re-thinking of our future. I see no sign in anything the present Government are doing which gives the idea that they are coming to grips with this problem.
They are abandoning all controls, abandoning all attempts to guide and steer the economy. Credit is being made more difficult. People are going into the wrong industries and producing the wrong things. We are trying to find markets for goods which people do not want. The deployment of the manpower of the nation seems to be completely out of joint. No attempt is being made to deal with the problem.
We ought to have some constructive plan, some general idea where we want to go, what ought to be the size of our industries, and we ought to have the courage to say what ought to be the size of the textile industry, the mining industry or the agricultural industry. These are the things we ought to be talking about, and it is the Minister of Labour who ought to be taking the lead in this matter, because he believes, as the rest of us believe, that full employment is the only basis on which this country can recover.
9.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I think the Committee can take credit, on the whole, perhaps with one exception, for an objective and expert contribution to a very complex and difficult subject, and, of course, a very wide one when we are dealing with the distribution of industry linked with full employment. I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) rather wanted the debate kept entirely on the distribution of industry, but none the less the words "full employment" have been used fairly frequently, and I therefore take it that he will acquit me if I spend some time on the question of full employment.
First, let me deal with particular issues concerning the towns included in the new Development Areas. As my right hon.
2210
Friend explained, he has made the most careful examination of the situation in Lancashire, and he has chosen the area which in his view is the area most in need of Government assistance. As I was myself in Nelson, Colne, Padiham, and that area during the depth of the slump, I can appreciate from my own personal experience how difficult it was to make that decision.
We have to draw a line somewhere, but in his examination my right hon. Friend had careful regard to the White Paper on the Distribution of Industry and to the long-term prospects of the area. I see the difficulties of places like Darwen and Blackburn, but I can also see those of Nelson and Padiham. This is a most difficult decision to take, and I think the Committee will agree that, wherever we drew the line, somebody would be dissatisfied.
There is a special point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), who quoted an instance of a firm which was attracted away from Blackburn into the new Development Area by promises of more access to Government contracts. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he will be kind enough to send details of that particular instance to the President, who I know will look at it and give him a considered answer on it.
I think it is right that I should say that at this time, and also answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) and other hon. Members. It is certainly not the intention, in producing a new Development Area, that it should be a magnet to draw away all enterprises from surrounding areas. I wish to make that quite plain, for the whole thing would be rendered nonsense in that case, and we should only be transferring unemployment from one area to another. There is no intention that this new area should be a magnet drawing the life-blood out of the surrounding areas, but, as to the particular case mentioned by my right hon. Friend, if he will be good enough to give particulars to the President, he would be very glad to look into it.
There is one other matter while I am dealing with these general issues. My right hon. Friend, in his opening speech, dealt with the question of towns not in a Development Area, and he instanced the

2211
case of Portsmouth as a town to which the Government were trying to give special help. That criterion might well apply to any town in this country, wherever it is situated, and I should like to make the point that it is not essential that it should be in a Development Area for the Government to bring special help where it is necessary in a particular area.
There was also the general argument whether we should follow the principles laid down in the present Act or try to spread the benefits wider and not keep within the strict limits of Development Area policy. My right hon. Friend has listened to that argument carefully, and it is not for me to try to sum up the different arguments which have been used, and very rightly, by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. All I can say is that if hon. Members travel round the country, as we all do—and certainly I try to do so they must appreciate the great difficulty there is in making the right decision.
Shall we leave Buckie, in North-East Scotland, to die because we think it has no future, and so destroy all its social capital? Or shall we leave Padiham to die? After all, the lives of men and women, and very much social capital, are involved. Shall we plump, instead, for some Development Area which we think will grow? Or are we to try to keep the,old area alive and perhaps thereby prejudice the future of a new area? I do not know whether there is a complete answer. Perhaps the answer is the usual British compromise. My right hon. Friend has listened to the arguments and it is not for me to sum them up.
Many hon. Members have mentioned this "wicked" circular from the Ministry of Housing. I have it in front of me and I hope I can make it clear that there has been a misunderstanding about it and that what my right hon. Friend said in his opening speech is perfectly correct. In so doing perhaps I can answer not only the right hon. Member for Caerphilly but also the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) and the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch), who also raised points under Section 3 of the Act.
We have always maintained, as the circular says, that owing to the need for
2212
economy we have to restrict to a minimum any new grants under Section 3 of the 1945 Act for the improvement of the basic services, although schemes of quite exceptional industrial urgency can still be considered. Let me give an example of one scheme which has recently been approved—the Whitehaven scheme, about which the right hon. Gentleman knows. The Committee knows the great interest which he has taken in this matter, and I think he has performed a very useful service in raising it, but, to be fair, the Treasury have just approved a total grant of no less than £300,000 for a water supply project in the Development Area at Whitehaven. There have also been other relaxations in this restriction. I can tell the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees that his problem about the water supply in the Tees Valley is fully understood and that the question of a grant under Section 3 of the Act is at this moment under consideration by the Department concerned.
Mr. Chetwynd: It is taking too long.
Mr. Watkinson: That is a very proper argument, but I want to make it plain that it is under consideration and that there is no question that it has been rejected out of hand. The hon. Gentleman is quite right in making his own point about whether it has taken too long, but that is not a point for me in the general argument.
Turning next to the point about South Wales raised by the right hon. Member for Caerphilly, the largest amount of money has been spent there—and I am not taking credit for this to ourselves, because many of the schemes followed those ably started under his administration. Over £2,500,000 has been spent in South Wales, of which £2,200,000 has been for water and sewerage schemes. I think there is some confusion over the large amount which he mentioned. We are dealing with the amounts of grant, and the cost of the schemes is probably two, three or four times the amounts of grant.
Mr. Ness Edwards: I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The grant has been usually on an 85 per cent. basis. Will the hon. Gentleman kindly explain what this means:
"I am afraid that for the reasons explained in my letter I cannot vary the decisions so

2213
far as new works are concerned. I have, however, given special attention to those authorities who feel that they have incurred commitments on the strength of promises that grants would be forthcoming and I am pleased to be able to tell you that I can do something for them."
Mr. Watkinson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for reading me the letter. I am not blaming him, but he did not give me any notice about this beforehand, nor have I had an opportunity of seeing the letter or understanding the context in which it was written. All I want to say is that what I have just said, and what my right hon. Friend has said, is the policy of the Government, and I hope that that disposes of the matter, and that I may be allowed now to get on with my other remarks. [Interruption.] I am very sorry, but I stand on what I have just said. I think I made it plain. What I have just said is the policy of the Government.
Mr. Ness Edwards: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman is making a declaration of policy. We are entitled to know what that really means, and I am entitled to ask him whether new works are eligible for grant under Section 3 of the Act.
The Chairman: Is that a point of order?
Mr. Watkinson: If the right hon. Gentleman had informed me or my right hon. Friend beforehand that he was going to read that letter, we might have been able to answer his point, but I have made it quite plain what our policy is, and I propose now to pass on to answer some of the other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in the debate.
Let me start by making one thing quite plain; it is this:
"The Government accept as one of their primary aims and responsibilities the maintenance of a high and stable level of employment."
Those words are not mine. They are those of the 1944 White Paper on Employment Policy, which was the creation of right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee. I want to start this part of my speech by saying that we intend to implement that White Paper to the full wherever those conditions are applicable to the situation today. I am quite sure that the maintenance of full employment is the honest and sincere
2214
desire of every Member of this Committee, as it is of every employer and trade union leader outside it. Perhaps, we may differ on how we approach this problem.
I listened with very great interest, as I know we all did, to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) who, I thought, brought something quite new and refreshing to the problem in his speech. He brought an expert approach, and while we all of us regret the death of the right hon. Gentleman who was formerly the Member for Farnworth, whom the hon. Gentleman follows in this House, I think I may venture to say that he has a worthy successor, and one to whom we shall listen with great interest and close attention whenever he addresses us.
There are two methods of approach to employment policy. There is the human approach, remembering that this is a matter which affects human lives, and the political approach of the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) in which unemployment figures are, I am afraid, bargaining counters, rather than human problems. We have talked a lot about statistics in this debate, but at the same time we have to remember that behind the statistics are human hopes and fears that, in my view and in the view of the Government, are far too important to be made a matter of party political strife. But I am glad to be able to go on to say that the Committee has taken the factual approach. That is the kind of approach that the Government want to make to this problem.
It is, in our view, a combined operation whose success depends on the willing teamwork of the nation as a whole. Perhaps, I may refer once more to the 1944 White Paper. I think that that is a very remarkable document, which is not quoted enough in the country or in our proceedings. This, I think, is the objective of the Government set out as plainly as anyone could set it forth:
"Employment cannot be created by Act at Parliament or by Government action alone. Government policy will be directed to bringing about conditions favourable to the maintenance of a high level of employment; and some legislation will be required to confer powers which are needed for that purpose. But the success of the policy outlined in this Paper will ultimately depend on the understanding and support of the community as a whole— and especially on the efforts of employers and

2215
workers in industry; for without a rising standard of industrial efficiency we cannot achieve a high level of employment combined with a rising standard of living."
That is the objective of the Government, and in saying that it depends on other people's efforts besides our own we are not in any way trying to ride away from our responsibilities on some sort of easy phrase.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly accused us of not having any sort of plan for full employment. Let me deal with that, because we have a plan to maintain full employment, and it has four main objectives. The first objective is to get the facts right, and I want to deal with the point raised by the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) about the question of creating anxiety. None of us wants to create anxiety, because if we do we bring it into millions of homes. If I may say so, I thought he made a very fair and factual speech, and I am very glad that he has departed from his forecast of one million unemployed. I hope that we shall all remember our responsibilities in this, that if we go about the country spreading gloom and foreboding by talking of millions of unemployed, we are bringing the shadow of fear into the homes of millions of our own people, and we are doing no good to industrial efficiency or industrial teamwork.
Mr. Robens: I wish that kind of speech had been made between 1945 and 1951
Mr. Watkinson: Well, it is being made now anyway. Obviously we have passed out of the post-war phase of shortages and sellers' markets and are now having to consider a full employment policy in the light of severely competitive conditions. In those circumstances we must expect more rapid shifts and changes in the month-to-month employment and unemployment figures. We have already had an example of that sort of pattern in Lancashire. We have another now, although on a much smaller scale, in the motor car industry. I do not under-rate the seriousness of this problem. but no Government should allow themselves to be diverted from their long term objective planning by panic over every pool or pocket of transitional local unemployment. To get the
2216
thing right we must stick to the main plan.
Let us look at some facts on unemployment figures for a moment. I want to quote what I think is a most significant figure, namely, the number continuously unemployed; that is to say, the hard core of the problem. The number continuously registered as unemployed throughout the year remained a very small proportion of the whole. In 1952 it was only 31,000 throughout the year compared with 27,000 in 1951. That is very encouraging and shows that the real hard core of unemployed over the whole year is not rising to any serious extent.
Now let us look at those unemployed for more than eight weeks. In January 1950. the number was 43.5 per cent. of the total wholly unemployed; in January, 1951, it was 42.5 per cent., and in January, 1953, 43 per cent. so that the number of those unemployed for more than eight weeks is not altering in its proportion of the total figures. That is another important and encouraging sign.
All these figures must be looked at against the background of a working population of over 23 million. Another interesting figure, showing the good work done by our employment exchanges, is that nearly 3¼ million people were placed in the course of last year. Generally speaking, therefore, I think it is fair to say that, although there is cause for concern over every person unemployed, there certainly is no cause for panic in the figures at the moment.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Coventry. I know there were several hon. Members who wanted to speak, but who were not called, who would have spoken about Coventry, so may I briefly mention that. Although the figures are going up and the situation is worrying, in Birmingham the figure of unemployed is only 1.4 per cent. of those employed, and in Coventry only 1.1 per cent. That is half the national average. Again, on balance the figures do not show that there is any cause for panic in the problem.
It may be said that this is disguised by a great deal of short-term working. Let us have a look at those figures, when we shall find that in the week ended 24th May, 1952, 300,000 operatives lost five million hours. By the

2217
end of November last year, which is the last date for which we have detailed figures, these totals had been reduced to 100,000 operatives and only one and a quarter million hours. These figures were distorted by the textile recovery. We are very happy to see that as textiles recovered they have improved, but it is equally important to note that with textiles excluded short-time working still decreased by 25 per cent. That proves my point. We are in an undulating economy, if I may call it that, and we must have our peaks and valleys, but we must not get too worried if an industry does hit a valley.
The next part of our plan to meet unemployment and to get full-employment is to get the general planning background right. We will certainly implement the White Paper full employment policy and we have had a great deal of experience in working it out. I want to say this: it recognises quite clearly that the balance of payments difficulties could completely wreck the 1944 plan. These balance of payments difficulties can only be overcome by increasing exports. That of course, was also said by the right hon. Gentleman who was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time.
So we come to the paramount need that if we are to get the plan right, everything we do must be directed towards increasing our efficiency and competitiveness in export markets. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), who preceded me at the Ministry of Labour, made that point in what I thought was a most able and thoughtful speech to which I listened with great interest.
It is so easy in all these questions of planning to prove anything by statistics. That is one of the snags about statistics. For example, the right hon. Gentleman said that the engineering industry had lost 29,000 workmen. That sounded a very depressing and worrying figure until one looked at the next figure in the group, which showed that the broad vehicle group had gained 28,000, so we are only 1,000 less when we come to add up the sum. I am glad to say that in that broad vehicles group 30,000 people went into the aircraft industry where they are desperately needed to fulfil export orders and where there is still a shortage of skilled operatives.
2218
To sum up all the facts, we have got to get a plan ready and get the facts right if we are not to take a wrong action and put needless anxiety into the hearts of people. We are in more competitive times and these are reflected in the fall in the level of unfilled vacancies. The normal increase of unemployment in the peak month of January to 452,000 has certainly been slightly accentuated but it shows that the normal proportion of two-thirds of the increase is in the purely seasonal industries. Once again, the pattern has repeated itself.
In answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Newton about the effects of the cuts in the armaments industry, he is right to be worried about it. It is our view—and we have thought it over very carefully—that they will not have a serious effect. They will reduce the number of people that some armaments industries would have had to engage, but they will not seriously reduce the number of people already engaged, except in the Gloster Aircraft Company, where the cut has already happened. We do not anticipate any more cuts of that character.
Our third objective in this plan for full employment is to get the conditions right. We recognise the primary responsibility of the Government to get the economic background right. I will not say more about that, as it was ably put by my right hon. Friend in his opening speech today.
There is one special matter to which we attach great importance. That has to do with the work of the British Productivity Council which sits under the able chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett), and I think that the whole House will agree with me that we could not have a better chairman. The Council is shortly going to get to work and its main job is to get the "know-how" and "know-why" of productivity right down to the shop floor level where it will do most good, and right into the smaller factories.
There is one other point in getting conditions right. We attach great importance to creating stable conditions in the delicate balance between wages and prices. The Interim Index of Retail Prices, on which the wages of two million people depend and on which the whole wages structure also largely depends, has now been stable at 138 or below for seven

2219
months, and that is the longest period since the index was started. We hope that within that framework of stability we can keep a level balance on wages.
In asking, as the Government have a right to do, for restraint in wages, I want to make it quite plain that we do not ask in any way for restraint in earnings. That is something about which we on this side of the Committee feel very strongly. If we can link earnings to output, the more a man earns the better it will be for him, for his employer and for the country as a whole. Let us make it plain that wage restraint is not earnings restraint. Jolly good luck to those who are earning £20 a week in the mines or the motor car industry, for they are doing themselves and the country good.
Mr. Robens: The hon. Gentleman has talked about the stability of the price index. Does he believe that wages have yet caught up with the price index?
Mr. Watkinson: Yes, I do. I believe a balance has been achieved. I believe the recent award to coal miners, a matter which arose last year, completed the cycle, and I hope we may now be able to stop the boat rocking. The index is now stable, but I do not want to enter into any difficult negotiations which no doubt may ensue later in the year.
The last part of our plan is to try to keep human relations right. The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to mention the National Joint Advisory Council over which he presided with great skill and ability. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly tried to have a crack at my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour, saying that he was not in the Committee, or something to that effect. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not hear the opening remarks of his right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth, who said that my right hon. and learned Friend was not here because he was presiding over that very important body. Today it has discussed a great many matters of vital importance to the House of Commons, such as double-shift working and productivity.
2220
My right hon. and learned Friend attaches very great importance to this body, and we shall continue to use it as. a governmental form of joint consultation. We believe in joint consultation throughout the whole range of industry, and we must certainly practise it ourselves. We shall be delighted to do so with this most efficient and expert body. Throughout the scope of our work as a Government we shall all the time try to get human relations right and try to make people see that the job of economic survival is something to which, whatever our politcal affiliations may be, we can give our heart, because it means something to all of us and to our children afterwards, and is not at all a matter for party politics.
Mr. Thomas Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman say something about Scotland?
Mr. Watkinson: I seem to remember saying something about Buckie. I should like to pay a tribute to the very able speeches which we have had concerning Scotland from a number of hon. Members, but unfortunately not many from hon. Members opposite, although I know several wanted to speak. I know my right hon. and learned Friend will listen very carefully to matters concerning Scottish problems.
We promise no easy future on the employment front but we believe that, by getting the facts and the balance right, and by getting conditions in human relations right, we can place our policy of full employment on a stable and lasting foundation.
Resolved,
"That a sum, not exceeding £898,676,000, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the Civil and Revenue Departments and for the Ministry of Defence for the year ending ors the 31st day of March, 1954."
To report Resolution, and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Heath.]
Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.
Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

N.-E. LANCASHIRE DEVELOPMENT AREA
10.0 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I beg to move,
That the Distribution of Industry (Development Areas) Order, 1953, dated 22nd January, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd January, be approved.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Before we begin the discussion on this Order, it might be as well if I reminded the House of the Ruling which Mr. Speaker gave on 30th March, 1949, with regard to Orders of this kind. He pointed out that to refer to other areas not in the Order would be out of order.
Mr. Strauss: The debate can be all the shorter because of the debate which we have just concluded. The reasons for adding this area to the Schedule were put very briefly by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in his statement of 29th October last year, when he said:
"The area in question is remote, the rate of wholly unemployed persons in the area has steadily increased, it is abnormally dependent on a single section of a single industry, and thus is peculiarly liable to severe unemployment in bad times."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 1927.]
All the local authorities concerned have been consulted and they welcome the inclusion of the areas named in this Order. The criterion that is to be observed in adding an area is laid down in Section 7 (2) of the 1945 Act. It is the special danger of unemployment.
The area covers 67 square miles with a population of 190,000 and serves an area with an insured population of 96,700. It is the smallest of the Development Areas in size, but it is not the smallest in population, both West Cumberland and Wrexham being smaller. As the House is aware, it has had a chequered history in unemployment. Its prosperity is dependent on the textile industry. In the years between the wars unemployment at one time rose to 26 per cent. and after the war there was an actual shortage of labour, but when the slump came at the end of 1951 and the beginning of 1952
2222
unemployment rose again to more than 16,000, or 17 per cent. When the improvement set in after May of last year, the numbers of wholly unemployed did not come down for a period.
In the area covered by this Order 46 per cent. of the insured population is in the textile industry and almost all in the weaving section. Twenty-eight per cent. are in the general service and distributive trades. The numbers in any other manufacturing industries are 26 per cent. so that the relationship between textile and other manufacturing industries is as 46 to 26. In other words. there is little chance if there is serious unemployment in the textile industry for those out of work to be employed in other manufacturing industries.
Mr. H. Hynd: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in adjacent areas the percentage in the textile trade is higher than the percentage he has just quoted?
Mr. Strauss: In view of what is in order in this debate, I am not going to discuss the adjacent areas.
Mr. Anthony Greenwood: May I follow up that point of my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) by asking the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is aware that in the area covered by the Order the percentage of workers employed in textiles is less than in some areas not included? I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman could reply to that.
Mr. Strauss: It would not be in order to try to avoid a very definite Ruling on the Order that has been given by Mr. Speaker and his predecessors.
Mr. Leslie Hale: The Parliamentary Secretary is now giving a Ruling which does not seem to be his function. As I understand it, he is saying to the House that on a discussion on a Motion to make an order for a Development Area it is impossible for him to give particulars relating to that area which show that it is in a worse condition than other areas, which can be the only justification for making the Order. If that be so, what is there to discuss? How can we assess the value of the Order? How can we decide whether to approve it or not, or on what grounds can we possibly arrive at a decision approving of it?
Mr. Speaker: The answer to that point of order is that there is very little to discuss. That is the truth of it. All that can be discussed is the area comprised in the Order. It is out of order to argue that other areas are either worse placed, or should be in the Order, or anything of that sort, because the discussion is limited, as I have said.
Mr. Hale: The question that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) put was simply: Is there in this area any unusual unemployment to justify the making of the Order? The Parliamentary Secretary said: "I shall be out of order if I answer it," but surely that can be the only reason which he could put before the House for the making of the Order.
Mr. Speaker: It would be quite in order to say: "There is no unemployment in this area and therefore this Order should not be made." Once the House proceeds to a comparison with other areas, the discussion is in danger of becoming out of order.
Mr. Greenwood: We are discussing an Order to be made under Section 7 (2) of the Act of 1945, and the President of the Board of Trade has to establish that in the area he is proposing to schedule there is likely to be a special danger of unemployment. It is difficult to see how the Parliamentary Secretary can establish that without relating the area to other areas which surround it.
Mr. Speaker: The Parliamentary Secretary is in that difficulty, but so is the whole House.
Mr. Joseph T. Price: Would it be consistent with your Ruling to argue that the advantages of scheduling this area are not likely to be those represented to the House because of experience in areas already scheduled?
Mr. Speaker: I could not give a hypothetical Ruling. I will wait and see what the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary actually is. It is quite in order for the House to direct any argument against approval of this order which is confined to the contents of the Order.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: I am in a great difficulty about this matter and that is why I should like
2224
your reply to a further point. I am in favour of this Order and would like to support it. I hope that my constituency will benefit by it. The question whether the Government's decision is right or wrong in making the Order can only depend upon whether the Order is, in the sense of the Section, special. I think it is special and I would defend the Order on that ground. It would be a very great limitation upon the House if an Order which can only be made if there is something special with regard to unemployment danger can neither be attacked nor defended on the ground that it is or is not special.
Mr. Speaker: That is rather an abstract way of putting the point. It is quite open to the House either to support the Order because the Order includes a certain area or to reject it because it includes a certain area. Those things would be quite in order. I understand that the constituency of the hon. Member would benefit by the Order, and he is quite entitled to defend it on that score.
Mr. Silverman: The difficulty is not in saying that the area should be or should not be included but in saying why. The question to be determined under the Act and by the Order is not geographical, but whether we should select this area as against that area because, on a fair view of all the areas together, this one has and that one has not a special incidence or special liability to unemployment; and it is impossible to explain those reasons except in terms of comparison.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think the hon. Member will find himself much embarrassed in defending the Order if he approves of it. On the other hand, in accordance with the Ruling of my predecessor, I think it would be quite out of order to conduct the argument on the basis of comparison with other places. We should be straying far beyond the content of the Order.
Mr. H. Strauss: I was putting the argument to the House why in this area there was special danger of unemployment within the meaning of the Act. The decision to add this area to the Schedule implies recognition of the desirability of diversification of industry. In response to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton), I wish to

2225
make it quite clear that it does not imply the acceptance of the view that the textile industry must face permanent decline. The remoteness of the area and its isolation would not in themselves justify adding it to the Schedule, but it means that, where the risk of heavy unemployment arises from dependence on a single industry, new industrial developments would be less probable without Government help. That is the reason for making this Order.
In every speech we have made on the subject of the distribution of industry, my right hon. Friend and I have been careful to say what could and what could not be hoped from adding an area to the Schedule and not to excite undue hopes. In that we are following the example of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) who said:
"The formal act of scheduling will not result in immediate large-scale industrial development. The process is likely to he a hard and slow one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 1351.]
We believe in the wisdom of the Order we are making but do not believe in exaggerating its effect. It is a useful Order, approved I think in every section of the House and supported by the local authorities.
10.12 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I am sorry so early in my few remarks to disagree with the Parliamentary Secretary. He thought that this Order would be welcomed in all quarters of the House, but, for reasons which will become apparent in the concluding sentences of what I hope will be a short speech, I oppose it. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary, however, that we are none of us feeling encouraged to place undue hope on the effect of the Order.
I oppose it for the simple reason that it does not accord with the wishes of the Lancashire Joint Advisory Planning Committee Number 2. All along that committee has said that any Development Area which is created should relate to the whole of the weaving belt; that is to say, the whole of the area of North-East Lancashire. Throughout their discussions they have been unanimous in taking that point of view. I should like to read to the House the comments they have made upon this Order. The report says:
2226
"The decision of the President of the Board of Trade to schedule a part of North-East Lancashire as a Development Area, while acceptable so far as it goes, is considered to be a decision which will not satisfy the economic requirements of the area as a whole, as it is the considered opinion of the Committee that North-East Lancashire is interdependent and should be treated as an economic unit because of (a) the bad communications and isolation of the area; (b) the fact that it comprises what is known as the weaving belt, having a high percentage of textile and allied trades in its industrial structure; and (c) the considerable number of workers who travel within the different towns in the area to work each day."
The committee came to that conclusion quite unanimously and in the light of their discussions about the tasks placed upon them by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.
The committee is one which is entitled to have the respect of the House. It comprises the Lancashire County Council, the county boroughs of Blackburn and Burnley, the municipal boroughs of Accrington, Clitheroe, Colne, Darwen and Nelson, a number of urban districts of great importance and with a population equal in some cases to those of the municipal boroughs, and also three rural district councils. In addition, the three municipal boroughs in the Rossendale Valley Bacup, Haslingden and Rawtenstall—indentified themselves with the work of the committee and have helped in its deliberations.
That committee came to the conclusion that there was a need for getting a more balanced economy in what is called the "weaving belt." They reviewed the history of the area and said that there had been certain improvements before and during the war, but, they added:
"It was the cotton towns, particularly in North-East Lancashire, which had not benefited much from measures promoting a more balanced and diversified industrial structure. They remain greatly dependent upon a highly specialised industry which is sensitive to changes in world markets and in consumers' demand, and faces the competition of reviving and expanding textile industries abroad, and of substituting industries at home."
Mr. Speaker: I dislike interrupting the hon. Member, but it seems to me that he is now dealing with a larger area than that comprised in the Order. That has been ruled out of order.
Mr. Greenwood: I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the point which you put to me. The argument which I was trying to deploy was that the planning authority

2227
responsible for the future planning of North-East Lancashire was of the opinion that it would be a mistake to treat the area other than as a whole and that it would be a mistake to go ahead on the very limited terms contained in the Order.
Mr. Speaker: The extension of the Order to larger areas could very well be argued on Supply. On a discussion of that sort, all these considerations would be in order, but they are not in order on the narrow ground which is provided by the Order.
Mr. Greenwood: I must, naturally, bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but it is, surely, perfectly legitimate for hon. Members representing the area covered by the Joint Planning Advisory Committee to put forward tonight the argument as to why the House should not accept the Order, so that at a later date the Government can come forward with an Order more nearly approximating to the wishes of the local authorities in the area. But as you have ruled along those lines, Mr. Speaker, I will pass to the next point which I wanted to make, and which relates to the serious effects that there have been in the area as a result of the dwindling population over the last 40 years.
I have a number of figures relating to the changes in population in various parts of the area not covered by the Order. It would, however, be improper for me to bring them to the attention of the House. I would only say that throughout the area as a whole since 1911, there has been a drop of about one-fifth in the population of the area. It is broadly true that the towns contained within the area of the Order show a drop in population of something of the same order of magnitude. There are at the same time other towns not covered by the Order where the drop in population has been rather greater.
I hope that on this point, Mr. Speaker, you will allow me some latitude, because the labour problems of the area must be treated as a whole and it is very difficult to take them as applying merely to towns inside the area of the Order. The Registrar-General has estimated that the working population of what is called the "weaving belt" will decline by as many as 23,000 in the period between 1947 and 1962. It is estimated
2228
by the local authorities of the area that during the recession between 3,000 and 4,000 people left the area.
It is, I think, apparent that if the population of the area has dropped by that amount, an increased strain is placed upon those authorities which are within the area covered by the Order as well as those which are not. The effect of this dwindling population is that public services which were intended for a larger number of citizens are now being paid for by a considerably reduced number. That, in its turn, is having its effect upon the amount of Exchequer equalisation grant which is being paid out to the towns in the area and those covered by the Order.
In the earlier debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour said that it was not intended that the towns included in the Development Area should act as a magnet and attract industry from towns not covered. But, unless there is some special inducement to industries to go to the towns which are covered by the Order, it is difficult to see why the area is being created. If the Government are taking special steps to encourage new industries to go to the new area, it means that opportunities to get industries into the towns outside are being correspondingly reduced.
I turn to the question of concentration of industry, because I think it may be that in deciding which towns to include in the Development Area the President of the Board of Trade has perhaps overlooked the figures which apply to other towns in the area. Here I come back to the point, which I think is particularly relevant, that the President of the Board of Trade must really prove to the satisfaction of the House that there is a special likelihood of unemployment in the area covered by the Order. As I look at the figures for the year, which come from the Ministry of Labour, I find, for example, that Haslingden has 66.5 per cent. insured workers engaged in the textile industry whereas Nelson has 67.7 per cent. Haslingden, which is excluded, comes second in the list of towns engaged in the textile industry. One could go through other Ministry of Labour areas in North-East Lancashire and see that there are a number of cases in which towns excluded have a larger percentage of workers engaged in textiles than those included.

