Sitting of 2 May 1955

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ANNIVERSARY OF AUSTRIAN REPUBLIC (CONGRATULATORY MESSAGE)
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members will remember that on 20th April last I undertook, at the desire of the House, to send a message to the President of the Austrian Assembly conveying the congratulations of this House upon the tenth anniversary of the re-establishment of the Austrian Republic. I duly sent this message, and I have received a reply from the President of the Austrian Assembly. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the text of my message and a translation of the reply which I have received from Dr. Felix Hurdes.
Following are the messages:
"DEAR MR. PRESIDENT,
On behalf of the House of Commons, I send warm messages to the joint meeting of the Austrian National and Federal Councils on this tenth anniversary of their rebirth. Members of the House of Commons have watched with admiration the rapid re-establishment of Parliamentary government in Austria since the end of the war. The way in which the freely elected Austrian Parliament has asserted and safeguarded its rights despite the circumstances of occupation is an inspiration to all democratic assemblies. The House of Commons wishes to pay tribute to this vigilance and to express the earnest hope that Austria's full freedom and independence will soon be restored by the conclusion of the State Treaty.
Yours very sincerely,
W. S. MORRISON,
Speaker."
25 th April, 1955.
"DEAR MR. SPEAKER,
I should like to thank you most cordially for the friendly greetings which you sent me on behalf of the House of Commons on the occasion of the Joint Meeting of the Austrian Assembly and Federal Council, held on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the restoration of the Austrian Republic. The Austrian Parliament has received with real pleasure the expression of the House of Commons' desire that Austria's full freedom and
1318
independence should be restored through a speedy conclusion of the State Treaty. This desire links up at the present juncture with the hopes of the Austrian people and of its Parliament that the full sovereignty of our democratic State and its organs may be regained in the near future.
It is a high honour to receive from the House of Commons—the historic model of all Parliamentary bodies—a warm expression of the appreciation of the Parliamentary work accomplished since 1945. May I send you on this occasion, in the name of the National Assembly of the Austrian Republic, the assurance that we shall continue in the future to contribute through our work to the well being of our people, and, at the same time, also to international understanding and the enhancement of the prestige of democratic and Parliamentary institutions.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to assure you of my very highest esteem.
F. HURDES."

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SAINT STEPHEN COLEMAN STREET BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Agricultural Output (Increases)
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the money value of the net increase over 1947 in home food production attained in 1952, 1953 and 1954.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): Compared with 1946–47, the increases in value of net agricultural output are estimated at about £155 million in 1952–53, £195 million in 1953–54 and £180 million in 1954–55. These increases have been calculated at 1954–55 prices in each year; and the figure for 1954–55 is still a forecast.
    Mr. Hurd: May we take those figures as a measure of the contribution British agriculture has made to our balance of payments problem?
    Mr. Amory: I would agree with my hon. Friend that these increases have made a very valuable contribution to our balance of payments, and that they have also proved of very great benefit to consumers.

    Eggs (Marketing Scheme)
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has now received from the National Farmers' Union proposals for a producers' egg marketing scheme incorporating the method of providing price guarantees already agreed.
    Mr. Amory: No formal proposals have yet been received.
    Mr. Hurd: Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that, just as soon as the National Farmers' Union has made up its mind to go forward with this proposal for a producers' egg marketing scheme, he has ready in his Ministry all the facilities necessary to carry it forward without any delay?
    Mr. Amory: Yes, Sir; I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance.