2229
In his opening remarks in the earlier debate the President of the Board of Trade referred to the inaccessibility of the area which has been scheduled. It is true that the area which has been scheduled is slightly further from Manchester, which is the centre of communications in that area, but there are other towns which, if it were in order, I should like to have suggested should be included within the terms of this Order. I only wish that the President of the Board of Trade had occasion to travel on British Railways to Bacup as frequently as I do. He would then realise that it is not the most accessible of towns in that part of Her Majesty's Realm.
The last point I want to make is on the degree of unemployment which was felt in the area which we are considering tonight. Here I go back to subsection (2) of Section 7 of the 1945 Act, which deals with special danger of unemployment. Perhaps I might be allowed to give the case of six towns, including three which are included in this Order. I find that Burnley, which is included, had a peak unemployment figure of 13.2 per cent. in June, 1952, whereas Bacup, which is not included, had a figure of 14.5 per cent. Colne had a maximum figure of 16.5 per cent. in May, 1952, whereas Great Harwood, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort), had an unemployment figure of 17.8 per cent. and was not included in the plans of Her Majesty's Government. The last two towns to which I want to refer are Nelson, whose peak unemployment figure was 23.9 per cent. in May, 1952, as against 24.7 per cent. in the case of Haslingden in June, 1952, a month later.
Figures of that kind make complete nonsense of the proposals which the Government are putting before us tonight. I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite will talk about the present employment position in Lancashire and point to the great improvement there has been during the past year. That situation, according to the Joint Advisory Planning Committee, is largely accounted for because of orders placed on account of the Coronation and partly by defence orders which are rapidly making their way through the mills. and which soon will no longer be there to help the employment situation.
2230
The point I have been trying to make is that many of us cannot see why this area in Lancashire should have been singled out for this treatment. We believe this decision operates unfairly on other areas not included, which are placed under an added disadvantage. Here I return to my opening remarks. I have no animus against Nelson and Colne or Burnley or any of the areas included in the Order. On that account, although I express my great regret, I should not feel in a position to force this to a Division. I do not wish to deny to the towns more fortunate than those I represent the sort of hclp to which they are entitled, as are also towns in my own constituency.
10.27 p.m.
Mr. Richard Fort: As the representative of more towns mentioned in the Order than any other hon. Member, I shall have less difficulty in keeping on the right side of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, than had some other hon. Members who have spoken. There is no doubt at all that in including Padiham and the surrounding villages and small townships nearby, of Hapton and Simonstone, and the villages, near Burnley and Nelson and Colne, of Briercliffe and Foulridge, the President of the Board of Trade has recognised the facts of the situation.
It is true that some other towns have suffered from as high or nearly as high figures of unemployment as those townships, but no one can doubt that the highest unemployment has lasted longer in Padiham throughout the past depression. Even today, when there is recovery, nearly 7 per cent. of the insured population in Padiham are still unemployed.
Let us not forget that these figures are only the official ones, and also an official admission they are 30 per cent. too low. The unofficial survey made in Padiham itself showed the real figure of unemployment to be even higher. The newly-scheduled area has not only had persistent distress for this past year, but even today Padiham itself has probably the highest unemployment of any township in England.
One of the problems we all wish to see dealt with rather more forcibly than has been possible under the existing Distribution of Industry Act is that of diversification. There are places in my

2231
constituency—the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) mentioned the most notable of them, which is Great Harwood—where there are more people employed in the textile industry than in Padiham. But even in Padiham itself about 60 per cent. of the insured population are working in the textile industry.
Mr, H. Hynd: The figure is 59.1 per cent.
Mr. Fort: The area represented by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has an even higher percentage. Here is a belt of towns where the figure is about 60 per cent. In that belt the hon. Member's area and mine are two conspicuous examples. These towns have an experience of unemployment which, alas, goes back now over the most part of three decades. We welcome this scheduling in the hope that it will remove the fear of unemployment from the minds of our constituents.
Not only will this action bring new industries to the towns, though nobody expects that to happen immediately; in so doing will give hope to the operatives. They will know that if they accept new methods of work in the textile industry there will be other work available for those who may be displaced. Another effect will be felt by those employers who do not look too happily on these new methods of working. Unless they adopt the new methods and improve conditions in their sheds—a process which has been going on in a big way—they will face competition from other industries. They will have to think carefully about how to hold their own operatives.
An important result of the discussions which the Board of Trade had with the local authorities, is seen in the enthusiasm with which the local authorities in Padiham, Burnley, Nelson and Colne and the rural districts have welcomed this Order. Already they are beginning to take action to make it possible for those who wish to go there to move in quickly and to be provided with the services necessary for the establishment of new industries.
This Order will help to remove the fear of unemployment. It will stimulate generally industrial thought and activity
2232
in these areas. It will do also something which every hon. Member wants. It will assist in the rehabilitation of old towns instead of trying to move populations into the countryside where the land is needed for food production. I am glad that those who object to the Order on certain grounds will not make it more difficult for us to carry through what will not be any too easy a task in any event.
10.34 p.m.
Mrs. Barbara Castle: I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) discounting some of the easy optimism on his own Front Bench about the unemployment figures in the Lancashire cotton industry. He warned the House—and in this I support him strongly—that the official figures are not representative of the true picture. He said that we should be betraying our trust to Lancashire if we were to assume that the worst of the trouble is over, the problem solved and everything in the garden in Lancashire is lovely.
I agree substantially with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood). I differ in one particular. I am not so sure that, despite our desire to help certain areas which are represented in this House, we ought to accept this Order tonight. We are taking a serious step. It would be wrong of us to allow ourselves to be steam-rollered by the Board of Trade, with the very easy appeal "Do not hit the other chap just because you have not got what you want," into accepting an intolerable solution or so-called solution to a very urgent problem.
I came to the House tonight prepared to listen to the arguments of the Parliamentary Secretary, for he knows that there has been a great deal of agitation about this matter going on for many months. There has been, as he knows, deep feeling in North-East Lancashire about the attitude of the Board of Trade to the representations made. He knows that he has been flooded with protests about the way in which the Board of Trade is handling the scheduling of Development Areas in North-East Lancashire.
Therefore, he has the express duty to give hon. Members very good reasons why they should accept this Order. But I must say that, having heard his reasons, there is not a single one which is acceptable. I do not wish for a moment to

2233
make use of an un-Parliamentary expression, but perhaps I may be allowed to say that there is not one of the reasons which is true or correct in any particular. The House should not be asked to accept this Order.
Let us remember that during the whole of today we have heard arguments against rushing in and scheduling another bit of territory without good reason; and, therefore, we should have very good reasons for taking such a step as the Parliamentary Secretary asks us to take tonight. There has been no reason put forward which I can accept as accurate. What is the hon. and learned Member's first reason for asking us to endorse this Order? He said, first, that each little group of districts represented an area especially liable to unemployment. That, on the figures, is not true; this area is not so subject.
The right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) pointed out earlier today some figures which are unanswerable when he mentioned the latest returns for unemployment in the Burnley district. At 12th January, the latest date for which I have been able to get figures, we find, as the right hon. Gentleman correctly said, that the figure of registered unemployed in Nelson and Colne was between 2.7 and 2.8 per cent. I agree with the hon. Member for Clitheroe that that is not a completely representative figure, but it will do. The areas we are asked to schedule this evening have an unemployment state of 2.7 to 2.8 per cent., and that is exactly the same as in Blackburn. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say tonight that this area is especially liable to unemployment; can he really say that that is true? If he does, then he really should produce something by way of proof.
Let us consider the area of Burnley. For 12th January the percentage of registered unemployed was 3.6, exactly the same as at Great Harwood.
Mr. Fort: I wonder if the hon. Lady would turn to the same set of figures as I have? There she will see that in Padiham and Burnley the persistent unemployment last summer was double, or more than double, what it was in Blackburn in the same months.
Mrs. Castle: I think the hon. Gentleman is quite right. I have not the full schedule of figures here and in any event
2234
I do not wish to trespass on the rules of order or to violate your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I think I am entitled to take the latest figures because, after all, we are dealing with the present situation. We are scheduling now, not last summer. Hon. Members opposite have told us that the cotton trade is now back to normal; after a little meander off the normal path, they said, we are now back to normality. And this is the moment they have chosen to schedule the areas, so I think I am entitled to deal with the figures as they are at present.
As another reason why we should accept the Order, the Parliamentary Secretary told us that these areas were specially dependent on the cotton industry. Here again, I shall take figures for some of the areas which we are discussing. The percentage of insured persons in Burnley engaged in the textile and allied industries in June, 1951, was 32.6 per cent.—and we are being asked to schedule Burnley as specially dependent on the cotton industry. In my own constituency, which is considered to be much more diversified, the figure was 26.5 per cent.—a smaller figure but not much smaller. In Darwen it was 37.4 per cent., yet Darwen is not being treated as specially dependent on the cotton industry. I should like to know what is the Parliamentary Secretary's definition of being specially dependent on the cotton industry —
Mr. H. Strauss: I said, "a single section of a single industry." That was an important part of what I said. I did not say the textile industry as a whole, for we are concerned here entirely with the weaving section.
Mrs. Castle: That is rather an academic argument. Those who represent constituencies with industries associated with the textile industry know that when the textile industry slumps, the associated industries slump, too. My hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) could make a burning speech on that issue on behalf of the machinery industry, for example.
The third reason which the Parliamentary Secretary gave for the acceptance of the Order was the most insubstantial of them all. He said the local authorities concerned welcomed the Order. That was misleading the House for. as my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale pointed out, there has been

2235
a remarkable unity and co-operation among the local authorities in the area on this question. My hon. Friend read some of the statements made by the Lancashire Joint Advisory Planning Committee No. 2.
It is interesting that the clerk of that Committee is the town clerk of Burnley, which the Parliamentary Secretary is trying to detach from the rest of the area on the principle of divide and rule. But the hon. and learned Gentleman has failed to this extent: even after the announcement of the areas to be included in the Order, the Joint Planning Committee remained united and the town clerk of Burnley, the clerk of the Committee, still circularised Members of Parliament for the whole area to the effect that the Committee were still, as they had always been, unanimous in favour of scheduling the whole of North-East Lancashire.
Mr. Strauss: I know that the hon. Lady wishes to be fair to me. I referred to the consultations with local authorities which we were bound to have under the statute. Section 7 (4) of the statute says that
"An Order under this section shall not be made except after consultation with every local authority whose area includes any land to which the Order relates."
A later section defines "local authority" for that purpose. My statement was that the Order had the unanimous approval of the local authorities concerned with it.
Mrs. Castle: I certainly do not want to be unfair to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I do not want him to be unfair to the House. The impression that he was leaving with us was that this arrangement that he is offering tonight was satisfactory to the local authorities concerned in the North-East Lancashire area. That is a very different thing from saying that he has statutory acceptance after statutory consultation with the local authorities, to whom he is offering a crust on behalf of their own citizens, and who cannot refuse that crust even if it means that somebody else is denied it.
That is not an answer to the point I am making, that the local authorities of the North-East Lancashire area do not agree that this is a solution to their Problem. They have worked as a team
2236
and they have a vision of what the area needs both industrially and economically if the drift of the population away from the area is to be stopped and the very life blood of the district is not to be drained away. They still remain of the same opinion, but, of course, being offered this on behalf of their citizens they must accept it. I merely wanted to make it quite clear that they do not think that this is the answer to the problem at all.
Therefore, I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, before we vote on this Order tonight, what guarantee he can give us that the operation of this Order will not have an actively detrimental effect on the industrial development of the rest of the area. The right hon. Member for Blackburn, West raised an important point during the debate which preceded this one. I have been astonished to find myself in such harmony with the right hon. Gentleman. It is an exceptional experience, but far be it from me ever to oppose any words of sense that he says in this House if I have the opportunity of hearing any.
The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon did raise a very pertinent point when he gave us an example of a Blackburn firm that was being actively directed out of Blackburn into one of the areas in this Schedule. If that is to happens, then some of us are being asked to cut the throats of our constituents. I raised this question before when the first indication was given of the Board of Trade's intentions in this matter. Last November I put Questions to the Board of Trade as to what would be the effect of this Order on the diversification of industry in the area as a whole, and I got very poor satisfaction.
I was supported on that occasion by the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). We all felt deeply disturbed and alarmed that we had no guarantee that other areas outside the favoured few were not going to experience a worsening of their position. We have the right to fight for the survival of our areas, but in this matter we are not taking a narrow, constituency interest. There was a team working together and taking a broad regional view. They put forward positive regional proposals to the Board of Trade, and they have been cast

2237
aside and ignored. We think that this splintering of an area, which is finding its concrete realisation in the Order before us tonight, is no real answer to this problem.
Sir William Darling: The hon. Lady talked just now about a broad regional view. There is no broad regional view mentioned In the Order, which mentions certain specified urban districts. Is what she says, therefore, in order, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: I thought I followed the hon. Lady's argument. When I last understood her, she was arguing that the Order would do harm to her constituency. I think that is a valid point of criticism against the Order.
Sir W. Darling: Would I, Mr. Speaker, representing a Scottish constituency, be in order in taking a broad regional view?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot conceive of a regional view broad enough to include the hon. Member's constituency in the words of the Order.
Mrs. Castle: It was very gallant of the hon. Member to come to the rescue of you, Mr. Speaker, in this fashion. I am prepared to rely upon your guidance and Ruling, Mr. Speaker, upon the conduct of the debate. I have tried to keep within the bounds of order which you laid down. I am glad to find that you agree that an expression of alarm lest the Order may harm one's constituency is a debatable matter; otherwise one's constituency could not have any redress.
I will conclude by asking the Parliamentary Secretary what guarantee he is going to give to those who have expressed concern—to Blackburn, Darwen, and other areas. What guarantee can he give to areas struggling with similar problems —problems of the dependence upon cotton, the problems of unemployment which keep on recurring, problems of an ageing population and people driven away; what guarantee is he going to give us that this Order will not harm these constituencies? Upon his answer will depend my decision on how I vote tonight. I have sympathy with Nelson, Colne, Burnley, and the rest; but I have a duty to see that my constituents' interests are not being surrendered.
10.52 p.m.
Mr. G. B. Drayson: I am glad for a moment to be able to draw the attention of the House away from the chaos exhibited in Lancashire to the West Riding of Yorkshire, where four districts in my constituency are included in this Order. I feel certain that if those considering establishing new industries in any of these areas will read any of the speeches made by hon. Members opposite tonight, they will unanimously decide to establish those industries in my constituency.
During the war a number of cotton mills in this area were converted to the manufacture of aircraft engines. I am glad to say that the Rolls Royce company continues to make some of its best jet engines in my constituency. That is a point of which industrialists ought to take note, because it shows conclusively that this area, which in the past has been predominantly in the weaving section of the textile trade, and still is, has operatives who can readily turn their hands to the most skilled types of engineering.
Mr. Hale: Will the hon. Member tell those of us who represent areas in Lancashire with unemployment difficulties why he suggests that this favourably situated place, with an expanding industry, is included in this Development Order?
Mr. Drayson: The industry is not expanding at the rate we would like, but it does give an indication that we are capable of doing the most highly skilled work. That ought to be an encouragement to industry to come into our area and derive the benefits which will be conferred on them by this Order. We appreciate that all these matters will take time, but the local authorities in this area have wasted no time in ascertaining what sites are available for industries which might propose to go into the area.
I have a letter from the clerk to the Earby Urban District Council, an area which is mentioned specially in the Order. It tells me that the council have made a thorough survey of the area and have reached agreement as regards the price and availability of a number of sites, not only for small industries but for much larger development. That is an important point because many people find, when embarking on development plans, that there are difficulties about the

2239
acquisition of land which often result in the necessity for a compulsory purchase order. When they know that agreement has been reached with landowners and that plots will be available, that is another reason for looking closely in this direction.
Often an area contains a good deal of agricultural land. In Lancashire and Yorkshire are derelict factories and mills which might be pulled down so that land can be made available for industrial development rather than good agricultural land being taken. There is a strategic aspect. Towns in the West Riding are situated on the edge of the Dales, and were never located by enemy bombers during the war. They were able to proceed unmolested with the manufacture of aircraft engines. I would draw this point to the attention of the Government again for them to advise firms who wish to expand armament production to look at this area, which enjoyed such immunity.
I would express thanks on behalf of my constituency to the Government for what they propose to do. We appreciated very much the immediate action taken in March last year when the textile industry was going through a difficult time, and the special visit paid by the Minister. We cannot expect immediately beneficial results from the Order, but we appreciate that the Government have decided to include us in it.
10.59 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: It is inevitable that in an area and an industry that have had so chequered and often so tragic a history there should be considerable disappointment in many places which are hard hit, and in others not so hard-hit, that they are not included in the Order. Nothing is so worrying or disturbing as a state of industry in our country in which Members of Parliament assemble in a debate of this kind and apparently scramble and compete for the crumbs of comfort that the Government are able to afford. I have every sympathy with the disappointment they have expressed, and I should like to express the gratitude of my own constituency to those which have been disappointed for their very good comradeship in not seeking to take away any benefit from those who have got some out of this Order merely because
2240
they are so grievously disappointed themselves.
It is not often that I find myself on the same side of the argument as the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson). Whether it was due to the fact that we were once fellow-travellers together to an international economic conference in Moscow, I do not know. At any rate, on this particular economic matter we are not in disagreement.
Mr. Harmar Nicholls: Who converted whom?
Mr. Silverman: I came back with the opinions about trade that I took there— and whether others have extended their trade or their ideas it is for them to say and not for me. Nobody tried to convert anybody. What we tried to do was to get the trade of the world going again. It would be very much to the advantage of everyone concerned if we could get it going again without its being impeded by ideological and political differences which have extremely little to do with it.
I think those who criticise the geographical boundaries of the areas included in the Order do less than justice and pay less than the proper amount of attention to the difficulties that the President of the Board of Trade was in. A great deal has been said about pressure being brought to bear on the President to make the whole of this area, or a wider area, a Development Area—but there was a great deal of pressure brought to bear upon him to make no Order at all.
It is worth recording and not overlooking in this debate that in order to make any Order at all the President had to stand up against the almost united opposition of all the cotton manufacturers all over this area, who did not mind having the old conditions and did not mind a pool of unemployment, and who worried themselves a great deal about where they were to get labour from if ever the days of cotton prosperity that the Labour Government established between 1945 and 1950 returned. It took a certain amount of courage on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, in the face of the opposition of so many of his most influential friends and supporters, to be able to make the Order at all— and for that, at any rate, he is entitled to the gratitude of us all.
Mr. Ralph Assheton: What is the hon. Gentleman's evidence for saying that all the manufacturers in the area were opposed to this Order? I appreciate that there was some opposition by the Cotton Board and Sir Raymond Streat, but I do not think there were representations from the manufacturers at all.
Mr. Silverman: Perhaps I should have not said "all"—if I did so, I withdraw— but it was certainly a preponderating body among them. So far as the manufacturers in my constituency were concerned, they desired rather that the Order not be made than that it should be. There is no doubt about the facts, although I do not want to take up time in going into the details.
If an Order is to be made, particularly if it is to be made against opposition, it should be one which will be effective. If there is not much which can be done, obviously the little which can be done should not be wasted by being spread too thinly over too large an area, otherwise no one will benefit. Points have been made about a number of places outside the area where the weight of unemployment is as great, or almost as great, as at places within the area. In almost every case those are isolated places. A Development Area must be a defined and integrated area geographically. That is the reason for what would otherwise be the rather anomalous inclusion of one or two smaller districts in Yorkshire, although they are not suffering from a lack of diversity —
Mr. H. Hynd: Surely my hon. Friend knows that areas contiguous to the scheduled area are in that category. They have large figures of unemployment and could become defined areas.
Mr. Silverman: I agree. I am not saying for a moment that the law of the Medes and Persians, or some immutable law of nature, made it necessary to draw the borders precisely. But wherever they were drawn there would still be areas beyond—
Mr. Drayson: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that thousands of his own constituents have drifted to seek employment in my constituency, which is the whole point?
Mr. Silverman: Yes. That is one of the considerations to be borne in mind if there is to be a Development Area at all. We prefer that industry should come to our labour rather than our labour should support industry elsewhere.
But when all possible effect has been given to those considerations, there is left the necessity of having a well-defined area which is not so large that the aid to be given is spread so thinly as not to make it worth while to have a Development Area at all. We have to be satisfied that in the area selected the special conditions contemplated by the Act are to be found. When my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) said there were no reasons for making the Order now before us she intended, I am sure, to convey that there were no better reasons for making this one than for making others which it might be possible to make. Obviously there are certain reasons for making it in respect of this area, having regard to its present fortunes, its immediate past, and the varying circumstances—
Mrs. Castle: I did say there were no special reasons—not that there were no reasons using the word "special" in the sense of comparison, for instance, with the claims of Blackburn.
Mr. Silverman: I fully appreciate that, and I have already said that everyone who will get some benefit out of this Order will be grateful for the generosity and support of those who will not, and who think they might have had some.
Mr. H. Nicholls: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, particularly when he is in such an urbane mood, but there is a slight contradiction in his argument. It is rather a pity he put one point of view. Surely his suggestion that the manufacturers were against this, and that it was because of that opposition that the President of the Board of Trade had to confine the benefits to only a small area, does not square with his main point that the area is small because to spread the benefits over a wider area would weaken the good to those areas which are worst hit. To try and let both those arguments stand would perpetuate a contradiction.
Mr. Silverman: I hope there is not much contradiction, and it is not for me to say. I do not know what was in the

2243
President's mind. He has not spoken. What I said about the opposition of the manufacturers is true. It is quite true there are other arguments for keeping it small, but I am sure the manufacturers did not urge the extension of the area that the President was going to specify.
The Parliamentary Secretary, moving the Motion, quoted the previous President of the Board of Trade and said that the road to improvement consequent upon the making of this Order was hard and slow. I quite understand that in face of the opposition and disappointment of other places he was no doubt extremely anxious to persuade those not able to get the grapes that they were, after all, rather sour. I hope he is not going to make them too sour, or the road too hard or slow. We hope that we are going to get some benefit out of this Order.
What is wrong, and our trouble tonight, stems from the fact that this Order is being made 25 years too late. All of Lancashire, and not just this narrow circumscribed part, ought to be scheduled as a Development Area owing to the bitter, difficult years of the 1930's. If that had been done we would have got some diversification of industry when that was possible instead of leaving it to be done in 1945. We could have had as much diversification as we needed then, but we chose to be patriotic. We did not take advantage of that opportunity. We accepted the view that cotton had a great contribution to make—which only it could make—to the restoration of our balance of trade and the filling of the dollar gap. For five years we were content to do without diversity. It is because this Order was not made long ago that we find ourselves in our present position.
Mr. Assheton: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that just less than 25 years ago, when the Labour Party were in power and Mr. Thomas and Sir Oswald Mosley were dealing with these matters, they made no proposal of this sort.
Mr. Silverman: If it is any satisfaction to the right hon. Gentleman I give him his point. It is true that there was a minority Labour Government for 18 months between 1929 and 1931, and that they could have scheduled the area among all the other things that they might have done as a minority Government during
2244
that 18 months. I give him the point for what it is worth, but if he attaches any blame to them for taking no action in that limited time in those circumstances, perhaps he will support me in my censure of his Government for not having done it in the longer time, under much easier conditions, which they have had since then. I do not want to develop that argument, but I had to reply to the point put to me.
I say to the Government that at last they have done the right thing. They may have done it in too limited a way, though I confess that, for my part, I do not see that they could have done more at this time than what is done in this Order; but, having done the right thing now, the Government should ensure that this is not an empty gesture. They should ensure that something is done to bring some diversity of industry to areas which have suffered so badly from having only one industry on which to depend in good times and bad.
11.17 p.m.
Sir William Darling: Members of the Opposition are never better than when they are begging and pleading and this, of course, is a piece of special pleading and special begging. I remember the history behind this Order. There was a period of uncertainty and calamity in the cotton trade. There were two remedies offered by the Opposition. They were in a state of panic. One remedy was that Purchase Tax should be removed from all cotton goods. The second was that the cotton areas which formerly were the pride of industrial Britain should be turned into Development Areas.
Fortunately, the Chancellor resisted the first proposal, but the second one, months after any necessity has been proved, comes before the House tonight. The whole theory of Development Areas is a theory of charity. It is asking something from the whole community which individual communities should do for themselves. There was a Member of this House some 15 years ago who said that all Scotland was a distressed area. It might be from the point of view of some hon. Gentlemen who have spoken tonight.
This kind of niggling with the problem will provide no solution. The need for

2245
this Order may have been apparent some six months ago, but the need has gone. We learned from one hon. Member that one of these areas is one which not only rejoices in a Rolls Royce factory but which had complete immunity from any danger during the whole of the war. This is a class of community which is said to be in a desperate position and it demands the eloquence of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) to support its plea. The whole thing is contemptible.
Soon we shall have Brighton asking for special support, and the City of Edinburgh demanding eloquence to put forward its claims. This attitude of going about with the begging bowl is all very well for the friends of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne—
Mr. S. Silverman: May I make an offer to the hon. Gentleman?
Sir W. Darling: I cannot resist it.
Mr. Silverman: I am willing to come at any time to the City of Edinburgh and explain why it should not be scheduled if the hon. Gentleman will come to Nelson and explain why Nelson should not be scheduled.
Sir W. Darling: I did not think the opportunity would ever be presented to me of having the hon. Gentleman's support. It is such a valuable offer that I hope that he will permit me to consider it very carefully. Anything to be said to the advantage of the City of Edinburgh has up to now been exceedingly well said by myself. It may be that we will fall on hard times, as the hon. Member is falling on hard times in his constituency, and have to come begging to the House of Commons. When that happens I shall consider the kindly offer he has made on this occasion.
I will not encourage the hon. Member in seeking special treatment for the particularly poverty-stricken constituency which he represents. That is what the House is being asked to do tonight. It is being asked to give something special to the hon. Gentleman's constituency and deny it, very ungallantly, to the constituency of the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East.
Mr. S. Silverman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will qualify his words a little for he did not, I am sure. mean anything unpleasant by attaching to these parts of Lancashire the description of a "poverty-stricken area" or by claiming that we were begging. This area for which we plead is an area on which the prosperity of this country as a whole has depended for 150 years, and we only want enough work for that contribution to the national benefit to continue.
Sir W. Darling: I certainly do not mean anything unpleasant, but because of mismanagement, or through labour troubles, this area is asking for support from the public purse; that is how I interpreted the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, and if he agrees, he will join with me in opposing this extension of this type of legislation to the area. If this area is not in a state of poverty, what is the object of our passing this Order tonight? The area, we are told, cannot support itself, and if that is not a misericordium from the hon. Gentleman I am at a loss to understand what be has meant.
The case is not made out. I am surmised at the Government attempting to parry the clamours of the Opposition for something of this sort to be done and I say that it is quite unworthy of them. I could put up just as good a claim for the port of Leith, where the unemployment figures have presented a tragic picture. This great port used to export goods to the Russias, and receive imports from the Russias. Now, its coal trade has gone; its importations have disappeared. A case for this port could be made, but other plans have been put forward and there has been no demand up to now on the public purse. No, this clamour should not be surrendered to by the Government for such action is a return to the unwise inflationary policies of the past.
We should have a better idea; not the strange policy of economics put forward by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East. No greatness will return to Britain by the making of such an Order as that before the House tonight. Prosperity will not come to Skipton and Barnoldswick by the making. of Orders of this type.
Mr. F. Blackburn: But it depends on those places.
Sir W. Darling: The whole policy of surrendering to clamour from the Opposition on behalf of these manufacturing areas in difficulty, and living under great difficulties, is embodied in this charitable plea of the depressed areas. This should be the opportunity for us to say, "Let us have no more depressed areas." Let us have a country which will rise to meet its responsibilities. This, I say, is a miserable piece of work, and for my part I hope that the House will not pass it.
Mr. Blackburn: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House if, in view of his remarks, he intends to vote against the Order?
Sir W. Darling: I shall answer the hon. Member when the Division Lobby becomes available to me.
Mr. Blackburn: The hon. Member really should indicate what he means by making a speech of that kind if he is not proposing to vote against the Order.
Sir W. Darling: Other of my hon. Friends have spoken, and they have not indicated the way in which they intend to vote.
11.25 p.m.
Mr. Ede: I should not have intervened but for the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling). I would remind him that the clamour for this Order came, earlier in the year, as much from his side of the House as from this side. I wonder what the right hon. Member for Blackburn. West (Mr. Assheton) felt while his hon. Friend was giving his exposition of pre-Victorian economics.
Mr. Assheton: I always feel extremely pleased when my hon. Friend speaks. It is always most exhilarating.
Mr. Ede: It is undoubtedly exhilarating, because hearing what one knows is wrong is always an exhilaration in a place where so often one finds people saying agreeable things. The right hon. Gentleman earlier gave an indication that his views were quite different from those of the hon. Member for Edinburgh. South.
It is not for those who live in areas which have never known the problems
2248
which confront my hon. Friends in Lancashire—and hon. Friends of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South—to make the cheap gibes which he has made about the poverty in those areas. I speak like this with some feeling because I have spent the whole of my life as a resident of Surrey whereas for a quarter of a century, on and off, I have represented, in this House, South Shields, a special area.
I was a little surprised by the eloquence with which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) defended the Government. He made a better case for the Government than did the Parliamentary Secretary, but two of the things which he said in support of the hon. and learned Gentleman I do not find in the Act on which the Order is based. It is not necessary to have a small, limited area for these benefits. The first of the scheduled areas under the Act of 1945 was the North-East Development Area, which includes the whole of the administrative county of Durham and the five county boroughs therein, the county boroughs of Newcastle-on-Tyne and Tynemouth, several urban districts and municipal boroughs in the county of Northumberland, a great area in the North Riding of Yorkshire and the county borough of Middlesbrough. That is a very wide area—far larger than the whole of the area of the Joint Planning Committee to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) referred.
Mr. S. Silverman: I think there is a misunderstanding, for which I am no doubt to blame. When I said "limited" I did not mean necessarily small. I meant a defined area—with its limits defined. It is quite true that it could be a wide area. Had this Order been made when it should have been made, in the middle 1930's, I expect it would have been much wider.
Mr. Ede: That was the second point which the hon. Member made—that we must not pick little places here and there, with country in between. Take the South Wales and Monmouthshire Development Area. In the administrative county of Pembroke, they picked out the tiny borough of Pembroke and linked it with places not connected with it in any way.

2249
In the administrative county of Breck-nock they picked out isolated places and fitted them in. In the same way, places in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale could have been fitted into the Order. I do not think either of those pleas excuses the Parliamentary Secretary from not having included certain isolated but well-defined local government districts in Lancashire in the Order.
I can only tell the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, that if he divides the House against this Order, I shall feel compelled to vote with him because I think the Order is far too circumscribed in its area. Although we should vote against the Government for different reasons, I should be very glad to see him for the first time follow one of his witty speeches by giving a vote in accordance with it.
11.30 p.m.
Mr. H. Hynd: Like my hon. Friends who have spoken from this side of the House, I approach this Order with mixed feelings. I am very sorry for the areas mentioned in the Order and particularly sorry for those represented by the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) and the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort), because those are places where the workers, in a period of full employment, were misled into voting for a Government which has raised the level of unemployment in the country from less than 1 per cent. to 2.2 per cent., as we have heard in the debate today. We are now discussing places with an average unemployment rate of about 3 per cent., but the Government have only been in office about a year, and although we still have a long way to go before we reach the percentages of the bad old days of the 'twenties and 'thirties, we dread what may yet happen.
The hon. Member for Skipton was quite right when he drew the attention of the House to the fact that many workers live in one area and work in another, and it is, therefore, most misleading to take the figures of unemployment at any one particular employment exchange as showing the unemployment in that area. With the travelling about that goes on in the weaving belt of North-East Lancashire, the figures are unrepresentative, as could be said for other areas as well.
2250
I was very pleased when the Ruling was given from the Chair that it would be in order to argue against this Order on the grounds that it might harm another adjacent area, because I hold strongly that the terms of this Order are likely to harm my constituency which is contiguous with the area scheduled. I will give one example of that. At Clayton-le-Moors there is a war-time modern factory, which, at present, is only partially used. We have heard a lot about building new factories and using old and out of date buildings, but here is a modern factory on the borders of this scheduled area, and it is being largely used for storage purpose. It seems fairly obvious that if the area proposed to be scheduled is going to get special facilities to attract industries into it, then it may well attract business that otherwise might have come to this building, which is so well-known to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton).
In saying that I do not want to say anything that will harm the area to be scheduled, because I wish this area well. I hope that the scheduled area will reap some benefit from the Order, but in saying that I do not think there is any question but that it will harm some of these adjacent areas. In the weaving belt of North-East Lancashire, which is a well-defined area, the population is drifting away, and it is no use thinking that this Order will restore the position.
Only last month the chairman of the body that has been quoted frequently today, the Lancashire Joint Advisory Planning Committee, No. 2, said this in a statement sent to the President of the Board of Trade:
"It appears to us, therefore, that we can look forward with certainty to textile recessions in the future, large-scale unemployment, continued emigration and a decline in the relative importance of our towns in relation to the economic structure of the country as a whole."
It is fairly clear from that pessimistic forecast that these local authorities in the whole of the area concerned foresee a continuation of the drift of population that has, for example, reduced the population of Accrington from 46,523 in 1911 to 40,671 in 1951.
I could quote a whole list of figures for all the towns in my division, and in the area affected by the Order, showing that

2251
there has been this steady decline of population at a time when the population of the rest of the country has been increasing. That is a serious state of affairs for the local authorities, businesses and industries in the districts concerned. The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) and the hon. Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) said much more eloquently than I could many of the things which I was going to say.
There is one point to which I would specially draw the attention of the Minister and the House. When the President of the Board of Trade presented this Order, or promised it to the House, on 29th October, 1952, he did so with an important postscript. He said, when he announced that he proposed to schedule the area:
"…there are places in addition to the two areas I have mentioned, some inside and some outside Development Areas, where the outlook for employment is such that the attraction of new industries is clearly desirable. The main handicap at the moment is, of course, the stringent limitations on new building required by our existing economic situation. We propose to relax these limitations somewhat in a few places which appear to be in most urgent need."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th October, 1952 Vol. 505, c. 1928.]
I do not think we have had a satisfactory definition of what the President had in mind by those words. But a reasonable period has now elapsed since that date. Can we be told whether anything has been done within the implication of that wording to give special facilities to any of those areas? We have heard about something which is to be done for Portsmouth. I would like to know about North-East Lancashire. A little earlier last year—in May—during an Adjournment debate when we were discussing this same subject, the President said that new industries would be steered into the area, and further development of some of the industries already there would be encouraged. Can we be told what has been the result of that promise?
My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) showed a little dubiety just now about what the real value of this Order would be. Here is a test which we can apply to the intentions of the Government, for a few months have elapsed since the President announced that he intended to do this. It would be interesting to know whether
2252
he has been able to do anything. When he was presenting the Order tonight the Parliamentary Secretary gave some reasons which were inconclusive, and which left me puzzled as to what is the real reason for scheduling this area. For example, he talked about scheduling the area in accordance with the danger of unemployment. Those are the words and the intention of the Act. But as I understand, that is not the basis upon which these places have been selected for scheduling. So far as I know, the basis has been the figure of unemployment at the time the decision was made.
I want to draw attention to that phrase, "Danger of unemployment," because I think the intention of the White Paper, and of the Act, was that the Government should attempt to foresee possible unemployment, and to schedule places so as to obviate unemployment arising. Instead, they waited until unemployment occurred and then selected those places to be scheduled. That is the wrong way to approach the matter and that is why we find the Order not entirely satisfactory. There is more than that. It is suggested by our local authorities that the Act is not flexible enough. If the Minister finds that his powers are not sufficient to give special attention to the scheduled areas or to carry out the postcript I have mentioned, he should ask for special powers from the House, and he would get them.
The Parliamentary Secretary told us that it was the firm intention of the Government to carry out to the full the letter and the spirit of the White Paper of 1944. They are not doing that by giving us this very limited Order, unless they use their powers to the full within the Development Areas and stretch them to the utmost in the areas still not scheduled.
While we are disappointed in the adjacent areas that we have not been included in the Order, we wish the new Development Areas well and hope that the Order will have the desired effect upon them and will have no harmful effect upon their neighbours. I must tell the Minister that he is likely to get further representations from local authorities in North-East Lancashire who believe that the Weaving Belt must be treated as an entity and not be split up in this way.
11.43 p.m.
Mr. Leslie Hale: I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) will forgive me if I cannot congratulate him on his speech tonight as I did last night. Last night he was much more full of facts, reason, logic and argument. It was a humorous occasion. This time it was not. It was a very sad occasion.
It is a lamentable commentary upon the boastful, bombastic ebullience of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour that when he was talking about the conditions of employment, we should be asking the House for the first time to schedule as a depressed area an area which managed to maintain a high rate of employment up to 1950–51 when the change of Government came. I should have thought it was lamentable from the Parliamentary point of view that almost every speech has called attention to the fact that not merely are we discussing one small area but are facing the problems of an entire industry.
I was grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South for his intervention, but I wondered whether his dissertation on the difficulties of Leith—my own political recollections of Leith go back for 28 years—permitted me to make a passing reference to Oldham. I have always longed to take part in a Scottish debate, and I shall be able to get over the reticence and nervousness which have hitherto restrained me from so doing.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I should perhaps have stopped the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) earlier.
Mr. Hale: The whole House would have regretted it if you had done so, Sir Charles. It is always interesting to see the Tory mind at work. I make no complaint of the fact that you did not stop him.
To come back to the Order, there are vital matters that ought to occupy our minds. The first is whether the Order is necessary. The principal reason for the Order appears to be that the constituency of Nelson and Colne is represented so ably and assiduously by my hon. Friend the Member for that area as to enable the Order to be secured in the face of competition from all over Lancashire. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale
2254
(Mr. Anthony Greenwood) asked the Parliamentary Secretary for facts, but though I listened to the Minister's speech with the greatest possible attention I did not hear him give any facts at all. When he was asked for the only relevant fact he shied off for a moment and was out of order: on the whole he would not take the risk of introducing even a figure of unemployment as regards this particular area.
What have the Government done? They must say what efforts they have made to solve the problem in every way. It is true that the hon. Gentleman for Edinburgh, South referred to Purchase Tax, and so on, in general, but the whole emphasis of my argument was on the necessity for placing orders here, keeping the wheels turning and seeking to maintain employment over the period of difficulty. It seems that that could have been done and this is the issue that came up at Question time today.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), when he announced the defence programme some years ago, said that we would spend £200 million on textiles in three years as part of that programme alone. He announced that that would mean a reduction of home consumption with a policy of developing exports. That programme had been announced only a few weeks before the General Election which had such lamentable results to the country. There is no doubt that with 250,000 extra unemployed and much short time working that urgent steps are needed. But following the programme for restricting home consumption and developing export trade, all that the Government have achieved is to restrict home purchases—and that is the prime reason —
Mr. Fort: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the size of the orders that the former Labour Government placed in Lancashire?
Mr. Hale: The figures were given this morning. There was a planned expansion of £200 million in three years—it is in the Defence White Paper. The £200 million was not a casual statement; it was the production programme. The figure given to me in answer to my Question was just over £150 million—and there has been a substantial increase in

2255
prices since then. We were not able to get by question and answer whether that figure includes, as I imagine it does, orders said to be specially placed last year, but it is abundantly clear that this Government have starved the industry of orders. I am asking for the figure, and I will give way if the Parliamentary Secretary or anyone wants to challenge the figure I am giving. They have failed to maintain the stable policy of Government buying which would have helped to maintain employment in this area.
What do they propose to do? Why are they now saying, "Let us schedule this as a depressed area "? The hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) made an adroit speech and I congratulate him on the advertisement he got into it. He pleaded for orders to be placed for armaments to help the textile areas. I take it that he wants to sell jet aircraft abroad, or something like that, and to carrying on an extended defence programme by selling guns here, there and everywhere.
The bon. Member was appealing for armaments. But why not have a textile works? The whole world is full of people waiting for textiles. The world is short of textiles. It is short of purchasing power too, under the policy advocated by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South. If there was a plan for the development of purchasing power there might be some hope for the expansion of Lancashire's trade.
As I understand, the Parliamentary Secretary says that he will draw a little map of an area on a plan in his office. There will be red lines drawn on it, and that area will henceforth have special treatment. It can only have that special treatment in one of two ways. We could adopt a suggestion made before in this area, without much success, and say that we will give priority to orders. We could say, "When you want cloth, as far as possible you go to Nelson and Colne and the surrounding areas and place Government orders." We have to face the fact that that is a policy of discrimination against the rest of the surrounding areas.
I do not object to that. I think it is sensible planning to say that if one area is working full-time and another area is not, then Government orders should be
2256
switched to maintain a balance. But, unless orders are increased, that is a policy of robbing Peter to pay Paul, even though it happens that Peter is richer than Paul, and, therefore, no serious injustice is done.
The second proposal is that when the red lines have been drawn a number of green spots are marked on the area to indicate the spots where factories will be built. It is perhaps a lamentable part of this debate that if we look at the record of the Government with regard to depressed areas we find that their policy has been to depress them still further. The whole policy of building factories and introducing new factories into these areas, which were developing so well from 1945 to 1950 has been virtually abandoned.
Any reference to the figures of factory building, either in the depressed areas or anywhere else, shows the serious situation which is developing. I do not know how long it takes to build a modern factory. I must not refer to Oldham, but taking a hypothetical cotton town, I would say that I have heard it estimated that it takes three or four years to build a large factory. Further, the situation has materially altered in the past three months. This area includes a small area of the woollen textile industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) will develop that important side if he has the opportunity. Without anticipating what he will say, rumours are that, on the whole, wool is doing very much better while cotton is still doing as badly. I do not say it is doing as badly as it was last May, but it has settled at a fairly steady level with an overall employment level of between 16 and two-thirds and 20 per cent.
After the years of full employment that is a lamentable state of affairs, not only for the workpeople who are suffering, but from the point of view of the country. Time after time in every Command Paper, economic White Paper and talk about the planning and location of industry the emphasis has been on the necessity to increase textile exports because we have to diminish engineering exports in the interests of the rearmament programme.
One or two things really stand out. The first is the unfortunate fact that Lancashire has never got over its fears of

2257
the past. Development has always been haunted by the fear that what happened in 1923 will occur again, and that when it does the Government will be just as helpless as they were then. There are people today who are saying that those times are nearly here again. I do not think so. Even the lamentable inefficiency of the Government Front Bench in the last 18 months is not bad enough to secure that result. I believe the indication is that unless the Government take appropriate steps Lancashire's own initiative will just about maintain the present output.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, out of courtesy to the House, will say what he proposes to do. Is he proposing to take no steps after the Order is made? What is the position in regard to factory building, after the Order is made? I represent an area greatly affected by the Order. I understand that the Lancashire County Council can, with the consent of the Minister, schedule land for factory building on the basis of one or two priorities. In one case it can be scheduled ready for building without further development, as has been done at Chedderton. Secondly, it can be allocated or reserved for the purpose as shown under the ordinary plans, and the right to develop is obtained.
The House will understand the problem confronting,, the urban district council. If industrialists want to come to Chedderton, or anywhere else, they want to come hurriedly, and not have to wait two or three years. They want to be able to start immediately, to know what the costs will be, what the terms will be, and what guarantee of tenure is available. What is the difference between that and a Development Area? I do not know. The Parliamentary Secretary ought to tell us. It is vital that we should know. Is it the policy of the Government to build factories first and to try to attract industries afterwards?
The case has been made that this area is almost exclusively a weaving area. That theory was destroyed by the hon. Member for Skipton, but we will overlook that. I do not think that anyone doubts that on the whole the great claim of the area is that there is almost no diversification.
Mr. Drayson: The town in question was a weaving town. What was one of
2258
the largest weaving sheds in England was converted into a factory.
Mr. Hale: That is interesting. That is the warning sign.
My hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) referred to the diminution of population in Accrington. That is something which affects the whole of Lancashire. In Oldham, the population came down from 140,000 in 1922 to 120,000 and it remains there to this day. Even now there are signs that people are leaving the area. People have to travel by bus to work in Sheffield and at Squire's Gate, in Blackpool. This is far too grave a matter to handle in this casual way.
The Parliamentary Secretary is always courteous to me and I wish to treat him with every courtesy. I thought that the introductory part of his observations was a little sketchy and very much lacking in information on this vital matter. He laid great stress upon a section of the industry. He said that this area had only one section of an industry and the Department wanted to deal with it on the basis of sections.
This is the primary problem of the whole cotton textile industry. Of course, we must have weaving and spinning together. In every advanced country the processes are done in the same factory. Modern countries where there is plenty of land have factories where all the processes take place—the carding, spinning, weaving, dyeing, fashioning and printing—on the same premises. [Interruption.] I do not know why that comment causes dissent. I thought that that was the fundamental problem in Lancashire. A large part of the cost is incurred in transport from place to place. I come from Leicestershire and I know something about the dyeing process. We used to send lorries from Leicestershire to Lancashire to collect the stuff, bring it back and dye it—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is now going far beyond the Order.
Mr. Hale: It was a casual observation, Sir. We have had references to Leith and Moscow, but I will restrict myself to Nelson and Colne.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will remember that, as the necessity for Development Areas persists, we do not

2259
want to divide this great industry into tiny pockets with tiny processes in each one. That would be most harmful. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will realise that those hon. Members who are staying here late tonight are deeply concerned about the matter which is of great interest to our constituents.
It raises a matter which is of vital interest to every local government body in Lancashire, and especially to the Lancashire County Council. It raises a matter which has been a mental burden on people living in Lancashire for some months past. The industry is full of foreboding for the future. We have read with surprise some of the proposals that have been made in the last few days about employment in Lancashire.
We are very anxious to hear the Government's statement on that matter. The Parliamentary Secretary will know that it is not merely a matter of cotton spinning, or cotton weaving, great as these industries are. This industry was, in years gone by, the lifeblood of the country's prosperity; it was on the profits of Lancashire's industry that the prosperity of the South, in great measure, rested. It was on the industry and the labour, and the skill, of the workers of Lancashire that our great export trade was built and it is a most lamentable fact that we have to see it reduced to its present position.
I hope that, subject to what the Parliamentary Secretary says, my hon. Friends will not propose to resist the Order, because, although the proposals have some deficiency—and here I agree that it is ungenerous to give to this limited area these limited offers—I hope that the Order will be made. But I also hope that the Government will then, at long, long last, take action and do something in Nelson and Colne which will be a model for the other areas.
12.6 a.m.
Mr. Douglas Houghton: I am grateful for the mention which has been made to Sowerby although, unfortunately, no part of it is within the scope of this Order. That is why I must, very regretfully, oppose it and if there is a Division I shall vote against it. I oppose it because a number of the areas in the Order have no stronger claim for
2260
being in than a number which are not in; indeed. not so strong a case.
The test to be applied under the Distribution of Industry Act, of 1945, is set out in Section 7 (2), where the material words are:
"where there is likely to be a special danger of unemployment."
I have reason to believe that the President of the Board of Trade has felt himself bound very rigidly indeed by the terms of the 1945 Act in reaching his decision as to the scope of this Order. From whatever circumstances the danger —the special danger, as the Act states— of unemployment might arise, any firm anticipation of that danger would qualify an area for inclusion in the Order.
The test of a special danger of unemployment is, first, actual experience of unemployment. That, I think, is a fair test over a fair period; and a secondary test is the degree of dependence of an area upon one particular industry and, still more, if it is upon one section of that particular industry. When applying the test of actual unemployment experience, I would remind my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that when the Distribution of Industry Bill was being discussed in 1945, a very strong case indeed was made out for the inclusion in the First Schedule of the Bill of a number of the areas now included in this Order.
Had the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke) been able to be with us tonight, we should no doubt have had a reminder of the earnest plea last made in 1945 for the inclusion of Burnley and other parts of the weaving belt in the First Schedule of the Bill, and which are now included in the Order.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the parent Act— only the Order.
Mr. Houghton: I was using the parent Act, Sir, merely as support for my argument that the area included in the Order has received the attention of the House previously when applying the test of unemployment experienced as a ground for scheduling it under the Act. I pass to give an illustration from my constituency —that of the municipal borough of Todmorden, which is in the West Riding of Yorkshire, less than a dozen miles from

2261
Burnley. I quote it only as an illustration; I cannot ask for Todmorden to be included in the Order, following the Ruling given earlier by Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
When comparing the unemployment experienced in some of the areas included in the Order with that experienced in some places outside the Order—some have been mentioned and I now mention Todmorden—the claims of some towns in the Order to be included in it are no stronger, and in some cases not as strong, as those of some towns which have been left out of the Order. Nor can some of the areas in the Order claim to be as dependent as some towns outside the Order on one section of a single industry.
I submit, with great respect and much regret, that it is better not to make an Order at all than to make one which gives rise to serious dissatisfaction and a sense of grievance. There is no doubt that some areas outside the Order will feel not only unfairly treated but at a distinct and new disadvantage compared with areas in the Order.
May I underline the question put by the right hon. Member for Blackburn. West (Mr. Assheton), my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) and, I believe, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), who asked the Minister what steps are to be taken to prevent injury to the interests of areas outside the Order through the magnetism of areas inside the Order. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, who replied to the earlier debate on the wider issues, said it would make nonsense of the procedure if areas within the Order were to drain off development and employment which would otherwise be located in areas contiguous with areas in the Order but outside it. Todmorden is certainly such an area. It will be a ridiculous state of affairs if the unemployment growing in Todmorden is to be solved by taking unemployed workers by bus to Burnley in order that they may seek employment in developed industries in Burnley. That may well happen.
The cotton industry is indivisible. To draw boundaries in the way in which the Minister has drawn them is to create a particularly irritating form of economic and industrial boundary. It is to put something there which was never there
2262
before. At least one can walk across the boundary of Lancashire and the administrative county of the West Riding of Yorkshire without noticing it; nobody could tell it industrially or socially. The people at that end of my constituency are always in difficulty in knowing whether to support Burnley or Halifax, Yorkshire or Lancashire. The President of the Board of Trade under this area Order will draw a physical boundary between the two, and new business will be attracted to one side of it and discouraged from going to the other.
There is another aspect of the matter, and that is that businesses in the areas within the Order are in control of businesses in areas outside the Order. There are 1,400 workers in the municipal borough of Todmorden employed in textiles while employers reside outside Todmorden and for the most part are within areas scheduled under this Order. What might their policy be? Their policy may be to develop their industries in closer association with the parent company within the area, and in consequence very much injure the area outside the Order. I think there are weighty reasons against approving this Order without a much more satisfactory explanation given to those who represent areas outside the Order.
Some criticism has been made of the introductory speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. I think that when he heard the Ruling of Mr. Deputy-Speaker regarding the scope of the debate, he came to the conclusion that there could be no debate on areas outside the Order and precious little about the areas inside the Order. Therefore, there would be no debate at all, and there was no need to say anything very much about it. The Parliamentary Secretary has certainly had a salutary reminder since then of the determination of those of us who represent those constituencies which may be injured and who contrived within the Rules of Order to put the view of our constituents. We readily agree that the Parliamentary Secretary has listened with great patience and close interest to everything that has been said.
That is all I have to say about the narrow question of the scope of this Order. I do not wish to trespass on the wider question which was raised rather belatedly by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling). We are

2263
dealing with an Order under the Act, and whether the Act should be scrapped or modified is an entirely different matter. I think the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South has, by mistake, read today's leading article in the "Manchester Guardian," thinking he was reading the "Scotsman." There is some criticism of the general principles of the Act, and a suggestion that this Order is a form of industrial favouritism, which the "Manchester Guardian" leading article thinks is a reason for a major criticism of the whole purposes and operations of the Distribution of Industry Act. I am not, however, going into that matter, nor am I going to suggest for a moment that any scheduled area should be unscheduled to extend the scope of an area which is about to be scheduled.
The Parliamentary Secretary must give greater comfort than we have up to now received regarding the possible effects of this Order on the industrial stability and development of the contiguous areas engaged in the same industry and close to the areas scheduled, and we ask for some definite assurance that possible damage will be prevented. I think that is perhaps the most that we can expect in this unhappy chapter of growing unemployment in Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire.
12.19 a.m.
Mr. H. Strauss: I heard with no surprise the Ruling given by Mr. Deputy-Speaker at the beginning of this debate because it was the Ruling given by your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, on the last occasion when an Order of this kind came before the House. I hope that I can deal with some of the questions that have been raised, though I confess that after nearly nine hours continuously on the Front Bench I may perhaps have overlooked some points.
May I say at once that I regret that so many hon. Members who found themselves inhibited by the rules of order did not attempt to intervene in the debate this afternoon. [HON. MEMBERS: "We did."] All these questions could then have been fully considered. The hon. Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) spoke about the present figures of unemployment. I think she will agree that everyone who has thought about this matter has come to the conclusion that, in
2264
deciding whether to add an area to the schedule, one does not consider unemployment figures at one moment of time; one considers something of the history of the area, in good and bad times. If consideration is given to that, I think the case is made out for adding to the Schedule of the Act every area mentioned in this Order.
The hon. Lady mentioned a fear, which was mentioned in some of the other speeches, that actual injury may be done in contiguous areas. One example was quoted from an earlier debate, on which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour suggested that particulars should be sent to the President of the Board of Trade so that he could look into the matter. If one is to have an Order, a boundary must be drawn at some point. There always will be contiguous areas. If it were true that such areas were liable to be injured by the creation of a Development Order, I think that some evidence would have been given that injury has been caused when Development Areas have been created in the past. I do not think there are examples of such injury.
Mrs. Castle: The hon. and learned Gentleman is overlooking the point that the local authorities in the areas which will benefit from this Order are in agreement with the local authorities who will not benefit, that the area chosen is not the right one, because there is a properly integrated industrial area which the whole planning authority thinks ought to have been scheduled.
Mr. Strauss: I know that opinion differs about where the line should be drawn. I do not think the hon. Lady's fears will prove well founded, and it will be the object of my Department to see that they prove to be groundless.
I now come to the question which was first raised, I think, by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). He wondered whether the remarks, which I deliberately made in my speech so as not to exaggerate, meant that we were not going to do our utmost to make the Order a success. He need have no fear on that ground. We shall do everything we can to make the Order a success. Another hon. Member asked what we were doing, or had done. I think he said, rightly, that Government-financed factories were perhaps the most important

2265
of the actions which could be taken as the result of making an area a Development Area under the Act. A survey of possible sites has already been made. Further action depends upon finding suitable projects for Government-financed building. We are doing our best to find such projects.
Mr. Anthony Greenwood: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Government will try to make this Order a success. That means, presumably, that additional industry will be guided into areas covered by the Order. Unless the Government are creating additional industry above the national pool of industry, it presumably means that these areas will get industry which otherwise would go into other areas. Is not the Order therefore militating against the interests of the areas to which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East referred?
Mr. Strauss: I have dealt with that point. I cannot go into it now.
There was a point of difference between the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and his right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and I am bound to say that I thought the right hon. Gentleman was wrong, and had perhaps forgotten some of the documents published by the Government of which he was an eminent Member. He cited some areas scheduled in the original Act— areas to which the Act is made directly to apply. When we look at the new areas to be added to the Schedule the statutory wording that we have to consider is that in the Section referred to by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne.
The right hon. Gentleman's own Government produced a White Paper on Distribution of Industry in 1948, which has three paragraphs, Nos. 84, 85 and 86, which are very much to the point on "areas not at present scheduled." In paragraph 85 it is stated that some areas proposed are either
"not homogeneous units or their working population may be too small."
for them to be scheduled. That was definitely a ground which, in the view of his own Government, was a reason for not adding small and scattered places to these areas.
Those are the main points that have been made. I think the House is willing
2266
to come to a decision. Every area mentioned in the Order can rightly be given the help of these Acts and, on that ground, without exaggerating the effect but also without minimising the benefits, I commend the Order to the House.
Resolved,
That the Distribution of Industry (Development Areas) Order, 1953, dated 22nd January, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd January, be approved.

CZECH FONDANT IMPORTS
Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]
12.29 a.m.
Mr. William Blyton: I raise the question of this Czechoslovak agreement at this late hour because of the great consternation which the sugar and biscuit trade feels about the agreement on fondant and sugar fat and the imports of biscuits, chocolate, and sugar confectionery. I appreciate that trade has to be done between East and West and that we must take some goods that we could do without, but surely in this matter the trade have had a raw deal in two respects, the high prices we have paid, and the way in which licences were allocated. This has resulted in blatant exploitation of our manufacturers.
The facts are that the Board of Trade reduced the quotas of sugar mixtures for the O.E.E.C. countries in the first part of 1953. As an example, fondant imports from O.E.E.C. countries were reduced from £750,000 to £200,000 and sugar fat from £1 million to £200,000. The Australian offer of sugar fat was rejected and the import of syrups was reduced by 50 per cent. It is not my intention tonight to question this matter, though it is of considerable importance to the confectionery trade; but it is really astounding that at the same time as this was done, the Board of Trade concluded an agreement with Czechoslovakia for sugar confectionery, £600,000; biscuits, £100,000: fondant, £150,000; and sugar fat, £360,000. Biscuit manufacturers are now dismissing men and women from their factories because of the difficulty in obtaining their raw material.

2267
The Czech Agreement was treated confidentially and the Board of Trade have followed new methods on this agreement. Since the Import Restrictions of November, 1951, were introduced the Board of Trade have issued licences to importers on their previous imports during the period 1st November, 1950, to 31st October, 1951. Importers had to forward their applications to the Import Licensing Board, accompanied by statements of previous imports, certified by a chartered accountant. The trade agreements and procedures have always been announced in "Notices to Importers" and issued through the Board of Trade.
With regard to Czechoslovakia, the Board of Trade followed new methods. The Agreement was made in August, 1952, and was not disclosed. Neither the figures nor the procedure were published as hitherto and importers were only able to get information from the London Chamber of Commerce. I think that the House is entitled to an explanation here. What is known here is that when it did leak out and applications were made, the allocations of fondant had been made. Is it a fact or not that H. W. Peabody, Ltd. of London acted as brokers and the Commercial Counsellor of the Czech Embassy in London as the distributor? Is it true that he intended to allocate 1,500 tons of fondant to one firm which, in 1951, imported only 50 tons of fondant? Is it also true that because of the protest of the trade Mr. Pyser, who is in charge of the import licensing branch cancelled—
The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. H. R. Mackeson): I really cannot tolerate an attack on one of my civil servants by name. The hon. Member should attack me personally.
Mr. Blyton: This is only a statement of fact.
Mr. Mackeson: The hon. Member is reading his speech. He should not attack a civil servant, but me personally and I will take responsibility. The hon. Member is reading from a brief.
Mr. Blyton: It was a promise to consider an alternative method of distribution. Is the Minister aware that one large firm of importers were able to get information in advance of any announcement to the trade? They were told that
2268
the imports were coming and to get busy. Information was given by a Mr. Kohn, a Czech, at that time with H. Gessler, who had a small office in Old Bond Street, and who is now reported to be in liquidation. Mr. Kohn is now with the Regent Food Trading Company, of 87, Regent Street, London. In the light of this, why was the agreement kept secret and why was the procedure altered? Why has the Board of Trade allowed the Czechs to allocate the goods to certain people some of whom are very doubtful?
The President of the Board of Trade pointed out in the House that we had to accept certain goods from Czechoslovakia, but that is no reason why we should be expected to pay inflated prices. We pay £110 per ton for fondant as against the price of £60 per ton for fondant of equal quality from the O.E.E.C. countries and £142 per ton for sweetened fat against £90. Is the Minister aware that £192 per ton is being charged for this fondant? In my opinion, this latest figure is robbery with a vengeance.
In the light of those figures, the persons who have the licences are making over £100,000 on 1,500 tons of fondant. We have made a present to the Czechs of over £60,000 sterling, which is the difference between the O.E.E.C. prices and what we pay to the Czechs. Is the Minister aware that the trade state that they part with £50 per ton more than the O.E.E.C. price, and that they are financing the agents out of their industry? There is so little fondant available now that manufacturers need sugar to carry on, and outrageous prices can be demanded for fondant so long as the sugar is not available.
The charge is made by reputable firms of long standing in the trade that people who got the licences were nominated by the Czechs. If that is so, does the Minister consider it in the best interests of the country that not only should the Czechs dictate high prices, but also who should handle the goods? There is a deep feeling in the trade that they were not notified of the Czech Agreement, and they say that the Board of Trade statement that it was an open agreement is a chimera. I have here a number of letters from people of high repute who have expressed their utter dissatisfaction

2269
with this whole business and are prepared to give evidence at an investigation, should one take place. I do not know if the Minister has read the letter from Richard Mannheim, Ltd., of Ibex House, Minories, which was published in the "Financial Times," but it is an indictment of his Department.
Does the Minister know that on fondant the goods are invoiced "Centrokomice," of Prague, and that the people who got the licences had no say as to the supplier, or the prices? Sweetened fat goods are marked "Koospol." Can we be told who got the licences and how they got them? Can this question of who decided to whom the licences should be granted be made public? Was the importer in this country who received the bulk of the Czech sweet fat the United Malt and Phosphate Company, because it is reported that they placed the order in Czechoslovakia in July, 1952, before any announcement was made.
The question that arises is whether the entire purchases were made by one firm in this country and eventually split among other firms out of the hundreds desirous of having the goods? And why, of those who got the licences, did one importer get 14 per cent. out of the entire importation? As I have stated, there is great resentment on the whole matter and also a great distrust of the Board of Trade. Does not all I have said justify an inquiry or a tribunal to investigate the whole of this affair? It is important that the air should be cleared—as it is said that another agreement will be made —so that the House can be assured that licences will be given to importers of standing, that is, sugar importers or actual users who can get these prices down and buy in the best markets, rather than to a few opportunist importers, some of whom I am given to understand only recently became importers.
In view of the serious concern of the people employed in the biscuit, cake and sugar industries at the recent import licences for biscuits, sweets, and so on, in agreement with the Czechs, at a time when large numbers of workers in these industries are being paid off owing to lack of raw materials, will the hon. Gentleman take steps to curtail the imports of some of the manufactured goods until the time when the Minister
2270
of Food can find raw materials to keep our own workers in this country employed?
Will the hon. Gentleman see that fondant and sugar are brought from the O.E.E.C. countries, thereby helping to bring down our prices, as a result of the saving which would follow, and enabling us to compete in world markets? The importers who agreed to pay £110 per ton for Czech fondant are not the right people to receive licences. It has resulted in £192 per ton being charged to users. It was their duty to get the Czech prices down, and the Board of Trade ought to have used their influence to that end. The fondant ought to have been bought from the O.E.E.C. countries at £50 per ton cheaper.
The granting of licences and the procedure followed by the Board of Trade have created doubt and indignation in the trade, and the only way to clear it up is by a tribunal or by some other investigation. The trade believe that the whole affair is suspicious, and the managing director of a large biscuit factory in a letter to me said:
"There is a feeling in the trade—and one importer summed it up by stating that the ghost of Sidney Stanley seemed to be hovering about somewhere in Westminster in order to keep the present sugar substitute racket in being."

In conclusion, will the Minister give us the names of those who got the licences for fondant will he tell us how fondant becomes £192 per ton to the user; and will he tell us why we accepted the Czech nominees for the licences? If we are to compete in this competitive world, then it is important to get our materials in the O.E.E.C. countries where they are cheaper. We ought now to be concentrating on preventing, if we can, Denmark cutting down the production of sugar beet in the coming year, because of our import cuts of fondant, sweetened fat and other sugar lines.
It is monstrous for the Government to permit such a situation to arise when we are told that we are so short of sugar that we cannot lift rationing. Can we stand by and watch a sugar producing country cut its production, especially as it is a soft currency country? It is only when sugar is available that this terrible exploitation will end, and the scandal of charging £152 a ton for fondant which costs us £110 from the Czechs, when

2271
it could have been obtained for £60 from our allies in O.E.E.C. countries, stopped. This makes it all the more imperative that some inquiry should be held, and some confidence restored to the trade, and in the Board of Trade.
12.46 a.m.
Mr. Ede: I thank the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton), whom I have the honour to represent in this House—he is a constituent of mine—for bringing this matter before the House tonight. I have seen the documents on which he has based the remarks he has uttered, and I am convinced that there is something about the way in which this matter has been handled during the last couple of years which calls for a more detailed explanation than we could expect to get in answer to a debate on the Adjournment.
I want to impress on the Secretary for Overseas Trade this fact, that the trade is very gravely concerned about what has been happening and feels that it has been exploited by firms, some of which had no previous experience in this trade at all but muscled in when it appeared possible that a racket could be engineered. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will assure us that, in the light of what my hon. Friend has said, which can be fully supported by documents and witnesses, a very full inquiry will be held, and that if it is found, as we believe it will be found, that something serious has been at fault, steps will be taken immediately to put things on to a basis which can be defended before the trade.
12.48 a.m.
The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. H. R. Mackeson): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) and the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) for having sat up so late in order to raise this subject tonight. Perhaps I might, before I start to reply to the debate, just say in explanation of my interruption of the hon. Gentleman's speech that it is not usual to quote the names of civil servants in debate. Ministers are responsible. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept my point. The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring was obviously reading from a brief. I think I know who wrote it, and we could all easily make
2272
the same mistake. I am sure he will accept the fact that I am responsible, and not one of my civil servants.
Mr. Blyton: My brief was made out by myself, and, together with the documents from the importers, was typed for my benefit.
Mr. Mackeson: I am sure of that, but it so happens that it corresponds with the words used by a gentleman whose name the hon. Gentleman used, and which I would not have used in the debate unless he had mentioned it—to wit, Mr. Mannheim. The information Mr. Mannheim has given to one or two of my hon. Friends on this side has not been 100 per cent. accurate, although I admit that he is fully entitled to say what he likes, when he likes, as he likes.
I want to deal, first of all, with the specific case of Czechoslovakia, and this is quite a long story. It starts in 1949, when a five-year trade agreement was made by our predecessors and under which there was provision for this country to take each year £5,750,000 worth of less essential imports, which provided Czechoslovakia with the sterling to pay her debts to Britain. It is partly used to pay compensation for nationalised British property, and also helps us to sell to this Iron Curtain country. Indeed, this particular Iron Curtain country is the only one which continues to pay these debts under a commercial agreement, and is doing so at a rate of £3 million a year.
In 1951, our predecessors agreed with the Czechs on a quota for fondant, and licences were issued to three firms. The present Government agreed last year to a quota for the year ending 30th June, 1953, of £150,000, and this was at a time when we were importing four times as much fondant from Western Europe as we are doing now; so that the figure of £150,000 from Czechoslovakian sources was not unduly high. It will be remembered that there was considerable pressure put on the President of the Board of Trade to keep the quota for exports of textiles to this country to a minimum.
Considerable thought was given to the method which should be adopted for distributing the quota in this country. The Czechs had originally proposed that the distribution should be decided by a British firm acting as agent for the Czech State Corporation which is responsible

2273
for exporting the fondant. We, as a Government, were not prepared to agree to this, since we regarded it as important that trade should be conducted through the normal channels and that licences should be distributed on a basis which, in our view, could be considered equitable.
The system we adopted, therefore, was to issue licences to those importers who applied and who had previously imported fondant from any source on the basis of their past imports, giving extra weight to previous imports from Czechoslovakia. Licences on this basis were, in fact, issued to 17 importers. This was compared with three in the year before. Two other licences, of a value of less than £8,000— and this is perhaps what is worrying the hon. Member and the trade—were issued to two firms to enable them to clear consignments already despatched by the Czechs before the Czechs knew that we were issuing licences only to previous importers of fondant. We could not comply with the Czech wish to use their own agent, a reputable British firm, to distribute the fondant.
I hope that the hon. Member is satisfied on the major point. Forty-one other firms who unsuccessfully applied for licences were rejected because they had not imported fondant before, or because the amount they could have been given would have been too small to be a commercially practical quantity. I might mention that one firm would have been entitled to 1/2,000th part of £150,000, and that would have been quite impracticable.
Perhaps I may say a word about the allegations which have been made that the Board of Trade have shown favouritism and have been secretive about issuing licences for the import of fondant from Czechoslovakia. I am not accusing the hon. Member of saying that, but it has been suggested in the Press and, in any event, it is only right that a Departmental Minister should meet the accusation and answer it. I have a list here which shows that such allegations are without foundation. The system which we adopted allowed no favouritism to individual firms. All the licences were issued to traders with a substantial previous interest in the fondant trade.
Apart from the two licences which I mentioned a moment ago, which may be
2274
the origin of the complaints, all the licences issued were based on previous imports. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this method was adopted by his Government and has been adopted by this Government. I quite agree, as I am sure all hon. Members—and particularly Conservative hon. Members—would agree, that any system of restricting trade is bound to be unsatisfactory and extremely difficult to administer. Any restriction of trade of this nature is a matter of the greatest difficulty. Imposing restrictions, which is contrary to our normal policy, must, in my opinion, be carried out on the most equitable basis and on a basis which can be accepted by all those affected as the best in the circumstances.
The suggestion that the Board of Trade, contrary to what they have done in other cases, did not announce details of the quotas agreed with Czechoslovakia is one to which I must reply, firmly, that it is not our usual practice to publish lists of bilateral trade quotas. To have done so in this case would have been a departure from the normal procedure which has been adopted both by this Government and their predecessors. The question of global quotas is different, and it is here that the friends of the hon. Member, who have briefed him so ably, may be a little confused.
I have also been asked why we should Import fondant at all from Czechoslovakia at a price higher than that charged by other Western countries. That is a perfectly fair question, to which I have three observations to make. First of all, no importer is obliged to buy Czechoslovakian fondant if he does not wish to do so. The price is left to be settled by normal commercial bargaining.
Secondly, we are allowing the import of fondant from Czechoslovakia as part of a normal trade agreement which gave to us certain very real benefits, some of which I have already mentioned. Hon. Members may recall the great interest shown by the House, which was demonstrated in connection with these Czechoslovakian agreements when pressure was put so strongly, and quite rightly, on my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade over the possibility of imports of Czechoslovakian textiles.
Finally, the real answer to the problem can come only when we are in a

2275
position to import more sugar. This will, of course, lead to a reduction in, if not the complete disappearance of, the demand for imported fondant and other expensive substitutes for sugar.
I hope that I have said enough to make it clear that the issue of licences for fondant has been based on a principle adopted by our predecessors, one which we ourselves have employed in the case of other imports—namely, that the licence an importer receives should be related to the amount of his previous
2276
imports. I am extremely grateful to the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen for raising this matter, because I am well aware that there has been a great deal of talk about it. In conclusion, the fact that both Governments have carried—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at One Minute to One o'Clock, a.m.

  BRITISH GUIANA (PAPER PULP)
  BRITISH GUIANA (PAPER PULP)
WEST INDIES
  Antigua (Development Plan)
  Antigua (Development Plan)
  Jamaica (Bauxite Deposits)
  Jamaica (Bauxite Deposits)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  House of Commons Telephones (Cleaning)
  House of Commons Telephones (Cleaning)
  Housing Estate, Cardiff
  Housing Estate, Cardiff
  Storm Damage, Scotland
  Storm Damage, Scotland
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Sports Advisory Committee
  Sports Advisory Committee
  Welsh Regional Programmes (Interference)
  Welsh Regional Programmes (Interference)
  Facilities, Norfolk and Suffolk
  Facilities, Norfolk and Suffolk
POST OFFICE
  Parcels (Collections)
  Parcels (Collections)
  New Stamps
  New Stamps
ROYAL NAVY
  Aircraft Carriers
  Aircraft Carriers
  Civilian Personnel (Recruitment)
  Civilian Personnel (Recruitment)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Flood Damage (Aerial Photographs)
  Flood Damage (Aerial Photographs)
  Pension Awards
  Pension Awards
  KOREA (ARMISTICE NEGOTIATIONS)
  KOREA (ARMISTICE NEGOTIATIONS)
  SUDAN (ANGLO-EGYPTIAN AGREEMENT)
  SUDAN (ANGLO-EGYPTIAN AGREEMENT)
  UNITED KINGDOM (U.S. AID)
  UNITED KINGDOM (U.S. AID)
  CREAM (SALE)
  CREAM (SALE)
FUEL AND POWER
  Oil Refinery, Aden
  Oil Refinery, Aden
  Agency Services, Northern Ireland
  Agency Services, Northern Ireland
EDUCATION
  School Dental Service
  School Dental Service
  Adult Education
  Adult Education
  SEA DEFENCES (REFUSE DUMPS)
  SEA DEFENCES (REFUSE DUMPS)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the Clock, The LORD CHANCELLEOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

INDIAN SERVICES PENSIONERS
2.37 p.m.
LORD HAILEY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, having regard to the statement made by them in reply to a Question in this House on 27th February, 1952, they are now prepared to place on a statutory basis the undertaking given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 18th June, 1951, in respect of the relief to be given to former members of the Indian services following on the levy of Indian income tax on the pensions payable to them in this country.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government cannot at present add anything to the answer given by the noble Marquess, my predecessor, to the similar Question by the noble Lord on February 27, 1952. In the meantime, provision will be made in the Estimates and in the Appropriation Act to cover expenditure in 1953–54.
LORD HAILEY: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the assurance that provision will be made in the Appropriation Act for the year 1953–54.I know that the noble Viscount himself will sympathise with the anxiety of the pensioners concerned for some definite termination of this longstanding question. Of course, their anxiety does not refer merely to the fulfilment of the Chancellor's undertaking during the next two or three years. There are many who, owing to the early termination of their service in India, have to look forward to drawing a pension for thirty or forty years, and it is natural that they should ask for that kind of security for the future
770
which can be obtained only through an Act of Parliament.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether those remarks were in the form of an interrogatory on a declaration. I can assure the noble Lord that I share his anxiety and desire that this matter may be finalised, but he knows well that very complex questions are involved, and I think he also knows that they are being considered as quickly as possible.

OFFICERS' RETIRED PAY
2.39 p.m.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, with reference to the answer given on Wednesday, 11th February, what is the total number of officers who retired under the provisions of the Royal Warrant and corresponding instruments of 1919, and whether the figures and calculations upon which that answer was based may be given to the House.]
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE (EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS): My Lords, the total number of surviving officers who retired under the 1919 code is estimated at about 16,500. This figure includes not only retired officers of the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force, but also of the former Indian Armed Forces. I should emphasise that, as in the case of the answer which I gave my noble and gallant friend on February 11, figures are necessarily approximate. As I intimated to my noble friend, in a letter to him subsequent to my reply to his Question in this House on February 11, there are three main elements in the figure of cost I then quoted. These are: first, the cost of restoration of the full 1919 rates to those officers, relatively few in number, who have not had any part of the 1935 so-called "cut" restored to them subsequently; secondly, the cost of making up the full 1919 rates to those who have had the cut restored to them in part; thirdly, the cost of a 20 per cent. addition to the 1919 rates for all the categories I have mentioned, including those officers whose pensions were re-assessed for service during the 1939–45 war.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, may I ask my noble and gallant friend whether it is not a fact that the cost of restoring any part of an Indian Army officer's pension which may have been deducted does not fall upon the British Treasury; and is it not also a fact that call-up service is extra to that on which his retired pay is calculated and it should not, therefore, be counted in reckoning increases or decreases in the original rate of an officer's retired pay?
EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: My Lords, as regards the first supplementary question, I understand that when the Indian Army, as such, ceased to exist, the Indian Government and the Pakistan Government made an agreement to pay British officers their pensions. If there is any question of alteration in those pensions, such as increasing them, I do not think that the Pakistan or Indian Governments would consider it—they have made their contract and they will stand by it. I do not think that the Treasury will be very willing to take on a responsibility of that sort, having had no say in fixing the amount of the original basic pensions. As regards the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I really did not quite understand it. That is undoubtedly my fault and not his. If he would put it down in writing, and include any other points upon which he is not clear, I shall be very pleased to give him an answer which I hope will be satisfactory.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, as regards the Indian and Pakistan pensions, is it not a fact that after the agreement was made these pensions were reduced when the British pensions were reduced? Consequently, ought they not, in justice, to have been increased when the increase was made in the British pensions?
EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: That sounds a very reasonable suggestion to me, and it is one with which I would sympathise. But I do not know quite what the situation is. However, as I have said, if the noble Lord will put these points down in writing I will have them studied and the necessary information produced—I hope to his satisfaction.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, may I. as one who had some official connection with this matter—in the past I raised
772
it in another place—ask the noble and gallant Earl whether there is any objection to reopening negotiations with the Indian and Pakistan Governments on the basis put by my noble friend behind him?
EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: There would, I feel sure, be no objection on the part of anyone in this country. The only thing I am doubtful about is whether the Indian and Pakistan Governments would agree to negotiate.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask the noble and gallant Earl if, when he answers the question put by my noble friend Lord Jeffreys, he could arrange to have the answer printed in the Proceedings of the House? Because there are a great many of us, besides those who have spoken, who are very much interested in this matter.
EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: Yes, I most certainly will do anything which noble Lords would like me to do. If it is correct and proper procedure to have the answer circulated, I shall be delighted to follow that course.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, going back to the original reply given by the Minister with regard to the pensions of retired British Army officers, may I ask what the cost would be of making up the pensions of the first class of officers to whom he referred—that is, those who have been most seriously affected? They are, in fact, not getting the 1919 rates. What would be the amount required to make up their pensions? And could the noble and gallant Earl also tell us what are the ranks of the officers?
EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: I have not the papers with me to refer to, but my recollection is this. I think the officers to whom the noble Lord refers total fewer than 500 who were retired on the 1919 rates. To restore to them the 9½ per cent. cut which was made in 1935 would cost, I think, something like £150,000. I believe that is right. That, of course, does not include the Indian Army officers and does not make allowance for the 20 per cent. restoration which has been suggested. The fact is that just to restore the 9½ per cent. cut which was made in the 1919 rates would cost the amount I have mentioned.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Earl for giving that information. May I ask him whether he can tell the House why it is not possible, considering the comparatively small amount which would be required, to make good this cut? These officers' pensions were cut in circumstances which at the time seemed justified to the Government, and that cut has never been restored. These people are getting 9½ per cent. less than they were entitled to in 1919. Why do not the Government make good that cut and do justice to these unfortunate officers?
EARL, ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: My Lords, I admit that a long time has gone by, and lots of people could have done something about it before now. I do think there is a very strong case, as I told your Lordships when we discussed this matter a little while ago. I put it in these terms. I said that as long as I was in my present job I would not forget those officers and I would do my best to see that the matter was examined and kept under review, which is another way of saying f will be very sympathetically inclined to see that they are properly treated.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, in order to regularise the position, may I suggest this? The noble and gallant Earl gave an undertaking that he would circulate something in Hansard. In order to get that correctly done, when the document, or whatever it is, is ready, will the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, please put down a Written Question? We can then circulate the information. Strictly speaking, we can circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT only matters which are given in reply to a Question.

WAR GRAVES COMMISSION EMPLOYEES
2.50 p.m.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper:
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the position as regards National Insurance of British ex-soldiers who are employed in foreign countries under the Imperial War Graves Commission;
774
and whether such men and their families either pay the contributions, or receive the benefits, under the National Insurance Act.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, staff recruited in the United Kingdom since 1946 and ordinarily resident here are compulsorily insured as employed persons for the first twelve months of their overseas service, when they pay the insured person's share of the National Insurance contribution but not the Industrial Injuries contribution. The Commission pays the usual employer's share. Thereafter, while abroad, they can continue to pay contributions voluntarily at the non-employed person's rate, but these contributions are treated as full employed persons' contributions on return to the United Kingdom. The contributors are thus fully covered for all benefits of the National Insurance scheme on their return home. Whilst actually abroad the only benefits for which they or their families can qualify are maternity grant and attendance allowance, and death grant.
Staff recruited in the United Kingdom and employed abroad from a date earlier than 1946 can, if they wish, pay National Insurance contributions while abroad as self-employed or non-employed persons. Non-employed persons' contributions cover them for all benefits except sickness and unemployment, and self-employed persons' contributions for all benefits except unemployment, in each case on return to this country. The position of the staff in France is rather more favourable in consequence of a reciprocal agreement between the social insurance schemes of Great Britain and France. The small residue of the Commission's overseas staff not covered by the arrangements I have already described consists mainly of persons who have lived abroad for a long time and were recruited abroad. They are not entitled to be insured under the National Insurance scheme unless they come to this country.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that answer, may I ask whether he is aware that stories are being told among ex-Servicemen which appear to show that some ex-Servicemen employed abroad

775
are not covered by National Insurance in this country? If I send him such particulars as I have received, will he look into the matter?
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, my information is that more than 90 per cent. of the Commission's overseas staff outside France is covered by these provisions. But if the noble Lord knows of any cases and will let me have them, I will certainly have them looked into and try to find out why they are not covered.

TRANSPORT BILL
2.53 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion for Second Reading moved on Monday by Lord Leathers.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, my first words to-day must be an expression of thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, who has allowed me to come in front of him, and to the noble Viscount the acting Leader of the House, and words of apology because I have to go away in the course of the debate this afternoon. The explanation is that a long time ago, lone before I knew of this debate, I fixed an arrangement for this afternoon and I am afraid I shall have to go in due course. I know that noble Lords will acquit me of any sort of discourtesy in being absent.
We have had a most interesting discussion on this Bill. I think it has been well up to the standard which we expect in this House. I found it most informative. I very much hope that noble Lords opposite will see to it that we have an equally useful discussion on Committee stage. I hope that on Committee stage we shall not meet with closed minds but that we shall find noble Lords anxious to listen, at any rate to those parts of the argument they think sound. We do not intend, of course, to divide on the Second Reading of this Bill—I will say that at the outset so that noble Lords need not remain here if they do not want to. Whether it is a good Bill or a bad one, there is no doubt at all that in the main it is a Bill for which the Government had a mandate. It was plainly put in their Election Manifesto and, that being so, it would be no part
776
of the function of this House, as I understand it, to decline, even if we could decline, to give it a Second Reading.
May I say at the outset where I stand in this matter? I have no sympathy with those people who think that nationalisation is a panacea for all our ills. I do not believe it. Equally I do not believe or have any sympathy with those who say that nationalisation must always be bad, always be damned. I think that is an equally foolish point of view. Following up what the noble Lord, Lord Winster, said yesterday, I believe that if we are to have a system of politics in this country under which one Party is to nationalise and the other Party is to denationalise, and the first Party when it comes into office again are again to nationalise, then, quite obviously, that way lies absolute disaster. I believe in the British genius for common sense and compromise, which is a thing about which we need not be the least ashamed—at least, not if we have read John Morley's book. We may not be very logical in comparison with the Latin races, but to a large extent we have that blessed sense of compromise which will get us through our difficulties. That is why, frankly, I am sorry that the Government have resorted to this drastic measure in dealing with this problem. I would far rather they had tried to deal with the matter by some form of compromise.
I have not the slightest objection to the existence of competition between nationalised and private enterprise undertakings. What the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, called "the free interplay of competition" between the two is, I believe, healthy for both. As your Lordships know, there are some 7,000 hauliers, with a total of 15,000 vehicles—that is to say, in the main they are small men—who are carrying on long-distance haulage. They were all established before 1946. And there are nearly 100,000 vehicles under "A" and "B" licences which have the restriction of 25 miles attached to them. I say, frankly, that I think it is a profound pity that the Government did not proceed in the first instance by emancipating these 100,000 vehicles from a 25-mile limit in order to introduce what they desire, an element of competition, without at the same time disrupting altogether the services which we now have. I believe that there are occasions when doctors

777
have to drain off the blood of a newly born infant and provide it with wholly new blood. Obviously, such a drastic interference with the circulatory system is a very serious matter. And this is a very serious matter.
It is not a mere debate between those who believe in nationalisation and those who are opposed to it. The question here is whether, having got the existing system, we are wise to disrupt and disturb it. Shall we not gravely imperil the national well-being by doing so? Whenever one starts any new system, whether a nationalised system or a private enterprise one, there is bound to be an element of disturbance until the system gets into its stride. It seems to me that deliberately to embark upon such a drastic course as the Government are taking here is a very serious step indeed, because the efficiency of transport is the life-blood of industry. To justify the course which they are taking the Government must show, not only that the present service is inadequate or has its defects but that the present service is so bad, so inefficient and so inadequate that it cannot be remedied by any less drastic measure. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has said and what the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, also has said, rather less emphatically. The noble Lord, Lord Leathers, said that in many cases the Road Haulage Executive do satisfy their customers, but he added (OFFCIAL REPORT, Vol. 180, Col. 584):
"But in many cases they do not."
The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, said, much more emphatically (Col. 611):
"… trade and industry have suffered enough already through the inefficiency of the nationalised road transport services."
He added that the set-up of the Road Haulage Executive was organised
"with little regard to the main trunk routes. …"
Now, I should like to know what proof there is of these statements. Throughout this debate so far—and it has now continued two days—we have not had a single instance given to us of any inefficiency whatsoever. I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, has been reading as his bedside book The Hunting of the Snark—and if anybody is entitled to a little light relaxation
778
at this time the noble Lord is. He has there read the words:
"What I tell you three times is true."
The noble Lord said it three times, but we have been given no evidence that the system now established is inefficient. We have not had quoted to us—I invite correction if I am wrong—the opinion of any of the great organisations: the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of British Industries, the National Farmers' Union, or any of the industries who use this service. We have had absolutely nothing except the ipse dixit of the noble Lord, Lord Leathers.
I have had, therefore, to make many researches, so far as I could, to see what these organisations think. I am told (and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, will be able in the course of his speech to correct me if I am wrong) that the Central Transport Consultative Committee have made recommendations about this matter. I have not, of course, seen the documents, but I am told that the Committee have made a recommendation to the effect that nothing should be done to impair the services now available, and that they said that there is great risk of impairment if this service is disturbed We should like the noble Viscount to tell us, in due course, whether the Central Transport Consultative Committee, on which, if I understand aright, there are representatives of the Federation of British Industries and the National Farmers' Union, have made any representations to that effect.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think I can answer that point at once. The representation was not at all that they objected to what was proposed in the Bill. What they said, quite naturally, was, "When you are making a change please make that change in a way which, in the interval, causes as little disruption as possible." That was the substance of their representation.
EARL JOWITT: I have not seen the documents and therefore I cannot check that; but I can be more certain about the attitude of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, because that is stated in a public document. In their Report of October, 1952, they said this:
"Vital interests of consumers could be seriously impaired if the existing network of services, both local and national, were disbanded or disrupted…"

779
Now, my Lords, the existing network of services cannot be as bad as all that, because this organisation is saying that if the existing network is disbanded or disrupted it would be a great misfortune. Moreover, the Vice-President of that Association, on November 7, 1952, said this:
"We maintain that the experience of British Road Services"—
he was speaking about the existing services—
"shows that there are services which can best he given by a larger and co-ordinated road haulage unit—I refer particularly to long-distance trunking and the full load of general haulage. This assumes added importance when the desirability of road-rail co-ordination is considered, and we do not despair of a future measure of such co-operation."
It is not for me to prove a case; it is for the Government, who desire to disrupt this existing service, to prove a case. We have not had a single statement from any of the great organisations alleging that the present set-up has given a bad or inefficient service; and I say that for noble Lords to come here and declare that the service given is so bad that it must be altogether disrupted, without adducing a single illustration of what the alleged defects are, is entirely wrong.
I have made other inquiries to try to find out what traders think of the service. I have found that the Road Haulage Executive are now parties to contracts with a large number of traders, under which the Executive supply vehicles to those traders who previously were accustomed to operating them—people like Whitbread & Co. Ltd., I.C.I. Ltd., the Imperial Tobacco Co. Ltd., Joseph Lyons and Co. Ltd., Liptons Ltd., Cadbury Bros. Ltd., Huntley & Palmers, Marks and Spencers and a host of others. They go to this road organisation to get their vehicles from them. Those people know where they can get proper service, and they have deliberately selected the Road Haulage Executive to give them vehicles and their services. In face of that, it does not seem that this Road Haulage Executive is as inefficient as is said. That is something which I find exceedingly difficult to believe.
Then I was astounded to hear the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, say that the Road Haulage Executive had paid little regard
780
to the main trunk routes. I thought it was in this service that the Executive had had their best successes. May I quote the figures? They were quoted in another place. I understand that the scheduled timetable of transport services amounts to 702 every night—that is, services operating from London to Manchester, or London to Newcastle, or what you will. Of that total of 702, 368 come from terminal depots and I am told that the daily tonnage of goods handled is 34,000 tons. The noble Lord, Lord Leathers, will tell me if my figures are wrong, but I have taken great trouble in getting them, and I believe they are right. I cannot understand how it was suggested that little regard had been paid to the main trunk routes.
LORD TEYNHAM: Will the noble and learned Earl allow me to interrupt him, particularly as this point has been mentioned? I did not intend to convey that there were no trunk routes but that it would be very difficult, with the present organisation in geographical areas, for conveyances to be carried through from one area to another and that that fact was causing some disquiet among traders generally.
EARL JOWITT: The phrase which the noble Lord used was "main trunk routes" and the figures I have given indicate that there are 702 services nightly. The noble Lord's statement was an astounding one.
The noble Lord, Lord Leathers, criticised the Road Haulage Executive by reason of the fact that the fleet of vehicles had declined. I should have thought that that was a good proof of their efficiency: the more efficiently vehicles are used, if they are used to capacity, the fewer vehicles required. I do not assert that there are not other factors, such as a fall in trade and the amount of goods carried, which enter into the matter; but when all that has been allowed for the average amount of back-loading is now 80 per cent. And I believe that there are many instances where services are fully balanced—that is to say, a vehicle can go one way with a load and come back another way with a load. That is a higher efficiency rate than existed under any system of private enterprise. I shall be told in due course whether that is right or wrong. But, obviously, if these vehicles are operated laden both ways,

781
fewer vehicles are needed than if they are used laden only one way—in fact exactly half the vehicles would be used.
In the absence of any argument whatever—apart from the assertion by the noble Lord that this has been an inefficient system—we have to consider other arguments. We have the argument, for instance, about the "C" licences, and I want to say a word or two about those. The noble Lord, Lord Leathers, said—I think these were his words—that since nationalisation the number of "C" licences taken out had doubled. I do not like to question the noble Lord's figures, but I think he was quite wrong. I believe the fact is that the number of "C" licences has doubled since the war. Perhaps the noble Lord will check that point, to see which of us is right. I do not doubt that the reason why people went for their "C" licences was, in part, because they received a not ungenerous income tax allowance in respect of writing off; and I do not doubt, too—and I make a present of this to noble Lords opposite—that another reason was that there was some doctrinal prejudice against nationalisation. But, be it observed, it was not until the end of 1950 that British Road Services were effectively in the field, and even then their organisation was not consolidated. If we compare the number of "C" licences in the period before British Road Services had consolidated their services and the period after they had consolidated their services (I have not the precise figures before me, but they can easily be checked) I think it will be found, broadly speaking, that the number of "C" licences in 1951 and 1952 was little more than half that in 1949 and 1950–60 per cent., I believe. So that directly British Road Services have begun to establish themselves, there was a drop in the number of "C" licences.
However, there is much more to it than that. I believe that the argument based on the number of "C" licences is a most unsound argument. The Transport Division of the Economic Council for Europe have shown what has been happening in other countries, where, of course, although they have not our classification of "C" licences, they do classify vehicles which are used to carry only the owner's own goods and which correspond to our "C" licence vehicles. It has been found that the numbers of these licences have
782
increased in every country in Europe. I believe that the smallest increase has been in Norway, where they have increased 79 per cent.; in Belgium they have increased 91 per cent.; and in the United Kingdom they have increased 82 per cent. I have not bothered about precise figures—the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, will know that those figures have been given—but what I have quoted is approximately right. Observe, then, that the increase in the number of "C" licences is a general experience extending throughout the whole of Europe—and the United Kingdom is by no means at the top of the list. It seems to me that the argument that these particular services are inefficient because "C" licences have increased is a complete and absolute fallacy.
The next argument put forward is, I think, an even bigger fallacy. This is the argument, as I understand it, advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, repeated by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and passing throughout the debate. It is stated that before nationalisation the various private concerns were making a profit of something of the order of £7 million to £10 million, as compared with the nationalised undertaking which now is making a profit of, I think, only £1 million. They say, "Look at the two pictures. There is the £7 million to £10 million made by efficient private enterprise, and here is only £1 million made by this wretched public enterprise." Let us examine that statement for a moment, because I believe it is an astounding fallacy. How is the £7 million to £10 million arrived at? To arrive at that figure, if I understand, the argument aright, you take £30 million, roughly speaking, in the books as the value of goodwill, and you assume that it is based on either three or four years' purchase. Therefore, dividing £30 million by three you get £10 million and dividing £30 million by four you get approximately £7 million. That is how you get the £7 million to £10 million. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Leathers—because this is the sort of thing with which I used to be concerned—whether any reputable accountant would say that that is a sensible way of calculating profits. I cannot believe it for the moment.
To give a simple illustration, let me take the case of two businesses. Let us

783
suppose that on a valuation basis of the assets, the garage, and so on, the valuation for each business came to £10,000. Let us suppose that the profits of the one business have been £1,000 a year and that that seems to be a maintainable profit; and let us further suppose that the accounts of the other business show a steady loss over the past years of £1,000 a year, with no prospects of redeeming it. You buy those two businesses on a valuation and pay £10,000 for each, but in the case of the first business, in addition to the £10,000, you pay a sum of £3,000 or £4,000 for goodwill, based on the £1,000 maintainable profit. In the case of the other business you pay £10,000 but you do not subtract anything for the yearly loss; you buy the business on the basis of a valuation of the assets. If you are going to run those two businesses as one, what do you find? The actual goodwill you have—the losses and the profits balancing each other—is nothing, but you have had to pay £3,000 or £4,000 for it. Any calculation whereby you disregard losses in this way is, I am advised—and I have asked eminent people if I am right about this; I do not pose as an expert on accounts—an obvious fallacy. But that is what has been done here.
In addition to that, if the results were not going to be satisfactory to the vendor of the business he could, in circumstances into which I will not go—the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, knows them well—demand that he should be paid a compounded figure of £70 per ton capacity; or he could demand that of the three years he should be allowed to eliminate the least favourable and take the most favourable. I am bound to say that, as the noble Lord knows, sometimes the accounts were so sketchy that they had to be written up to make them bearable at all—that was by no means uncommon. In all the circumstances, I would say that the annual profit of the vehicles in private hands, instead of being £7 million to £10 million—I say this on advice—could not possibly be more than £5 million.
Now look at the £5 million. Then, if we are comparing this picture with that, consider what has happened since. If we consider all the added costs—the petrol duty, petrol tax and excess wages—in comparing the figures for 1951 with
784
those for the end of the period before nationalisation (this is a sobering thought) we have to add to the 1951 figures, I am told, no less than £18 million, and the £5 million profit—if I am right in saying it is £5 million; at any rate I treat it as £5 million—would therefore become a debit of £13 million, the difference between £5 million and £18 million. To meet that debit charges had to be increased. In fact, the road haulage people did increase their charges three times, and those three increases brought them in £13 million, so that against that £13 million debit there are the increases of £13 million, and the answer will be nought. Yet it is right to point out that British Road Services made, I think I am right in saying, £3 million gross profit in 1951. If one looks at those figures critically and carefully, so far from there being anything against British Road Services, on that basis the result comes out in their favour. But I believe it to be a completely fallacious basis, which no businessman and no accountant would ever take.
May I say a word or two about integration? It has been said, and said with truth, that the nationalised services still have a long way to go in this matter of integration; they have only just started. Is that remarkable, when one considers what they were doing? In 1949 and 1950 this concern were acquiring new undertakings at the rate of ten a day; and one must allow them to get their own organisation going before they start integrating. Even so, although the integration results were not spectacular—I do not suggest they were—they were steady; they were small, but they were developing. And the most important development of all was this. At the latter part of 1951 a major scheme was put forward for the fusion of the collection and delivery services of the railway and of the Road Haulage Executive. The political change which took place at that time made it impossible to bring about that plan. But let it not be said that active steps towards integration have not been taken, because I think they have.
There is one other matter that I should like to discuss. It may be thought to be irrelevant—indeed, I think it is—but it is in the minds of all of us who read the papers and consider things, and I feel that it should be mentioned. Perhaps

785
the noble Viscount the Acting Leader of the House will see fit to say something about it. I have been greatly disturbed, as we all have, to see the extent of pilferage which is going on at the present time: it really is deplorable. It seems that the standards which we had fifty years ago have largely gone. I do not think that that is a criticism of the nationalised service as against private enterprise service; I cannot think that the thief will prefer the one to the other. If he is that sort of person he will go wherever he can. On the other hand, let us not get an exaggerated view about this matter. The facts are these. The estimated claims against British Road Services in 1951 in respect of all goods lost, stolen, pilfered or damaged, was £650,000. It must be remembered that the Road Haulage Executive handle about 250 million consignments a year, of a total weight of about 45,000,000 tons. The total value of these goods is probably over £1,000 million, and their freight revenue £75 million a year. The value of all goods lost comes to only.06 of 1 per cent. of the entire goods carried. I do not want it to be thought that I am complacent about the matter, or that any of us is—I certainly am not. But we must consider this thing in proportion. I am afraid that it is a factor which does not apply only in nationalised industry.
There is one other point that I wish to make. The noble Lord, Lord Leathers, said that the British Road Services suffers from nation-wide agreements—"suffers" was the word he used. There are, of course, certain purchasing agreements. I believe that by getting their tyres in bulk, for instance, British Road Services get them rather more cheaply. Presumably the noble Lord does not object to that. Does the noble Lord object to the wage agreements which have been centrally negotiated?—because when the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, comes to reply we should very much like to know that.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I say at once, No. It has been made perfectly clear that wage agreements will always be nationally negotiated.
EARL JOWITT: I am glad to hear that. Of course, there has been comprehensive wage-negotiating machinery which covers all categories of employees, and I understand from that reply—I shall be cor-
786
rected if I am wrong—that that applies to all grades, garage hands and the like, who may be transferred to private employment, and not only to those covered by the Road Haulage Wages Council. The remarks which the noble Viscount has made on that subject, if I interpret them aright, will give great satisfaction.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Perhaps I ought not to have interrupted. I should not like to commit myself about a detail of that kind. One thing that is perfectly clear is that I was addressing myself to decentralisation of the nationalised railways system. I say, quite categorically, that when we decentralise the nationalised railway system wages and conditions of employment will be made a matter for national negotiation.
EARL JOWITT: The noble Viscount said "railways." I think he meant road. I am talking about road haulage.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I meant railways.
EARL JOWITT: I am not talking about railways at all. I am talking about road haulage. Perhaps we are at cross-purposes, and if I did not make myself plain I am sure that it is my fault. I asked whether, so far as road haulage is concerned, the statement which the noble Lord, Lord Leathers made about the position of drivers and employees of the Road Haulage Executive (it appears in Col. 595 of the OFFICIAL REPORT) applies to all grades who would be transferred to private employment. The particular illustration I have been asked to mention is that of garage hands. I should be grateful if the noble Viscount would tell me in due course—I do not want him to interrupt now—whether or not Lord Leathers' statement applies to them.
I wish next to say a word about the levy and the cost of the disposal. The noble Lord, Lord Leathers, said that we must not break up the undertaking in such parcels as would not suit potential purchasers. I think that is the substance of what he said. That, of course, is true, but it is only one element in the picture, and perhaps not the most important. The first thing that has to be done is to see that the disruption of this undertaking and the disposal of these assets are carried out in such a way as not to cause

787
a breakdown or hardship to the user. The next person to be considered—let us not forget him—is the taxpayer. His assets are public property to-day, and the Government have to try to dispose of these assets in such a way as to get the best price possible, in his interests as well as in that of everybody else. So the Government have to consider the user. They have to consider the purchaser; and, last but by no means least on these occasions, they have to consider the taxpayer. When the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk (I am sorry that he is not here) said that the cost to the Treasury is nothing, that did not seem to me to be a very sapient remark. The Treasury have to give the usual guarantee of gilt-edged stock, which they gave of £1,000 million. Of course, selling does not cost the Treasury anything, but that is no reason why the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk should be proud of selling. The seller is always in a better position than the buyer. He has not to raise money to sell. But I think this levy is unfair. I do not see the basis of it. It seems to me that it is a matter for the general taxpayer, but I think it is also unwise.
I appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, with his vast experience. If you are disposing of an asset, and you make it plain that there is a fund, and if you do not get enough on the sale, all you have to do is to dip your hand into the till and make it up in that way. You lose all financial discipline and you will almost certainly find that you will not get what you want to get. I ask him of his vast experience to tell me whether I am not right in saying that the worst way of encouraging people to get the best price that can possibly be obtained is to say to them. "If you don't get a good price, my dear boy, it doesn't matter all that much; there is a nice little fund here which will be available to you." I would much rather that this, levy was not imposed at the present time. If you like, you can prepare for it and let it come in when you press the button, pressing the button if and when the losses become unmanageable. I hope the noble Lord will consider that suggestion. To my mind, this levy is very unfair. I cannot see why a "C" licence man should pay part of the levy any more than—what shall I say?—an eater of macaroni. I can understand it being
788
said that people must pay for their freedom, but the "C" licence man already has it.
Now I pass to consider the railways, and here I have a serious criticism to make. I was greatly impressed, as we all were, by the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. He spoke from great experience and knowledge, and with brevity, which is always attractive. He also spoke, I think, with great courage. There are not many Members of your Lordships' House who would have shown sufficient courage to make that speech. And I must say, I found it very cogent. I do not mind very much whether the Railway Executive is done away with or not. I can understand that there may be respects in which one might wish to regionalise or decentralise the railways, but I think that the gathering together of all the railways in one group has undoubtedly been of immense national advantage. I do not think anybody can doubt that. What is going to be decentralised I do not quite know. Lord Radnor did not know and Lord Ridley did not know. Obviously, you are not going to disturb the arrangements about rolling stock distribution—at least, I assume not. Finance, as Lord Radnor said, must be central. Design of rolling stock, I suppose, would be central. Wages negotiation, Lord Swinton (anticipating my words through a mistake just now) told me is central, and it always has been, of course. Research, I suppose, is central. Well, there may be something left; I am sure there is.
But what is the position? Lord Leathers used this phrase: "We are not going to air our views about this at the present time." I really think it is an outrage that the Government should come to this House and say, "What we ask you to do is to give us carte blanche to do what we want by Order in Council. We are not going to air our views about it at the present time or tell you what we are going to do. In due course the Minister will propound a scheme, and when he propounds the scheme it will come here in the form of a statutory instrument, and you can take it or leave it, but you cannot amend it."
My Lords, I appeal to the better recollection of the noble Viscount who is acting Leader of the House—I will not

789
say I appeal from Philip drunk to Philip sober, but from Philip sober in Government to Philip sober in Opposition. If I had done anything like that in the old days of the Socialist Government, if I had dared to say I wanted authority to get a scheme for reorganising the railways; that I was not going to tell your Lordships what it was and I would not air my views about it, but that I would discuss it with various people and then bring it down to the House and say, "This is my scheme and you can take it or leave it," I wonder what your Lordships' reaction would have been? If that had been done by Mr. Aneurin Bevan it would have been thought that red ruin was upon us. Yet here that very thing is being done by Lord Leathers. I have always heard that the real revolutionaries are very mild-looking men. Here is the greatest revolutionary, more concerned to disturb the institutions of this House than anyone since Guy Fawkes.
I really do ask the Government to consider this matter again. This is a political point on which I say quite frankly that I shall rely on the help of noble Lords on that side of the House who have for the last seven or eight years, quite rightly stressed that Orders in Council must not be abused. It is absolutely wrong, to my mind, that an important matter of this sort should be regulated by Order in Council. What we want, is a Committee stage in order that these details may be threshed out.
I find that on February 9, 1953, the Under-Secretary for the Ministry of Transport, who was being pressed about why he did this thing by Act at all, when he could have done it under the powers of the 1947 Act said:
"… we felt that so important a change of structure as decentralisation should be carried out by Statute."
Now the corollary of that is obviously that this also should be carried out by Statute. Let us see what your scheme is. It is the fact, as we know, that there has already been a submission of a scheme by the Commission. That has been stated by the Minister. I should like to see that scheme. The Minister said it would not do because it did not provide for sufficient decentralisation. It is only right that this House should know what is in the Minister's mind. If we see the scheme and ascertain why the Minister was not satisfied, we may find out what is in his
790
mind. I appeal to the acting Leader of the House, having regard to the passages we have had about this matter in past years, not to do the thing in this way.
Clauses 14 and 15 of this Bill provide simply that the Minister can tell the Commissioners to prepare a scheme, that the scheme shall provide for certain things, and that it may provide for certain other things, Then when the Minister gets the scheme he has to consider it and, after consulting various authorities, may promulgate the scheme with or without modifications. So it is the Minister's scheme, because modifications may be drastic or may be small. That is the scheme which he is going to propound to this House. He is going to discuss it with various bodies but he is not going to discuss it on the floor of this House. But this is the place to discuss the details of the scheme. The position as regards Scotland was being discussed yesterday. Suppose the details of this scheme are not satisfactory to the Scottish Members, would it not, be right that we should have an opportunity in this House of discussing such a scheme on Committee stage and moving the necessary Amendments? The Government's doctrine here is a most dangerous doctrine. If this is to be done it is really the end of Parliamentary government. I beg the Minister to consider what is the right way to deal with this matter.
There is some precedent to be derived from the Government of India Act, 1935, where, though it was provided that the scheme should be promulgated by means of an Order in Council, yet it was also provided that either House might make Amendments to that Order in Council. I think we ought to have, at the very least, a scheme of that sort, but I very much hope that, having regard to what noble Lords opposite have said before, the acting Leader of the House will tell us that on reflection the matter will be left to this House. I do not want him to withdraw any of his ideas at all; I am merely on a point which I believe is of great importance in Parliamentary procedure. I say that, whatever he is going to do, he ought to come down to this House and do it in the form of a Bill with the ordinary procedure of a Bill, so that we can consider what the provisions are and, if necessary, amend the

791
Bill. I very much hope that if the Minister does not give way on this point, your Lordships will at any rate give me the half-way house of the procedure adopted with the Government of India Act. I am sorry I have detained your Lordships so long, but this matter is one of very great importance: it concerns the interests and the welfare of this country.
3.40 p.m.
THE EARL of BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, we have just listened to an admirable speech by the noble and learned Earl which I think noble Lords on both sides of the House appreciate. I was interested to hear him quote Edward Lear, but perhaps he forgot one passage in that eminent writer's works, which, so far as my memory carries me, was:
"When the tide slackens and sharks are around,
His voice has a timid and tremulous sound."
That certainly cannot be said of the noble and learned Earl to-day. I agree that this is a Bill which has now gone a long way already, and probably, in my opinion, it would be better left now to the Committee stage. In any case, this discussion this afternoon will be summed up by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who will pick up all the points. I have listened to them with considerable interest and I think it would be both undesirable and unnecessary for me to burden your Lordships with a very long speech to-day.
The noble and learned Earl talked at some length about railways. In the first place, we think that the Minister should be placed under an obligation to consult bodies representative of interests specially affected by a scheme of reorganisation; in our opinion the reorganisation of the railways is not comparable in any way with the reorganisation of a small business or concern. How the railways are run obviously vitally affects trade and industry and the prosperity of the country. Further, Parliament should, we think, have an opportunity of considering any scheme made, and this is provided by the requirement that it shall be subject to an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
There is one further advantage in dealing with the matter in this way which should appeal to the Opposition. If the
792
reorganisation had been carried out under the 1947 Act, employees whose position was adversely affected by reorganisation could have received compensation only on the basis of the position and the emoluments which they were enjoying in 1947. For example, if a man who in 1947 was receiving £5 per week is now being paid £10 per week and, as a result of the reorganisation finds himself in a position where his pay is, say, £7 a week, he will, if the reorganisation is made by Statute, be able to base a claim for compensation on his present position at £10 a week; whereas if the reorganisation were carried out as I think has been suggested, he would have no claim at all for compensation.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, in the course of his interesting speech, asked about the future control of docks and harbours. It is not possible at this stage to say, and I think it would be improper to attempt to lay down, what should be the organisation of the British Transport Commission to deal with this particular issue. The reorganisation of the railways will obviously have a most profound effect upon the whole structure of the British Transport Commission. We cannot say exactly what will emerge. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport in another place has said that the Commission-owned docks and harbours will not be placed under the control of the decentralised railway system. It is envisaged that they will be administered as a separate part of the Commission's undertaking, as they are at present. The question whether they shall be administered by an Executive or by some other organisation under the Commission's control cannot be decided now. The important point about this is that the docks and harbours will not be placed under the authority of the railways. This is a consideration to which the Dock and Harbour Authorities' Association, of which the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, is Chairman, attach very great importance.
My noble friend Lord Hawke suggested yesterday that the Commission should be compelled to sell Pickford's, by which I think he meant the lucrative heavy haulage business. As the Bill stands, the Commission will be able to retain road goods vehicles up to the total unladen weight of the vehicles possessed before nationalisation, plus one-fifth;

793
and the distribution among classes of vehicles would be the same as obtained then. It is now proposed to increase the total retention by 5 per cent.—that is to say, the 1947 holding plus 25 per cent.—and to give an additional margin by which any class of vehicle which is specified in the Amendment may exceed this figure, provided that the grand total of all vehicles is not exceeded. This business is extremely complicated, as your Lordships Know, but the various questions which the noble and learned Earl asked, and which I have not attempted to answer at the present moment, will be dealt with later to-day by my noble friend.
3.48 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: My Lords, this is, as your Lordships all know very well, a frightening moment. I shall be very short. The debate has gone on a long time. I feel that the horses have been twice round the circuit. Some of the fences are looking a bit shabby and, if your Lordships will allow me, I shall be quite short and trot my horse around the outside for a few minutes. Before I make any remarks on the Bill itself I have an interest to declare. For some years I worked for a bus-operating organisation. Before the war, I left them for other fields, but not long ago they invited me back in the capacity of director of one of their local boards, a position which I was proud to accept. If your Lordships will allow me a slight boast, I think that perhaps I am the only Member of your Lordships' House who at one time held a licence to drive passenger service vehicles. There is a lamp-post in Chesterfield which, if it could talk, would bear eloquent testimony to the hardships of my apprenticeship.
I should like to take up just two or three points which have occurred to me in the course of this debate. I hope that I shall not be accused of being too controversial. This is a controversial subject and, naturally, in any point I take up I am not going to refer to any noble Lord who may have raised the point. One ball which, so to speak, came into my court, I cannot resist hitting straight back. There have been suggestions, not so much in your Lordships' douse but certainly in general discussions about the Bill, and in another place, that transport
794
which is now an efficient public service is being thrown to the wolves of private enterprise, the profit-makers. I have only one comment to make on that. As a consumer I prefer to deal with a man who is, in fact, trying to make a profit; but, more important, with someone who, if he does not make a profit, has to pay for any loss incurred. A man who is trying to make a profit I can kick where it hurts—I can kick him in his pocket. But I defy your Lordships to locate a tender portion of the anatomy of a Commission or a pious hope in a Bill.
Another point that I should like to raise is this. A great deal has been said, and rightly so in my humble view, about the position of the taxpayer—perhaps rather too much about the taxpayer and not enough about the consumer. One of the things that disturbs me about this Bill is that it is not going to be easy to avoid a loss to the taxpayer, although I hope that that may be possible. Again, if noble Lords will forgive me for another little piece of controversy, my feeling is that the taxpayer should never be in the business at all. What disturbs me about the Transport Act, 1947, and all other nationalisation Acts, is that the unfortunate taxpayer is there to stand a loss: he is, in fact, an equity shareholder, without any dividends at all. I do not think that is right, and that is one of the reasons why I am glad to see this Bill before the House.
My Lords, just one last word on this matter of centralisation. It is a very difficult word, but in my own mind I can draw a distinction—which I hope to be able to persuade your Lordships is valid—between two forms of centralisation. May I call the first one unification and the second one integration? I believe that there is an important difference between the two. I would describe unification as the breaking down of entities and the establishment of a long chain of command between the man at the top and the man at the bottom. That is a very suitable organisation for certain things; it has its obvious functions. Undoubtedly, the military services need an organisation of that sort; it is successful where the objective is limited and clearly defined. But I do not think it can be said to be a successful organisation for a business. The things that a business has to do are never clearly defined. There are as

795
many questions as there are variables of demand. Decisions must be taken for which there is no time to refer to headquarters.
Unification is also very suitable for Governments and for Government Departments, for a rather different reason. I am not an expert on constitutional form, but I believe that I am right in saying that the Minister is responsible to the public through Parliament. He cannot, therefore, answer to the public, nor can he protect the public, unless he operates to a very large degree by Statute. If that is the case, I do not regard Parliament as the sort of body that ought to run a business—and for this very good reason. If the Minister has to proceed by Statute he is bound to achieve a unified organisation, the chain of command organisation, in order to protect the public and to do his job as a Minister. If Parliament abrogates any powers to the business then, in my humble view, the public have lost the protection to which they are entitled. If, on the other hand, Parliament does not abrogate sufficient responsibility, then the business itself may break down; and to that there is only one answer. It is a very difficult balance to carry, and that is why I doubt whether Government Departments ought to be in business. On that I am quite sincere. I am not dogmatic about it, because I believe that there is a better answer; that is, the second interpretation of centralisation which I have in my mind, and which I call integration. Integration differs materially from unification: by the very sound of the word it suggests the preservation of entities. I believe that integration preserves entities; instead of forming a long chain of command between the top and the bottom, it relies on the organisation to pick key men on a much more horizontal plane, and to say to them "Carry on with the job." I do not believe that any Minister or any Parliamentary authority can possibly act in that way.
My Lords, I shall not detain you much longer. I have tried to draw what may be a fine distinction, but one which I think is valid. I should like to conclude by describing, very shortly, one organisation about which I know a good deal. It is close to this Bill, and it is a transport organisation in which I was once
796
employed. There the integration is very simple in form. On the boards of the various companies, integrated to the centre by cross-board holdings, are the railways and the bus operators. The management is left in the operators' hands. Below the board level, all over the countryside where these companies operate, there is the key man of the whole show, the chief general manager, a highly paid and a highly qualified official carrying enormous responsibility. He is very little disturbed by the centre, but because of his training and experience, and because of the powers of the boards to pick the right man, he can run that business on the spot, without interference. In addition, in the provinces there is a standing committee which meets, as the word "standing" suggests, regularly. On that committee there sits the general manager and his secretary from the bus operating company and, on the other side, his opposite number in the railway organisation. These two meet, and they thresh out between them the problems. Should they be unable to decide, the rivalry does not cease because, quite separately, the railways and the bus operators then appear before the licensing authority to fight out their case. That is an organisation which I think is remarkable and highly effective.
This Bill is not perfect—I think I can say that, in all humility. I have heard enough criticism from noble Lords to realise that. But I believe that it is working away from what I call the Army-Government Department type of organisation, towards an integration of the type of which I myself have had experience. Therefore I very much hope that if, in the course of the Committee stage, any Amendments are necessary—on my reading of the Bill I do not think they will be—to persuade the Minister to carry out some form of integration between the railways and, particularly, road haulage (which I regard as the kernel of the Bill), I shall be very happy. I have no more to say, except to thank your Lordships for your courtesy in listening to me.
4.0 p.m.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, it is customary in this House, when some noble Lord rises and speaks for the first time, for the next speaker to make some remarks on that fact. I personally feel very strongly that we do not have nearly

797
enough Peers coming to this House, and having the courage to go to the wicket and "break their duck." I am very glad indeed to welcome one to-day who has that courage. Particularly do I welcome the noble Marquess, because I feel that he has had a particularly difficult job. He follows a father who was beloved in this House and had a wonderful reputation. He must, inevitably, have been saying to himself in the last day or two: "Am I going to let the old man down?" I am sure there is no one here at this moment who will not feel, as I do, that his father must be feeling very proud of him now.
And now to turn to this Bill. Frankly, must say that I am not happy about it. So far as the railway side is concerned I do not know very much, and I am a good deal reassured by what I have heard. As regards the road haulage side, I am frankly worried. I agree absolutely with the objectives of the Bill, but I am doubtful about the ultimate success of the measure as it stands at the moment. I believe that the desired result could have been attained much more simply, as was suggested by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, by removing the twenty-five mile limit. I do not think that that would have gone the whole way. There would not have been enough vehicles to undertake the work. But if the twenty-five mile limit had been removed and the "C" licensee had been given the right to carry a return load, I believe that all the objectives of this Bill could have been achieved and the Bill itself would be unnecessary. And, if that course had been adopted, it would have produced great economies in transport. It would have eliminated, very largely, the enormous number of empty vehicles to be seen on the road, and would, thereby, have cleared the road and made it easier for the remaining transport to get about its business.
There is one subject on which I feel very strongly, and that again is a matter to which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt has referred—the levy. It is objectionable for many reasons, but I propose to deal with only two of them. First, I hate precedents, still more do I hate bad ones. I think it is a thoroughly dangerous precedent that it should be possible to put an ad hoc tax on one section of the community. I regard that
798
almost as an iniquitous thing to do. As to the other reason, I am afraid that in this I am going to disappoint the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who said yesterday (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 180, Col. 717):
"Should any loss on a nationalised industry be nationally transferred to the taxpayer? I suggest that that is an entirely bad principle, and I should be surprised if it were endorsed by any noble Lord here."
Personally, I do not see to whom else it is to be transferred. Are you going to make the nationalised industry bankrupt? If you do not, who is going to bear the loss? It must be the taxpayer; there is no other possible person. But, quite apart from that, presumably the Government believe that this Bill is for the good of the country' as a whole. If that is so, surely the people of the country as a whole are the people who must pay any loss, if such loss there be. If this Bill is designed purely for the benefit of the road haulier, the Government have no right to introduce it, but I agree that if they do introduce it they are right to put the cost on him.
But I do not believe that this Bill is for the benefit only of the road haulier; it is for the benefit of the whole country. If it is for the benefit of the whole country, let us all pay for it. Otherwise what is the result? This levy must, and can, do only one thing: it must put up transport costs. Transport costs will be reflected in every article used by the home consumer in this country, and that at a time when all are doing their utmost to reduce costs. It will be reflected in every article we export, and that at a time when this country is fighting to get foreign money to pay for the food that we must have to live on. If the cost is put on the whole country it will not show anywhere, except in the money which disappears out of our pockets in the form of income tax, purchase tax or some other tax. Ultimately, we have to recognise the grossest injustice of the lot—that the road haulier, on his own job, is the most heavily taxed person in the country. The money that comes out of the pockets of motorists and road hauliers amounts to £370 million a year, and that is on top of all their normal taxation, on top of their income tax, on top of any taxation the firms they belong to may pay. They have to pay that tax, and what do they get for it?—about £40 million a year spent on the roads on which they have to

799
earn money to pay the tax. Now it is proposed to put another special levy on them. My Lords, I ask you whether that is fair. The levy was described by the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, as a small price to pay for freedom. I say that it is not only too high a price but an absolutely unnecessary one.
4.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: My Lords, I should like to join at once with the noble Lord who has just sat down in the tribute which he paid to the noble Marquess who has made his maiden speech this afternoon. It is a very special pleasure to me to do so because I am the noble Marquess's next door neighbour, and I look out across the Forth to his home. Indeed, I remember that in the various considerations and discussions which took place with regard to that problem which has not yet been solved—the road bridge across the Forth—I had a conversation with the noble Marquess's father, in which I suggested that far the best way of solving the problem would be to have a tunnel between Hopetoun and Broom-hall, and turn both of them into hotels.
To turn to the subject of to-day, the Transport Bill, we heard a good deal of expression of opinion from Scotland yesterday, and I apologise for encroaching again on your attention to-day, but I think your Lordships will agree that Scotland deserves a special place in the consideration of any matter of transport because the nature of her territory and the configuration of her land involves extra distance in the marketing of her products and manufactures. For that reason above all, a thoroughly efficient and economical system of transport is supremely necessary to Scotland. Yester-day my noble friend Lord Bilsland submitted for your consideration the considered views of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), of which he is President. The Scottish Council have striven for a number of years for the realisation of two essential principles of transport organisation in Scotland. The first of these is effective devolution to Scotland, and here I could not help feeling that when the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, made his very effective speech a few minutes ago he did not understand the feeling of Scotland. There
800
is a reason for devolution. There is a reason why Scotland should have more control of its transport and should not have always to leave the decision to be made in London.
The second principle is the co-ordination of the transport services, but of the two, undoubtedly devolution is the more important, because how much use can be made of the co-ordinating arrangements depends largely on what is devolved. After all, it would seem to be explicitly in line with the expressed intention of the Government. Many declarations have been made on that line since they came into office and I think, rather surprisingly, it is on this matter of devolution that we have had the least information. Yesterday the noble Earl, Lord Home, described, as was described in another place by the Minister of Transport, the body which was to be appointed to co-ordinate transport in Scotland—the Scottish Transport Council. We welcomed that announcement so far as it went, but we should be much more reassured if a similar specific description could be given of the arrangements which Her Majesty's Government contemplate for effecting devolution. If Scotland is given devolution arrangements in each of the State-owned transport services, as advocated by my noble friend Lord Bilsland in his speech to your Lordships yesterday, I feel we should get devolution in reality; but without the essential devolution in the individual services it can hardly be more than an empty shell. We have too many empty shells. There has been a great inclination to appoint consultative councils and consultative committees. None of them, or very few of them, have any real power, and we do not want to see arrangements made under this Bill for increases or additions to the number of empty shells of that kind.
The Bill provides for the establishment of a Scottish railway authority. We know that and appreciate it, but before passing any valid judgment on this problem we in Scotland should like to know a good deal more than has yet been vouchsafed to us about the form and powers to be given to this authority. We all appreciate that it might be difficult for the Government to give specific details about the composition and functions of the Scottish railway authority until, under the scheme of the Bill, the British

801
Transport Commission have submitted their scheme for railway reorganisation. I shall come back to that a little later. I feel that it would be important and helpful if we could have a greater assurance about the scheme which will be produced.
We have been told here and by an announcement in another place that the Minister would not approve of authority being in the hands of one individual. If he can say what he will not approve, surely he can give us a little more information as regards what he can approve and what he would like to have. We are told that the new Transport Council will consist of "the Chairman or other representatives of all the providers of publicly-owned transport—road, rail, sea and air." It would appear from that announcement that it is contemplated that at least some of the nationalised transport services in Scotland will have chairmen, and, if they have chairmen, these chairman must have something to chair. That means boards of some kind. Can we not have more information about what kind of board is intended? We were told that the road passenger services are to remain in public ownership and will remain under Scottish Omnibuses, Limited, which is a Scottish concern fully acquainted with Scottish conditions and needs. I quite agree with that estimate of Scottish Omnibuses, Limited, but in the light of what my noble friend Lord Bilsland said yesterday, can we not be given a little more information about how road trans-sport is to be organised?
Turning to air services, there is no one with a more practical knowledge of this branch of transport service than the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and I am sure that he will not dispute that the proper development of this service is of vital importance to Scotland, a country so dependent on communications, to safeguard her position in this relatively young but already large, growing and tremendously important service. The noble Earl, Lord Home, said yesterday that this Bill "emphasises the status of regional authorities," that "the first objective is to secure that the executive authority which runs each branch of nationalised transport has a recognisable Scottish identity and sufficient delegated powers," and that the Bill "gives more power to the man on the spot." Similar expressions were
802
made in another place by the Minister when the Bill was passing through its various stages there and by the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, in introducing the Bill here. These intentions are highly commendable, but we should be much happier if we could have more factual information about them and concrete proposals as to what is really meant.
I do not propose to say much about co-ordination of services. A statement was made by the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, on behalf of the Scottish Council, and mention was made yesterday by the noble Earl, Lord Home, of the Scottish Transport Council which is to be formed. The noble Earl indicated, in this respect, at any rate, that the Government are in large measure in agreement with the proposals laid before them by the Scottish Council. I do hope that if and when this Scottish Transport Council is formed, it will be teal. Again, I refer to the formation of a number of consultative committees. I have had the opportunity and privilege of serving on the Scottish Transport Users Consultative Committee ever since it was formed. That Committee has been a good deal criticised, but I would claim, as a member, that it has done a good deal of useful work.
However, I feel that there are three points in which its work has been hampered. First, it did not get the confidence of the public. There were occasions when even in the submission of representations from representative bodies, those bodies withdrew and pursued the course of making a direct representation to the Secretary of State for Scotland instead of pursuing the discussion through the Transport Users Consultative Committee. For this reason, I say the Committee has failed so far to get the full confidence of the public in Scotland. Secondly, representations have been made to the Committee too late, after a decision has been come to by the Railway Executive as regards the withdrawal of a service, and when the ground has really been prepared too much on the other side. Thirdly, I think there has been a difficulty in the set-up of the Committee itself. The Committee had as its Secretary a member of the Railway Executive staff; the Committee met in the boardroom of the Railway Executive; and on the Committee there was represented the chief executive officer of the railways in

803
Scotland, as well as the representatives of the buses and transport hauliers. I believe that that gave the impression of a bias in a certain direction. I hope that if and when the Scottish Transport Council is formed, it will be relieved of these difficulties, that it will be planted on a fair basis, and that it will be real itself.
This brings me back to the speech of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. He emphasised that under this Bill the Minister was taking power to ask the Commission to present a scheme to him, and the only opportunity of approving or disapproving of it was by a Prayer in this House or in the other place that it should be either accepted or annulled. That is a serious position, in which I would add the whole weight of my friends in Scotland to what the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has said. This is not the way to carry out legislation.
4.25 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, at the end of a three days' debate on the Transport Bill there must be few things left for the unfortunate winders up of the debate to say; few arguments that have not already been put forward, and few facts that have not already been stated. All that is left for one to do, perhaps, is to put those arguments in a slightly different form, to criticise the facts and to fill in any possible gaps. Indeed, after a three days' debate even the speeches become a little blurred. In my view, there have been a few outstanding speeches, and if I mention any in particular that is not to say that there have not been others. I am sure the whole House will agree that the speech of my noble friend Lord Lucas was an outstanding one, whether one agrees with it or not. He presented his case in a forceful and well-informed manner, and I do not think he overstated it. There was then the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, to which my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt has already referred, which again was a controversial speech but one of great courage. It is much more difficult to say things which are unpopular with one's own friends than it is to say things unpopular with the other side. I thought the noble Earl showed extreme courage and frankness in admitting that the views he had held for a lifetime had been shown
804
to be wrong. Lastly, there was the speech of my noble and learned Leader this afternoon, which again I thought was a masterly speech, whether one agreed with him or not. His speech, I may say, has put me in some difficulty, because many of the things that he said were things which I had intended to say; but he has said them so much better than I possibly could have done.
This debate has brought out a number of facts and clarified all our minds on the issues. A number of speakers on both sides of the House have stated what they regard as the objective in this matter of transport. It is: to use in the most efficient and economic manner all the resources at our disposal for the conveyance of goods and passengers—road, rail, air and water. I think that will be generally accepted. But if that is accepted as a definition of our objective, then the corollary is that it can be ultimately achieved only by complete integration of transport. The Act of 1947, whether one likes it or not, was an attempt to bring about this complete integration. One may agree or disagree that integration of all forms of transport is desirable—I believe that most noble Lords agree that it is desirable—but I feel that one must agree that it is impossible to have integration of transport with a publicly owned railway transport undertaking and a series of privately owned road transport undertakings. That is an exceedingly difficult, if not an impossible, thing to achieve. It may be possible to bring about a measure of integration by an elaborate system of controls and regulations over private enterprise. But noble Lords opposite will probably take the view that that in itself is undesirable, and that the whole purpose of this exercise is to free road transport, and not to put it, to use their own language, in shackles of another form. Therefore, the method of integration by means of controls and regulations would not be a satisfactory method. But if that method is eliminated, I fail to see how it will be possible to get an integrated system of transport by the method which this Bill proposes to adopt.
It is to me somewhat anomalous that noble Lords opposite should be, on the one hand, advocating integration, criticising the existing arrangements because

805
they do not carry out integration satisfactorily, and, on the other, introducing a measure which makes integration virtually impossible. In my view, therefore, and in the view of my noble friends, integration of transport is impossible unless there is public ownership. That is why we oppose this measure which takes away from the system an integral part of the transport undertakings. It may be that noble Lords opposite will say that the virtues and advantages of competition are so great that they are prepared to sacrifice some of the advantages of public ownership; that they dislike monopolies so much that even the wasteful and unnecessary competition between road and rail which existed between the wars is preferable. But, of course, that is not integration—that is going back to a system which everybody condemned before the war, and which all of us were seeking to improve.
I cannot help thinking that noble Lords opposite have not really clarified their minds on the subject of integration and on the subject of monopoly. As my noble and learned Leader said, in many cases competition is a good thing, particularly where the consumer or the user can, with advantage, be offered a real choice. Monopoly is bad where there is a danger of the consumer or user being exploited for private gain; and when we oppose monopoly we oppose it for that reason. But in the case of transport, neither of these conditions obtains. The user of transport is merely concerned with getting his goods from A to B at the cheapest rate, in the most efficient manner; and no question of a choice arises. He does not care whether they go by road, by rail or by air. In most cases, the nature of the traffic determines the manner in which it shall be despatched. For instance, one can hardly send coal by road, and I understand that it is not very satisfactory to send steel by rail. Generally speaking, there is not much choice, so that, on that score of consumer's choice, there is really none of the objection to a monopoly which is normally levelled against a monopoly. Of course, in the case of a publicly owned undertaking, there is no danger of the public being exploited. We all recognise that in the case of a privately owned undertaking that may be possible. Even though it may well be that many privately owned undertakings are sufficiently
806
responsible, and sufficiently alive to their own interests, not to go too far in exploiting the public, nevertheless there is always the fear that that might happen; and there is a natural aversion to a private monopoly.
As I say, neither of these objections applies to a public monopoly. I think the public, generally speaking, realise that. On the arguments that have been put forward from time to time in the course of this debate, one would think that it would be in the public interest to restore private enterprise in the Post Office in the delivery of letters. Why not? The Post Office, I think, offers a good analogy. Why should not people be allowed to canvass for orders to be allowed to collect and deliver letters at a cheaper rate and more efficiently than the Post Office does? The same might apply to the telephone service. But no realistic person to-day suggests either of those two things, because they recognise that the Post Office is a proper subject for monopoly. I submit that, in the same way, road and rail transport are each a proper subject for monopoly.
The difference between the two sides of the House on this issue is purely doctrinal. It is as much doctrinal to be opposed to nationalisation and public ownership as such as it is to be in favour of it. Noble Lords cannot be exonerated from dealing with this matter in a purely doctrinal manner. I do not necessarily complain of that. What I do complain of in the way this matter has been handled is that they have not been content to rest their case on the doctrinal issue, but have found it necessary to introduce against the Road Haulage Executive accusations of inefficiency, of failing to carry out integration, of failing to give the personal service that private enterprise does, and so on—as my noble Leader has said, entirely without a shred of evidence on any of those points. The fact that this is a purely doctrinal issue is amply borne out by the fact that the 1947 Act has never had a fair trial. Noble Lords opposite were determined to kill the Act even before it was born. They said so in the course of the passage of the 1947 Bill, and they said so from time to time thereafter.
Within a very short time of the coming into operation of the 1947 Act, and when the Act had hardly got into its stride, we

807
had a debate in this House. I remember it very well, and noble Lords opposite, who were then, of course, in Opposition, were hurling all sorts of charges against this undertaking, charges of inefficiency, of stupid handling of goods and so on; charges which were obviously grossly unfair and very much exaggerated and which, in any case, were the immediate effects of a very big transfer of ownership and a very big change in management and administration. All these things were the inevitable after-effects of a great measure of that kind. In 1950, when the Act had been in operation for only two years, noble Lords opposite put in their Election Manifesto that they were going to repeal it and they did so again in 1951. Obviously, therefore, the merits of the case have nothing to do with the matter at all. The opposition was begun, as I say, before the Bill became law, and has continued ever since. The Government must know that this Bill provides no solution to the difficulties which confront the industry. All sorts of people, of all political Parties, including the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, have stated from time to time what these difficulties are. There has been a Commission on the subject, of which Sir Arthur Salter was Chairman. Everyone agrees that there is a need for integration between road and rail. This measure, however, does nothing towards a solution of that problem—indeed, it merely sets us back to where we were in the days before the war.
I do not want to take up the time of the House by enlarging on the difficulties which confronted the Road Haulage Executive when they took over the administration of the road haulage service. They will be well known to a large number of your Lordships, who are much better aquainted with the administration of this service than I am. Nevertheless I should like to mention one or two of the difficulties. The Road Haulage Executive were required to take over a number of vehicles which were not necessarily of the right type or size needed for the purpose of integration. There was an unduly large number of small vehicles, and a very small number of maximum capacity vehicles. Then, owing to war conditions, the average age of the vehicles was
808
abnormally high. Moreover, the Executive were compelled to take over contracts for the purchase of £9 million worth of vehicles which had been ordered but which were not necessarily of the type which they wanted. These were tremendous handicaps. The Executive had to create a maintainence organisation, with workshops and stores on a scale commensurate with their new responsibilities. They had to build up a suitable staff, to settle uniform conditions of service, to set up their accountancy and recording departments, and local and regional depots. All these are things which go to make up an integrated service.
The Executive had to do these things under two very heavy handicaps: one, that whenever they had to carry out any building operations they had to get a building licence (and still do), and the other that throughout the time they have been administering this service there have been restrictions on capital expenditure. During the greater part of the time they have been in existence they have been engaged in building up the service and acquiring new undertakings. It was only at the end of 1951 that they finished acquiring their undertakings, and by that time they had had to weld together 3,000 separate transport undertakings and to take over some 46,000 vehicles. I think it is right that somebody should congratulate the Road Haulage Executive and the whole of their organisation on the magnificent job that they have done. I think they have had far too little credit for welding together this vast amorphous service and for making it the efficient organisation that it is to-day. They have gone a very long way towards creating an integrated long-distance haulage service in the very short time of their existence.
I recognise, of course, that that is only the first stage. I do not suggest that they have completed their task, and when they have created an integrated road haulage service there remains the task which has faced the Transport Commission, that of creating an integrated service with rail. That part of it has not gone very far, as my noble Leader has said, because they had to clear the scheme, which of course is now on the shelf, and of which, so far, we have no detailed knowledge. The

809
noble Lord, Lord Leathers, said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 180, col. 586):
"Nothing significant in the way of compensation has been achieved, and I do not think any reasonable person could see hope of its coming about."
I feel, in the light of what I have said, that this, to put it no higher, is a very much exaggerated statement. I think there is every reason to believe that, given a little longer, the integration would have taken place.
We have heard a good deal about inefficiency and strikes. As my noble Leader said, these charges have been levelled without one single word of evidence of the nature of the inefficiency, and I think that perhaps it would be as well if we were to agree what we meant by efficiency. The noble Lord, Lord Leathers, said that we need "quick, individual, on-the-spot decisions," and, of course, in addition, we need quick delivery. I do not know whether one gets these "quick, on-the-spot decisions" under private enterprise. I have had some slight experience in the last few weeks. I have been engaged in a removal job. I tried to get a quick, on-the-spot decision as to what it would cost me. I got it eventually, but I certainly did not get it "on the spot." I do not say that the Road Haulage Executive would have come to a decision on the spot, but in that respect I do not think that one is any better than the other. One just does not get these decisions "on the spot."
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, talked about there being no objective yardstick of efficiency and said that one must have comparisons between what one person can do and what another can do. Perhaps I can give him a few facts and comparisons which may help him and the House to see whether there is a satisfactory yardstick. There is the question of empty running, again a matter to which my noble Leader referred. It is, of course, inevitable in road transport that there should be a certain number of empty vehicles on return journeys. The object of an efficient undertaking is to reduce the percentage of empty journeys as much as possible. The Road Haulage Executive has, in fact, reduced the percentage of empty running from 30 per cent.—which is the best estimate we could obtain of what happened before the vehicles were taken over—to 20 per cent.
810
In so far as that is a valid comparison, that is an improvement in efficiency. Another test would be the economy in vehicle utilisation. That, again, was referred to by my noble friend. To-day, 39,000 vehicles are doing the job which previously was done by 46,000. That must mean an improvement in efficiency, assuming of course that they are really doing the same job—and there is clear evidence, from the volume of traffic which is being carried, that they are. Indeed, in 1951 there was more traffic being carried than in 1950, and yet it was being done with fewer vehicles.
Another objective yardstick would be the tonnage carried per vehicle per week. In 1951 the figure was 44 tons as against 35 tons before nationalisation. In other words, the vehicles are carrying to-day 25 per cent. more traffic than they were before. Another yardstick is the number of staff employed for every hundred tons carried. The noble Lord will agree that that again is a reasonable yardstick. The figures are that, as regards the managerial, administrative and clerical grades, in 1948 there were 1.18 persons of that grade employed, compared with 1.04 in 1951. Thus there has been a reduction, and corresponding reductions have taken place in the grades of drivers, mates and vanguards. There, again, such figures as are available indicate that there is greater efficiency to-day than there was when these services were taken over.
May I give one more figure, and that is for speed of delivery? As I think noble Lords will agree, that is a very good test. I am told that in over 95 per cent. of cases, delivery is effected within twenty-four hours of the receipt of the order. That applies equally to long-distance traffic as to short. I do not want to put my case too high; I do not suggest for a moment that these figures are conclusive; but the onus of proving that this service is inefficient in effect rests with those who wish to destroy the service. It is not for us, who want to retain the service, to prove that it is efficient. I would say that in the light of the figures that I have given and others that can be giver—I do not want to weary the House—noble Lords opposite would have the greatest difficulty in the world in establishing their case that this service is inefficient. Indeed, to do them justice, they made no attempt to prove it; they merely asserted it.

811
A good deal was made of the point that this service is operating at a high cost and not making profits. There, again, my noble friend dealt with that point and referred to the increases in costs which have taken place since nationalisation—something like £80 million. If, in fact, the Road Haulage Executive had increased their charges merely to recoup themselves for the increased costs, they would have shown considerable profits in their service. As my noble friend pointed out, they have partly recouped themselves, but there was a sap between the increased costs and the increased charges. That gap is far greater than the deficiency in the few years in which they have been in office, and, if private undertakings had been still going on, there is no doubt at all that they would have increased their charges to recoup themselves for the increased costs.
The case was put by many noble Lords on the other side that an increase in the number of "C" licences was proof that the Act had broken down. Of course it is no such thing. Putting it at its best from the point of view of noble Lords opposite, the mere fact that there has been an increase in the number of "C" licences does not establish that the only reason for it is the failure of the Act. There may be a great many reasons, but I do not ask noble Lords to conjecture; I ask them just to listen to some of the reasons which have been given by bodies which are in no sense sympathetic to the view which I am putting forward. Take the British Road Federation. It is true that they were arguing against the levy being imposed on "C" licence-holders and it is in that context that they make this statement, but I think, nevertheless, that the statement has to be taken seriously unless it can be challenged. This is what they say:
"The great majority of those who operate their own "C" licence vehicles do so because the nature of their business makes it impractical for them to use public transport services whatever the charges of the latter may be"—
not because of a dislike of a nationalised service, not because they believe that the nationalised service will not give them the service that they need, but because it is impractical for them to use public transport services. They go on then to make the point which my noble and
812
learned friend made as to the increase in goods vehicles since 1946 not being disproportionate to the increase in vehicles generally, and to the increase in Western European countries.
Then Modern Transport, another journal which is not sympathetic to the point of view which I am expressing, said this last May:
"… a great deal of the increase is due to the normal growth of motor transport and the increase in services it supplies to the community. … There has been an extraordinary increase in facilities for local deliveries … the smallest local tradesman has a delivery van"—
and that, of course, we know to be true. We know also that since the war the consumer has to a certain extent come back into his own and expects deliveries to-day which he was not able to get in 1946 and 1947. Retailers have been forced, therefore, to obtain vehicles. Moreover, with the increase in specialisation in industry and with the development of manufacture by means of the conveyor system, it often happens that a manufacturer runs short of some material and is required to get it immediately in order not to interfere with the progress of the machine. He sets out at a moment's notice with his own vehicle and collects it. That, again, accounts for a considerable increase in the number of "C" licences. There are a variety of other reasons but, whatever the reasons may he, not a word has been said in this House during this debate to prove that this large increase is due to the nationalisation of the industry. I shall be interested to know whether the noble Viscount who is to reply still insists on making that point.
Criticism has been made of the centralised system and of this impersonal system but, in fact, there has been a great deal of decentralisation. Depôts have been established in or near every important industrial centre. Indeed, there has been criticism also because that has been done. In fact, in the eyes of the noble Lords opposite, the Road Haulage Executive can never do anything right. If they centralise they are wrong; if they decentralise they are wrong. The fact is, however, that there is a depôt in every important centre and sub-depôts where necessary, and there is the personal touch. Any manufacturer or other individual who wants to get his goods removed at

813
very short notice need only establish, as many of them have done, personal contact with the manager of the depôt, and they can then get their goods removed with the greatest speed and efficiency: whereas in the past to get quantities of goods conveyed of the magnitude which sometimes is required, might have necessitated their getting into touch with perhaps a dozen different private undertakers.
I was informed of the instance of a steel producer who had 350 tons of steel which he wanted taken away within twenty-four hours, because it was cluttering up his shop and he wanted room for new products. He rang up the regional manager and within a matter of hours the whole of the load was distributed to different parts of the country. What would have been the position in the old days? No single transport undertaker would have been capable of handling 350 tons. The producer would have had to ring up a large number of different undertakers and try to get each one of them to fit in with his requirements. It is by no means certain that at the end of the day he would have got the service that he was able to get through the Road Haulage Executive. In any case, it would have involved far more trouble and difficulty than it did in this case. Indeed, before nationalisation this same undertaking actually employed an organisation for the purpose of dealing with its transport—a transport manager with a number of people under him, whom to-day they no longer need. So that from the point of view of large manufacturers the present road haulage organisation is certainly a boon.
I hope I have said enough to establish that any accusations of inefficiency or rigidity, or of any unduly high charges, are without foundation. The noble Lord, Lord Leathers, has a vast experience of business—I should imagine an unrivalled experience compared with that of anybody in this House. In his time he must have been engaged in carrying through business amalgamations. I ask him to say candidly whether he would have been satisfied in carrying out a process of amalgamation of the kind that has been carried out here, with the results that have been achieved in the case of road haulage. And if he had not been satisfied, would he at this time, after so
814
short an interval, have decided to abandon the whole enterprise and sell it up—as my noble friend reminds me, on a chattel basis? I am sure he would not. I am sure he would have done everything possible to make this thing work. If the machinery had not been satisfactory he would alter it. If the personnel had not been satisfactory, he would change it.
I am quite sure that at the expiration of so short a time he would not have thrown up the sponge and decided to sell up this undertaking at a knockout price, if only because he would not have been able to charge up the purchasers and others with his loss—he would have had to bear the loss himself. I am sure he would have been very reluctant to do that. Nor, in the event of his actually deciding to sell, would he have indicated to the world that he anticipated a considerable loss on the proceeds and had made arrangements to meet it. If, in the last resort, he was going to sell these undertakings, I think he would have put a bold face on the matter and have given the appearance, at any rate, that he was going to sell without loss. Indeed, in the view of noble Lords on this side of the House, that is still possible. We think it is a big mistake on the part of Her Majesty's Government, if they are deciding against all sound business principles to get rid of the undertaking, to endeavour to sell in the manner in which they are selling.
May I say one more word on the levy? I think it is grossly unfair to the "C" licence-holders and to others who are not purchasers of the undertaking, that they should be required to foot the bill in respect of the loss. I fail to see what benefit "C" licence-holders are going to get from this sale. It is said that they sometimes use transport. Well, that may be true of some, but many of them do not. But the mere fact that a person occasionally uses transport other than "C" licensed vehicles in his business, does not mean that he ought to contribute towards this loss. Many people in the future are going to use transport, and they will not be called upon to foot the bill. It seems to be quite wrong to pick out "C" licence-holders and other owners of vehicles and say to them, "You are to foot the bill

815
in respect of this loss." But that, of course, has been argued by many people, and no doubt Her Majesty's Government will hear a good deal more about it before the Bill is finally passed.
I have spoken entirely about road haulage which is, of course, the key to the Bill. Indeed, it is difficult to say much about other parts of the Bill because they are quite vague and indeterminate. Apparently, even now the Minister has not made up his mind as to what he is going to do about the railways, and how and what he is going to decentralise. Until we know what the proposals are it is difficult to make any comment on them. But I want to associate myself in the strongest possible terms with what has been said by my noble Leader about the procedure it is proposed to adopt in this matter. The proposals for the decentralisation of the railways are going to be of far-reaching importance to the whole community. They may make all the difference between a successful or an unsuccessful transport undertaking for this country. I think it is wrong that Parliament should be given the opportunity merely of saying "Yes" or "No" to the proposals of the Minister. I hope that, even at this late hour, some means will be devised by which it will be possible for Parliament not only to express its views but to amend these proposals where it considers them to be deserving of amendment.
Then, as regards the disposal of the road passenger services, I would strongly deprecate the imposition of a requirement upon the Transport Commission to dispose of any shares which would have the effect of their losing the control which they at present enjoy. No case at all has been made for this. I have read through the speeches made in another place, and I have listened to the speeches made here, but I have not heard a single word of argument as to why this is being proposed at all. What is wrong with allowing the Transport Commission to have, in some cases, control over a transport undertaking? In what way have they failed, and in what way is it suggested that the undertaking itself will improve as the result of the control going to some unknown person or persons? Before a change of this kind is made, Her Majesty's Government ought to make a much stronger and more effective case
816
than they have done hitherto. We, on this side of your Lordships' House, are opposed to the Bill because we regard it as setting the clock back, and because we believe it would create chaos, waste and inefficiency in the provision in this country of transport which we regard as the life-blood of the nation.
5.11 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, with one thing at any rate that the noble Lord who has just sat down has said, I can agree. That is, that after three days' debate almost all that can be said on this Bill has been said—and, I might add, a good many things I should really have thought could hardly be said. The noble Lord has asked Lord Leathers to reply, and to reply promptly, as to what he would have done if he had made this amalgamation. I have authority to reply on behalf of Lord Leathers—indeed, on behalf of the firm of Leathers, Swinton, and the whole Government—and I can answer that question in very simple language. First of all, we should never have dreamt of making this amalgamation, because we believe it to be thoroughly wrong. That is why we are undoing it. Secondly, if we had made this amalgamation, and had turned a solid profit into a loss four years running, we should have expected to be turned out by our shareholders long before we reached the fourth year. Finally, if we had survived our fourth year, if we had been able to bamboozle our shareholders for four years, we should most certainly have put an end to the undertaking. That is the short and simple answer. It is a perfectly sincere answer, and an answer which goes for the whole of Her Majesty's Government. And that is why this Bill is now before the House.
We have had a large number of speeches. Many noble Lords have spoken from wide and practical experience. Among their contributions we have had two maiden speeches which were equally good in their quality, their delivery and their content. The one to which we have listened to-day would have delighted a father's heart. We have had some other speeches which have been delivered from narrow theory—the noble Lord just now said that this was a matter of doctrine; it may be with him; it is not with me. Those speeches were from narrow theory

817
and they were not inhibited or handicapped by much sense of realism. Then, of course, we have had a due Parliamentary meed of synthetic indignation at the Bill, shocked surprise that we should be carrying out our Election pledges—it may be very surprising to some—and that we should be giving effect to our convictions. I must say that I rather prefer the language which Mr. Lincoln Evans used, when writing on the Steel Bill. He said,
"We may dislike, but we cannot resent, the Government's decision to go ahead with their proposals and we simply have to face the fact that the people of this country, in accordance with the law governing Parliamentary Elections, returned the Tories to do precisely what they are doing. To resent such a measure would be to resent the operation of our democratic process by which Governments are elected."
I think that is sensible—and a more democratic and more Parliamentary attitude.
I think it is characteristic, at any rate of this House, that after all the—we must not use that word "boloney": we have been reproved for that—shall I say, bombast of this three-days' bombardment, we should get down to business in the Committee stage and take the attitude we have always taken, whatever Party are in power: that if we think that a Bill is a good Bill we try to make it better, and if we think a Bill is a bad Bill, we try to make it less bad. I promise the Opposition that the Government will certainly meet constructive criticism on its merits. They have done so in another place, and they will do so here. We intend to allow ample time for the Committee and Report stages—indeed, I have offered the Opposition what I think is a day more than they will require. But we shall see, and if the fourth day is required that shall be provided. We have been twitted—Lord Lucas twitted us—because we have made changes in the original White Paper. I admit it. We have made a considerable number, and we shall make some more if we are convinced that they are necessary. But that is not weakness, it is good sense—and in the best Parliamentary tradition. Whatever the Party opposite may say, we are not Bourbons, who forget nothing and learn nothing.
Noble Lords can all agree on the importance of transport. Certainly in goods it serves every industry. In passenger traffic it serves every citizen. If it is a
818
national undertaking, we are all shareholders in it. But whatever the system, there ought to be only one object and one test: does it give the best possible service? Can anyone honestly say that about the nationalised transport system? I think only the most complacent or the most doctrinaire would do so. Can anyone pretend that this nationalised transport to-day is giving to the trader and to the public what they want and what they have a right to demand? In goods, particularly, we certainly want an elastic service. When the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, who made such an admirable speech the day before yesterday—a speech that was none the worse for being brief—introduced a Bill to get us a little more freedom, a Bill which, of course, was rejected by the then Government, I ventured to cite a few examples which were never challenged of how traffic was taken all round the country—"the day we went to Birmingham by way of Beachy Head."
That sort of thing is still happening. Only yesterday the Minister of Transport gave me a letter which he had received from a company in Welwyn Garden City. Your Lordships will recognise that obviously it is a most serious matter if a consignment intended to be shipped is held up. It is had enough when transit of goods takes a fortnight, instead of the couple of days which ought to be ample, to get from place to place in this country, but when a ship is missed with a consignment, then that really is a matter of vital seriousness. The letter to which I refer from the company at Welwyn Garden City contains these statements:
"A consignment sent from Welwyn Garden City on November 24, 1952, to East India Docks arrived back in the Garden City 24 days later, having been misdirected.
"A consignment sent from Welwyn Garden City on January 1, 1953, to Basingstoke"—
that is not very far—
"was not received until January 13, 13 days later.
"A consignment sent on January 13, 1953, from Welwyn Garden City to Ruislip, Middlesex"—
that is only 20 miles—
"was not delivered until the 19th."
That means to say that it took six days to arrive. I am not blaming the people concerned; that sort of thing is inherent in the nationalised system. It is just not possible to run road transport as a completely centralised business.

819
In the old days—and the same will apply in the new days which are coming—when a firm was dissatisfied it was open to it to go somewhere else to get satisfaction. That kept everyone up to the mark. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, who, I understand has had to leave the Chamber, said that the real test to take was this. You may cite example after example, he said, but take the greatest trade organisation in the country, take the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, and see what they say about it. I am afraid that the noble Earl had not carried his researches as far as he usually does. Let me read from a letter written by the Secretary-General of the Association on November 17, 1952. The letter says:
"DEAR MR. LENNOX-BOYD,
To remove any possible doubts that may be in the minds of the Government and of Members of Parliament I am to reaffirm that the Chambers of Commerce, as represented by this Association, support the Government's aims of ultimately returning road haulage to private ownership and management, and at the same time granting to railways a wider degree of flexibility in their freight charges schemes.
The creation of a State monopoly of long-distance road haulage"—
which is what the noble Earl said we must have—
"was in the Association's view, a serious mistake. The Association considers that only by the reintroduction of the widest possible measure of private ownership and management into the industry can a really efficient, flexible and economical road haulage service be provided.
To avoid any further misunderstanding on this very important question, my President hopes that you will not hesitate to inform Parliament of the terms of this letter should the need arise to do so…"
I have great pleasure in informing this House of Parliament of the terms of that letter and of the views of the Chambers of Commerce. I think they are very important.
I must answer the noble and learned Earl's second point. He gave the example of a firm who had made arrangements with the Road Haulage Executive to carry their goods, I think by putting lorries at the firm's disposal. I am told that that is mostly a case of the arrangements which firms had with the private road hauliers before they were bought out or confiscated. When they had all been
820
bought out and the monopoly established, there was nobody else to go to. The alternative is to have a "C" licence. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, spent the best part of half an hour trying to explain to us that the number of "C" licences had increased because public road transport had become so much more efficient. That "will not wash." A lorry is a very expensive thing to buy to-day, with purchase tax and all the rest and with the wages that have to be paid. Any business man will tell you that he would not go and start a road haulage business of his own to carry his own stuff if he could get somebody to carry it properly for him. Allowing for all that has been said about carrying the kind of cargo that it is convenient to carry, as we get more and more freedom to trade we can expect to have a few more delivery vans. If it were a matter of a few thousands or tens of thousands to be accounted for, that would not be so difficult. But the noble Earl's argument does not account for these figures: on December 31, 1947, there were 487,000 "C" licensed vehicles (I leave out the odd hundreds) and on December 31, 1952, there were 833,936. Is anybody going to tell me that this enormous increase in road haulage has nothing to do with inability to get goods carried?
The noble and learned Earl said that we were going to take all road haulage away from the railways. This is exactly what we are not doing. The railways are going to be left with the whole of their road feeder services. The noble and learned Earl said it was important that the railways should be able to collect goods and bring them to the railways and carry them on the railways. The whole of that power is going to be left to the nationalised railways. No one dreams of taking it away. And we are going to leave with the railways many more vehicles than they had before nationalization—how many they are going to be left with we can discuss in Committee. We mean that both the nationalised railways and free enterprise shall have opportunities to compete for road traffic. The nationalised railways must have freedom to develop not only on the railroads but on road haulage and passenger road transport. That does not mean a monopoly, least of all an over-centralised monopoly.

821
I do not want to be unduly critical of the road haulage business or of the Transport Commission, but we must be honest about it. Have we not all seen strong evidence that this new monopoly is imitating and emulating some of the worst reactions of a past age? The noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, referred to the fact that in the old days the railways bought up and suppressed the canals. I dare say that in those days the canals were becoming obsolescent. I am not saying the railways were right. But is there not a parallel to-day in what the nationalised transport monopoly is doing? Is there no buying up and suppressing there? Has not the whole tendency of this new monopoly been to suppress—not only to suppress competition but to suppress alternative services, whether by lorry or bus? I find it interesting that only when there is a chance of a bus company running a cheap service from Glasgow to London did the railways find it would be a good thing if they were to run a cheap service. That just shows what a little competition will do and how stimulating this breath of fresh air is. That sort of elimination of competition really will not do. The railways must have their opportunity, both on the rail and road, but it must be an opportunity to use the railways and the road; it must not be an opportunity to abuse and suppress. And they will do it all the better under the stimulus of fair competition.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, had a good lecture to deliver to us on monopoly. He said that State monopoly is all very good because there is no private profit in it. If there is a private monopoly for private profit, it is all very bad, but nothing can be said against State monopoly.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Viscount has distorted quite a number of my arguments, and perhaps he will allow me to correct this one. I said the public has nothing to lose from State monopoly because there is no danger of its being exploited. There is that danger with private monopoly.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I dislike monopolies, whether public or private, but if I have to choose between a private monopoly which is making a profit—maybe making an excess profit—and giving an efficient service, and a
822
public monopoly which is making a heavy loss and giving me a bad service at a higher price, then, little as I like either monopoly, I should prefer to be exploited by the private monopoly rather than by the public one. But in our Party we have no intention of being exploited by either. We mean that all forms of enterprise should give the best service.
Then we go on to say that the railways must decentralise. That is a process of reformation; but a process of reformation does not mean that we abandon everything that is good in the old. We keep what is good and remove abuses. I think I can say that—the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, is not on the Front Bench opposite, so it is all right. Even my noble friend, Lord Radnor—who, it is said, showed great courage in delivering his speech, for several noble Lords said he had showed tremendous courage in making that speech (I do not know what he had to be afraid of!); and a very interesting speech it was—seemed to find some merit in decentralisation. He wanted us to keep the good stuff—and, of course, we will. But even he had a complaint about interference by the Transport Commission with management. That is exactly what we complain about, and just the kind of thing we want to put right through decentralisation. So that my noble friend Lord Radnor, with all his new-found affection for nationalised enterprise, has discovered that even in the nationalised enterprise the lesser fleas have bigger fleas upon their backs to bite 'em. Surely, the gentleman in Whitehall does not always know best; and it does not matter whether the gentleman in Whitehall is sitting in Berkeley Square or wherever the centralised administration of the Transport Commission sits. And that goes for south of the Tweed, believe me, my Lord Bilsland, as well as north of the Tweed. If the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, wants to know whether there is any complaint about having it all in one integrated monopoly, I wish he had heard the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, yesterday—anyway, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, will be glad to give him a little private instruction at any time. Uniformity, surely, is not an unmixed blessing; a little deviation is legitimate in business, and in our Party even in politics.

823
Then the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, talked about appealing from Philip drunk to Philip sober, or Philip sober in Opposition to Philip sober in office. He said he was frightfully shocked by Clause 15 and the provision for procedure by an Affirmative Resolution. It is the draft scheme which is to be laid, so there will be plenty of opportunity of discussing it. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, said: "What on earth would Lord Swinton have said if I had done this when f was leading in the late Government? I should barely have got away with my life, and certainly I should not have got away with this clause." But the noble and learned Earl got away with something incomparably worse. If he will only read the 1947 Act, which he himself piloted with such eloquence when he was sitting on the Woolsack, he will find that that Act contains a complete power to reorganise and decentralise the whole railway system, and to do it without any reference to Parliament at all: it could be done merely by the Minister's ipsi dixit. No draft order would have come here, and there would not even have been a chance to pray against the Order when it was made: it was to be merely the Minister's act. At any rate, the procedure of my noble friend Lord Leathers, frightfully revolutionary, as the noble and learned Earl has called it, is a good deal better than the procedure which the noble and learned Earl has forgotten he fathered only a few years ago.
We are certainly going to sell a large part of these road haulage undertakings, and we mean to get the best price we can. A great deal has been truly said about there being no one with more business acumen or experience than my noble friend Lord Leathers. If I were proposing to sell an undertaking, certainly there are few hands in which I would rather put it than those of my noble friend. But it is idle to suppose that we can sell goodwill which has been entirely dissipated as if it were still there. What was this goodwill? In the old days before they were bought out, a number of these road haulage firms were making a profit estimated at about £8 million or £10 million a year—I understand that it was nearer the £10 million. That was after allowing for 3 per cent. on physical assets, I am told, so that the
824
profit was probably more; and it was certainly after allowing for all overhead charges. That is what the private companies were making when they were bought out.
Now, year by year, in place of a profit of £10 million there has been, to put it at its highest, a profit of £1 million; and the £1 million is not a real profit at all, because it allows nothing for overheads, I understand, and nothing for interest on capital. When a profit is turned into a loss, the goodwill vanishes. I was amazed at the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He said that it had to be written back. That really is a new maxim of accountancy which we are to apply. I suppose we might describe it thus: "A liability properly envisaged becomes an asset." That is a very curious maxim in accountancy. If the noble Lord, now that he has returned to private life, is contemplating issuing prospectuses on that basis (I feel sure that he does not) he had better take some of the able legal advice available to him before doing so. At any rate, we are not going to do such a thing, and we could not get away with it if we tried. I cannot pass by another glittering gem in Lord Lucas's coronet. He said that only a nationalised industry could have produced the lorries in the flood emergency. His actual words were (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 180, c. 605):
"Who but a national organisation could have done that?"
Not so many years ago there was another emergency, at Dunkirk. I have yet to learn that the great fleet of little ships which saved us at Dunkirk were all nationalised transport entities.
We have heard a great deal about integration and co-ordination. I am rather nervous of these abstract nouns, particularly when they are pronounced like a sort of magic spell or a benediction. Indeed, though noble Lords in all parts of the House have been using the word "integration," I think that no two speakers have used it in the same sense. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, used it as a charm, and kept on repeating it over and over again, as did other noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Burden, and the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, liked it very much, but they thought it meant complete centralisation. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan shakes his head—"Tot homines"; he is different; I beg his pardon. He

825
has another variant. There are variants as to how it is to be interpreted on the Labour side. The interesting thing is that my noble friend Lord Linlithgow used the word "integration." But he used it in the opposite sense. My noble friend said, "I want to see integration, but integration, properly understood, means that you do not have any of this centralisation. You integrate all down the line." I never was very good at this sort of language. As I see it, integration can be either good or bad.
Let me take one example of integration; and I imagine that everybody will agree that it would be right to apply it to this—namely, the schemes which formed such an integral part of the plan under the 1947 Act, and which were to be brought into force. Integration was tried on in Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, took the heather (is that not the expression?) on this occasion.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (THE EARL OF HOME): Set the heather on fire.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Set the heather onfire—I must keep to my own sphere. But, at any rate, where these schemes were proposed there was complete unanimity, but it was unanimity against them. Everybody joined in saying that they would not have them. There were the passengers, who, whichever way they voted in the General Election, all voted one way over this matter. There were the town councils—some of them, no doubt, good Tory ones, some good Socialist ones, and some, I dare say, even Scottish Nationalist. At any rate, the one thing they agreed upon was that they would not have that kind of integration. So my noble friend Lord Leathers, very wisely, in Clause 16 of the Bill, says that that kind of integration shall stop; and certainly not a dog will bark at its going.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that of course the whole of this business is doctrinal. Well, I do not know. It may be with him. I have never been in the least doctrinal about nationalisation. I wish the noble Lord would believe that. I have only one test: Does it work in practice? I think the noble Lord might even go back to Mr. Morrison who said the same thing a good many years ago—I do not know whether he still says it.
826
He said that if we could not show that it was a business proposition, then we have no right to ask Parliament to do it. The proof of the pudding is in the eating: it has not worked out in practice and therefore Parliament has to-day not only a right but a duty to give us a plan which is a business proposition. Mr. Morrison also said that in our country it is possible to have State enterprise and private enterprise side by side. That is exactly what we are proposing for road haulage. Each will stimulate the other, and trade and industry will get better service. We hold that transport should be the servant of trade and industry and of the travelling public, and that the test of policy should be: Does it enable transport to give most efficient and economical services? That is the test we are trying to apply.
What is needed is quick, flexible, immediate service to meet the varied needs of individual traders. A uniform nationalised service has shown that it cannot do this. That is why we have to denationalise. The same is true of the railways. It is in their own interest, as well as that of the traders, that the railways should have more flexibility and the opportunity to meet local conditions and special needs. That is why we propose to decentralise and to give regional managements as much initiative and flexibility as possible. We also mean to give the railways greater freedom to quote special terms for special business. In the past they have been hedged round by restrictions that a rate quoted by one may have to be given to all in similar circumstances. These and other restrictions have cramped their style and have hampered trade. Under this Bill we mean to give the railways more elasticity and more initiative. That, in its turn, should give them more revenue and the traders better and cheaper service. I hope that in what I have said to the House to-night—and I do believe every word of it—I have shown that our approach is not in the least doctrinal or doctrinaire. It is essentially a practical approach, and I hope that, consistently with those principles, based on practical experience, we can make this Bill a still better instrument for its purpose.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

JEWELLERY AND SILVERWARE COUNCIL (DISSOLUTION) ORDER, 1953.
5.43 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Order, the Jewellery and Silverware Council (Dissolution) Order, is brought before your Lordships' House with a certain measure of regret. The purpose of this Order is to dissolve the Jewellery and Silverware Council which was set up some three or four years ago under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947. Your Lordships will remember that the general purpose of Councils set up under this Act is to help the industry concerned to increase its efficiency and productivity and to improve the service rendered to the community. The request to your Lordships' House to dissolve such a Council obviously requires a little explanation.
It has been my unfortunate lot to ask your Lordships once before to approve of such a dissolution—namely, that of the Clothing and Development Council, and perhaps I can save your Lordships' time by saying straight away that the form of the present Order follows precisely the form of the previous Order, and therefore no point on the technical side of it arises. The reason for the proposed abolition of this Council is all too simple. The Council, quite frankly, has not worked, and it shows no signs whatever of working in the future. It may be that the Council, in its original form, should not have been set up, in that to marry together jewellery and silverware—two trades which have never been particularly closely allied—was in itself asking for trouble. There has been really nothing but trouble all along. The trade associations have now completely failed to agree on the form of any continuing body or whether, indeed, such a body, or any body, should continue at all. This failure has occurred despite the most painstaking efforts by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade to achieve some unanimity. In the course of the past year, my right honourable friend and my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary, have had no fewer than fifteen consultations with the various constituent bodies—that is to say, the two trade associations and the two trade unions—and with the
828
Council itself. There have also been frequent consultations between officials at the Board of Trade.
Here, I should like to pay my tribute to the work which the Council has been able to achieve. The work has been quite useful. Unfortunately, I can put it no higher than that. It has been quite useful even though, of course, owing to the lack of wholehearted support from the industry, the potentialities of the Council never had time to develop fully. In particular, the Government regret the cessation of the grant paid through the Council to the Design and Research Centre. There may be some danger that the work of the Centre may be prejudiced by this, but that is not really within the scope of the Order. I should also like to pay my tribute to the individual members of the Council for the immense time and effort they have put into their work and for the efforts they have made, in the face of great opposition, to try to make their Council work satisfactorily. Especially should I like to thank them for the very invidious and thankless task they have had during the past year, because the Council's life runs normally for three years, after which the President of the Board of Trade is statutorily compelled by the Act to examine and reconsider the working of the Council. My right honourable friend asked the Council to carry on its work for another year in the hope of finding some means of getting the various parties together and some agreement as to the future of the Council. There has, I am sorry to say, been complete failure. There has been complete failure to find any common ground by which the work of this Council can be continued.
Here I wish to make the position of Her Majesty's Government perfectly clear. Her Majesty's Government deeply regret the failure that has occurred and would be only too willing to see any further Council, or other body, in any form, continued if there were the slightest chance of its working. I should like to impress upon your Lordships the insistence which Her Majesty's Government place upon the voluntary nature of that body and the need for it to command a major measure of support throughout all sections of the industry. It is essential that the body, if it is brought into action, should be supported by a substantial

829
majority of the industry. The trade associations, however, most definitely do not want the present body to continue. The trade unions are more willing but they are not unanimous, and, of course, many of the craftsmen are not themselves in the trade unions. But even if the trade unions were completely unanimous and the associations not, there would still be nothing but trouble for a Council based upon lack of good will And lack of harmony, the very antithesis of everything that was ever intended in the working of these Councils.
Therefore, my Lords, Her Majesty's Government see no alternative at the moment but to ask your Lordships to approve the Order dissolving this Council. That does not mean, of course, that the Government will net continue to try to find some means of getting it on its feet once again; it does not mean that the Government will not offer every encouragement to the industry itself to work out its own plans for a new Council in some form. I would certainly not for one moment ask your Lordships to think that we propose to shut the door now. Nothing could be further from the truth. But while it is possible to bring jarring and discontented members of an industry to a conference table, it is not, of necessity, possible to get them to agree once they have been brought there. That is the situation in which the industry now finds itself. Nobody regrets it more than Her Majesty's Government.
Your Lordships will have seen recently in The Times newspaper correspondence on this subject, notably a letter from the Assay Master at Birmingham pointing out the gloomy future of this industry. Indeed, if I cast my mind back to the original Working Party's Report under which this Council was set up, there were the most gloomy forebodings recorded that the industry would definitely find itself in Queer Street unless some major reorganisation took place. That rather gloomy statement reinforces the need for a Council if it could be found possible to set it up, but with the best will in the world no solution at the moment presents itself. Therefore, we are asking that this Order should be approved. Although, of course, the Order goes, the powers of the industrial Organisation and Development Act remain. Her Majesty's Government's views upon development
830
councils generally remain unchanged, and of course it remains open to the industry to come back at any time with some new agreed proposals, and nobody will welcome them more than Her Majesty's Government. I hope that, with those few words of explanation, the House will be prepared to approve this Order. I move,
Moved, That the Jewellery and Silverware Council (Dissolution) Order, 1953, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday the 11th instant, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
5.53 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord for the full and fair way in which he has performed what must have been a most distasteful task. I suppose the noble Lord would agree with me that the silverware industry covered by this Development Council is one of the last of the great craft industries of this country. Yet it is an industry which is typical of many other British industries comprising a few large concerns, a few medium-sized concerns and a whole host of small concerns. There is a whole host of silverware and jewellery craftsmen working in the backrooms of their own establishments—none the worse, my Lords, for that. Nevertheless, it is a totally un-organised industry in the sense that we know industrial organisation in this country. That is all the more reason why it requires a foster mother or a Government Department to attempt, at least, to do something upon its behalf, in spite of all the circumstances.
I am given to understand—the noble Lord will know the facts perhaps better than I do—that only 48 per cent. of the employers are in any kind of organisation whatsoever. There is only one point over which I would differ from anything the noble Lord has said, and perhaps this is the real reason why this industrial council did not work—I must be careful that I do not give offence—that the top-hatted silverware merchants of Sheffield could not agree—and I deeply regret it—with the not quite so top-hatted jewellery manufacturers of Birmingham. The two organisations of employers in Sheffield represent only a minority of the employers, for Sheffield is not the power in this particular world that they would like people to believe. In point of fact, the amount of British silverware hall-marked

831
in Birmingham, I am given to understand, is far higher than the amount of British silverware hall-marked in Sheffield. I think the amount in London is slightly less than it is in Birmingham.
Something must be done for this industry if we are going to preserve this great craft. I believe that the Government have here a very heavy responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has said that they are willing to do anything, but I rather think he discounted that statement somewhat in his final words by saying that they will do anything if this industry will come forward with a unified and acceptable plan. Now that has proved to be impossible, so the Government will have to think of something else. Perhaps the answer will be to separate silverware from jewellery. There are still many small manufacturers—craftsmen—who are really anxious to avail themselves of the best services that a Development Council or like organisation can render in regard to research, design and education.
I managed to obtain a copy of the last report of this Development Council. If I may digress for one moment, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether in future he could make arrangements for documents of this description to be laid in the Library of your Lordships' House. It was only by accident that I found that this document was to be laid in the Library of another place, and it is only through the courtesy of the librarian there that I have been allowed to borrow it and acquaint myself with the facts. That has prevented my saying many things that I might have said if I had not been so well-informed. While noble Lords opposite me may sometimes quarrel with my opinions or my deductions, they can hardly ever question my facts, as that is what I am always particularly careful about. I think it is a duty of any noble Lord who speaks in this House to acquaint himself with the facts. Therefore I hope the noble Lord will arrange for the reports of Development Councils, which under Statute have to be made every year, to be laid in the Library, so that noble Lords who wish to discuss these matters can do so with a reasonable amount of knowledge. This Report bears out everything the noble Lord has said, and there is in it one thing
832
for which I am very grateful: that is, the tribute it pays to the efforts of his right honourable friend to find a modus vivendi for the future. There is another point that I should like to bring to the noble Lord's notice.
LORD REA: Before the noble Lord leaves that point, may I remind him that his Party was represented on the Special Orders Committee and knew about this Order? Presumably, they could have distributed it, if they thought fit. The noble Lord does not complain about being kept in ignorance of the Order, does he?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I was fully acquainted with the Order. The noble Lord has misunderstood me. I am not referring to the Order, but to the Annual Report and Accounts of the Development Council, which was laid in the Library of another place at the instigation of Lord Mancroft's right honourable friend. But the Report was not laid in the Library of your Lordships' House, which is just as much a House of Parliament as is another place, and I am only asking the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, whether, in future, he will see that documents of this description are laid in the Library of this House. I do not think that is an unreasonable request.
What is said in paragraph 12 of the Report only illustrates the tragic story told by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I think I am in possession of about the only available copy of this document. Paragraph 12 says this:
"… and despite an ever-increasing volume of technical inquiries and requests for assistance from members of the trade, critics of the Centre as an 'expensive luxury' again became vocal."
That statement shows a promising demand for information. I would ask the noble Lord to redouble his efforts in this matter, because the amount of hallmarked silverware in the silverware industry of this country has declined from 1947 to 1952 by 65 per cent. In Birmingham, hallmarked silverware in 1947 amounted to 1,522,431 oz., and in 1952 it had fallen to 530,509 oz., a drop of 65 per cent. The same thing happened in Sheffield, and in London.
LORD SALTOUN: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? Is that not largely due to the difference between the purchase tax on silverware and on tableware?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I think the noble Lord has made a good point. I believe he is right. The 100 per cent. purchase tax on silverware prevents any of us from buying silverware that we should like, the real craft silverware. Moreover, the import restrictions of other countries, and the export restrictions that we have imposed, have put this industry in this hopeless plight. That is all the more reason—the noble Lord will agree with me, I feel sure—why this industry should be brought together to try to remedy these defects because, unless it is, it will go out of existence.
I was greatly struck by a leading article in The Times of February 18. The article said this quite pertinently, and I think it hit the nail on the head:
"There is, moreover, the problem of how best to deal with a craft whose product ranges all the way from the work of art of high originality and merit to articles mass-produced and entirely derivative."
There is a problem—a very great problem. But, after all, that is what Governments are for, to solve problems. That is what the Board of Trade are there for, to help to solve industry's problems. If all these problems were easy, the great brains that are possessed by the Ministers who go to the Board of Trade would not be necessary. After mentioning some of the difficulties which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has so fairly put before us, The Times article finished up by saying, referring to the abandoning of this Council:
"That, however, would be only a negative step, leaving the revival of a great craft still to be secured."
Surely we cannot leave this matter there. I am told that it takes ten years to train a craftsmen in the silverware industry, and that the average age in many of these factories is now sixty years.
I make an appeal to the noble Lord. I do not intend to ask your Lordships to divide upon this Order: that would be asking your Lordships to go to an extreme that I do not intend. I do not even ask the noble Lord to take this Order back and have another look at it, because I agree with him that no progress will be made by pursuing the idea of a Development Council. Under Section 9 of the principal Act, however, the Board of Trade have all the powers they require to help this industry in
834
research—both technical research and design research—and in education. They have powers to provide the money without there being a Development Council. I ask the noble Lord whether he will give your Lordships an assurance that he will do what he can. When the noble Lord brought before your Lordships' House an Order to dissolve the Clothing Industry Development Council we agreed to it because a voluntary organisation was to come into force. That voluntary organisation, I think the noble Lord will agree with me, in spite of its having been in existence for only a month or two, will be a success. It shows every sign of being a success. I shall be delighted if it is. Will not the noble Lord try with his right honourable friend to see whether something can be done in the present case?
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I should like to reinforce with a few words the appeal which has been male by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. With him, I pay tribute to the kindly, informative and understanding manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has presented this matter to the House. I accept fully what the noble Lord has said in regard to the efforts of the right honourable gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, and his Parliamentary Secretary. I hope that I shall not be striking too controversial a note if I say that this unfortunate story of the Development Council is one of the unhappy Tory chickens coming home to roost. The Tory Party cannot in their propaganda talk about "setting the people, free," about "all the evils of governmental interference," the "value of individual enterprise" and so on, without a thoroughly individualistic body of people like the silverware manufacturers taking the Government at their word. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, thinks that some of these people do not watch the statements made by politicians, but I can assure him that a thoroughly individualistic body of men like those employers—I know them in Sheffield—do take account of the mental climate which has been engendered by the presence in office of the present Government.
Yesterday, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, chided me for going a long way back, a somewhat strange reproach from a Conservative member, because from my

835
reading of Burke and Disraeli I learned, however imperfectly, to value tradition and respect experience, as against the somewhat doctrinaire views of my Liberal friends. I hope, therefore, I shall not again be chided for going back to the past if I venture to suggest to the House that the working conditions, at least in the silverware industry, are simply a hangover from pre-Industrial Revolution times. I should not be exaggerating if I were to say that some of the working conditions in the industry have not progressed since the days prior to 1760. I have been in some of the workshops in Sheffield which produce exquisite examples of craftsmanship, but where no one having any thought for animals would stable a horse or keep a pig. Such are the conditions in these workshops. I am not exaggerating when I say that the conditions are simply abominable.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, mentioned the Working Party Report on the jewellery and silverware industries. I should like to read a short extract from that Report, emphasising what I have said in regard to the working conditions in the silverware industry. At the top of page 23, the Report says:
"Working conditions are seldom satisfactory. There is overhead belting in the majority of workrooms, and a great many of them have no ceilings; exposed rafters and belting arrangements alike harbour the dust and dirt. Lighting arrangements are inadequate and ventilation is very poor, since the admission of any fresh air usually causes a draught. Windows are commonly small and often cannot be opened, so that on the upper floors they cannot be cleaned outside. Any effort for cleanliness is bound to be extremely laborious, and yet for many processes in this industry cleanliness is important and has a direct cash value. In sand-buffing shops it is not unusual to find the floors caked with resin and dust, well trodden in by the feet of the workmen. Walls also are uneven and difficult to keep clean. The insufficiency of space usually make it quite impossible to provide reasonable washing and sanitary accommodation, still less adequate cloakrooms and facilities for drying clothes on wet days. Even in the factories which have each a separate and self-contained building—there are forty of these in Sheffield out of a total of 103 buildings—some or all of these faults remain, especially the cramped working conditions and the awkward layouts. They were built when labour was cheap and no one dreamed of objecting to buildings which made necessary a great deal of man-handling of goods."
Is the Government going to leave the industry to go along in this way? I agree that there is probably no alternative
836
to repealing the Order. But, having done that, please do not leave an industry of this kind in such a chaotic state that young men and women, knowing of these conditions, will refuse to go into the industry. They are not going to submit to the conditions which workmen in the past have tolerated. When one looks at the pictures in this Report one can see that the majority of workers represented are men and women well past middle age. It is a craft which is dying out, simply and solely because of the crass individualism of the masters in the industry. I am sure the Government do not want entirely to lose this industry which has been a credit to us. Those of us who look at the silverware of the early days will know what great credit should be given, and what great joy comes from looking at some of the craftsmanship involved. If there is anything of beauty in our modern life, please try to solve this problem and get some sense into the heads of these people. Otherwise the industry will for all time disappear from this country.
6.15 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the night is getting on and I am going to say only one or two words in support of my noble friend. Lord Burden's facts are probably perfectly correct, but I think his diagnosis is utterly and entirely wrong. The reason why this trade is declining at a rapid rate is that the way of life which was exemplified by beautiful silver workings and so on is disappearing through heavy taxation in this country, and indeed in some others. Coupled with that, of course, there is the gigantic purchase tax on these articles. To say that the industry is declining through individualism is something with which I do not agree. Such trades as this flourish and thrive on individualism. Whether my noble friend will be able to achieve the creation of any form of research organisation on the lines asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I do not know: it might be quite a good idea. But it is taxation of the individual and on the article which is killing this trade, coupled with the fact that some of the best export markets are no longer open. As your Lordships know, very heavy shipments used to be sent to Brazil, but for this and other things Brazil has run up all over the world a very tidy bill which cannot

837
be paid. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, appealed to the Government to act as foster-mother to this industry. The Government is the only foster-mother that I know of which takes the milk from the young, rather than provides it.
6.17 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for the sympathetic way in which you have received this Order. I will resist the temptation to follow certain noble Lords down most attractive by-ways that have been opened up, and will content myself by trying to answer the two questions which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has put to me. The first concerned the Annual Reports of the Development Council. Under Section 7 (4) of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947, an Annual Report is required to be laid simultaneously in both Houses of Parliament. I must confess that I was under the impression that it had been done. If it has not, then a technical error has occurred, and I will find out why. Certainly it should have been done, and, I am sorry that the error was not discovered before the noble Lord conducted his search. The noble Lord asked me for an assurance that the Board of Trade would do everything in their power to see that an attempt was made to get this Council on its feet again. I will give him the assurance most readily, without any reservation, that the Government will do everything in their power to assist this great industry on the right path again.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COTTON INDUSTRY DEVELOP MENT COUNCIL (AMENDMENT No. 2) ORDER, 1953
6.19 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am glad to say that this mater is much shorter, much less controversial, and much happier than the previous one. I think I ought to warn your Lordships straight away that this particular Order has not yet been before another place; this is the first consideration it has received in Parliament. The Order is made under the same Act, the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947. It concerns the Cotton Board's powers to obtain money from the cotton industry. As your Lordships know, the Cotton
838
Board is the only organisation in the industry, and all sections agreed to its formation. It can spend its funds only on things which will actually benefit the industry. Representative bodies on both sides of the industry have been fully consulted on the present proposals and have raised no objections to them. The only really important Amendment in the Order is one which raises from £300,000 to £450,000 the maximum amount which the Cotton Board may levy from the industry in any one year. The actual amount levied in any year has, of course, to be approved by the Board of Trade. The maximum is being raised solely to enable the Cotton Board to spend more money on the promotion of research. As I am sure your Lordships will readily agree, research work is vital to the efficiency of the industry. Lancashire has the world-famous Shirley Institute—which I believe is one of the finest technical institutes in the world—in which research work is carried on. Despite severe economies, the Institute's work is in real danger of being curtailed for lack of funds. The other Amendments are designed to spread the levy more equally throughout the industry; to prevent overlap with other similar Orders, and to clear up certain very minor administrative anomalies. These have all been agreed by the industry. I confidently commend this Order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Cotton Industry Development Council (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1953, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 11th instant, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, what a contrast is the story which the noble Lord has just told to that which he had to tell on the Order approved a few moments ago! Here is an industry which, on all sides, voluntarily agrees to increase to £450,000 the amount of the levy for research. What is the reason for the difference? Is this a case of Lancashire intelligence as opposed to Yorkshire stubbornness? Why is it that one industry will agree to spend more money, while a craft industry turns its back upon organisation? I congratulate the noble Lord on being able to put this Order before us. We thoroughly approve of it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

POWERS OF PROPOSED SUDANESE PARLIAMENT
6.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, with reference to the Draft Self-Government Statute for the Sudan, which is printed on pages 18 to 45 of Cmd. Paper 8767, whether the Parliament therein contemplated has the power to amend the Self-Government Statute, and whether the Judiciary created by the Statute has power to determine or to pronounce upon the validity of legislation passed by the Parliament. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I wish to put the Question standing in my name, merely for the purpose of obtaining information. I would observe that as a rule when you find that a new Parliament is being created under British auspices you have only to examine the document to see what are the powers which are conferred upon the Parliament but if you look at the Draft Self-Government Statute for the Sudan, you will find, I think, that while it contains elaborate provision as to the composition of the two Houses and various other matters, it does not contain any statement of what the powers of the Legislature are to be. It makes a great difference whether the Legislature is one which has power to alter its own statutory structure or whether it is purely a Legislature which has power to pass laws about other things. In particular, since in this case a Judiciary is created, I think it is useful to inquire whether the Judiciary has the power and the duty to judge whether or not a particular law passed by the Sudan Parliament is within their powers. That, of course, is the case where only a limited power of legislation exists, and where, therefore, the question may arise as to whether a piece of legislation exceeds the limits. Those are the reasons why I put these questions. I expect that my noble friend can give me a clear and authoritative answer to both of them.
6.25 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, as regards the first part of the noble and learned Viscount's Question, with respect to the power to amend the Self-Government Statute, he will see that provision for amendment of the Draft Self-Government Statute is contained in Article 101 of the Statute. That Article states that the Governor-General may, if so requested by a joint Resolution, which, in turn, has to be carried by a three-quarters majority at a joint sitting of both Houses, by order revoke, modify or extend all or any of the provisions of the Statute. Under Article 6 (b) of the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement—the recent Agreement—the Governor-General is directly responsible to the two Governments as regards any change in the Statute requested by the Sudanese Parliament under Article 101 of the Self-Government Statute. That applies to major rectifications. Minor rectifications are dealt with in the second subsection of Article 101, and can be carried out by the Governor-General on his own authority.
As regards the powers of the courts, the Statute has no specific provision empowering the Judiciary to pronounce upon the validity of legislation passed by the Parliament. It would, in our view, clearly be open to anyone to contest in the courts the application of any particular piece of legislation on the ground that it was ultra vires. I hope that that reply covers the noble and learned Viscount's two points.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess very much for his very clear answer.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past six o'clock