    Common Land (Grazing)
    Mr. Vaneasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that the traditional practice of grazing commons is today often impracticable; and what advice his Department is tendering to inquirers where it appears that the commons for which they are responsible are rapidly reverting to scrub which is worthless to both amenity and agriculture.
    Mr. Amory: I recognise that the efficient grazing of common land presents great difficulties. In offering advice my Department suggests whatever co-operative action is practicable in the particular case consistent with the law. A prerequisite is full agreement among the commoners.
    Mr. Vane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the efficient grazing of commons today nearly always demands an improved water supply, even if not ploughing and temporary fencing? This is often impossible to finance, and may be outside the statutory power of regulations. In addition, it may be difficult even to find an up-to-date roll of commoners. Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to make it possible for this land to make a better contribution to our food supplies?
    Mr. Amory: I am very conscious of the difficulties to which my hon. Friend draws our attention. These difficulties are primarily legal.
    Mr. Ede: In considering this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman keep closely in touch with the Commons Preservation Society in order to ensure that the other uses of commons in this highly industrialised society shall not be lost sight of?
    Mr. Amory: Yes; the point which the right hon. Gentleman makes is a very good one indeed, and I am keeping in touch with the Commons Preservation Society and with other societies interested in the recreational aspect.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: Does not the Minister agree that it is a very important matter that so much grazing land should be reverting to scrub? While we all agree that the rights of commons preservation interests should be recognised, does not the Minister agree that the legal position is quite archaic? As he has said that the difficulties are primarily legal, will he say whether he has in mind any changes in the law necessary to deal with the subject?
    Mr. Amory: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I am not altogether happy with the present situation. I have the whole matter very much under consideration at the present time.
    Mr. Crouch: In view of the importance of this matter, will my right hon. Friend set up a committee to inquire into the various laws which prevail throughout the country in respect of the various commons? Is it not a fact that these laws vary from village to village?
    Mr. Amory: I have said that I have the matter very much under consideration at the present time.
    Mr. Ede: In the right hon. Gentleman's desire to be all things to all men, particularly at this time, will he bear in mind that there are some very acute controversies involved in this matter?
    Mr. Amory: I am not likely to be allowed to forget that.

    Electricity Supplies, Dorset
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the number of farms newly supplied with electricity in Dorset during 1952, 1953 and 1954.
    Mr. Amory: I understand that Dorset comes under two different area boards and that no separate figures are available for the county as a whole.
    Mr. Crouch: If my right hon. Friend has not got the separate figures, will he do his best to expedite what is known as the Compton Abbas West Orchard scheme, which has been lying about for a long time?
    Mr. Amory: I shall be glad to look into that matter.
    Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that when he gets the figures he will find they illustrate the typical progress in rural electrification by the nationalised electricity boards?

    Bank Loans and Hire Purchase
    Mr. Snowasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the total indebtedness to banks of the farming community in connection with their farming operations; and what estimates he has made in respect of each of the preceding four years.
    Mr. Amory: From figures published by the joint stock banks, my Department estimates that the total of advances outstanding to farmers in the United Kingdom was £171 million in February, 1951, and £191 million, £187 million, £209 million and £214 million in subsequent Februaries up to 1955. It is further estimated that 55 to 60 per cent. of these sums represents indebtedness on account of farming operations.
    Mr. Snowasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the total indebtedness of the farming community in respect of hire-purchase agreements for implements and stock; and what estimates he has made in respect of each of the preceding four years.
    Mr. Amory: Such statistics as are available are supplied by the trade and relate only to sums owing on hire-purchase agreements for machinery and implements purchased in the year in question. They are as follows: 1950–51—£3· 5 million, 1951–52—£3· 75 million, 1952–53—£3· 6 million, 1953–54—£4· 2 million and £1954–55—£4· 5 million.
    Mr. Snow: Do not these figures given in the answers to this and the preceding Question represent proof that the agricultural policy of this Government has landed the farming community more and more in indebtedness?
    Mr. Amory: I think what they do show is that the increased turnover which the industry has been making is being financed.
    Sir W. Darling: Do not the figures show that, contrary to what is frequently asserted, the banking industry is giving the fullest possible support to agriculture?
    Mr. Amory: I think they also show that.
    Mr. Harold Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the facilities of the great banking industry to farmers are being paid for at a very high price indeed, and that apparently the policy of the Government in increasing the Bank Rate is limiting the initiative of the small farmer who wants short-term loans or hire-purchase implements?
    Mr. Amory: On the other hand, the movements of the Bank Rate are designed and are proving to be very much in the interests of the economy as a whole, including the interests of agriculture.

    Hygiene Advisory Council (Membership)
    Sir H. Linsteadasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he can now announce the names of the Chairman and members of the Food Hygiene Advisory Council.
    Dr. Broughtonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the Food Hygiene Advisory Council has yet been constituted; and if he is now able to state the names of those appointed to serve on that council.
    Mr. Amory: I am glad to be able to inform the House that the membership of the Food Hygiene Advisory Council is now complete. As I have already announced, the Chairman will be Lord Strang. There are 17 members, and I will, with permission, circulate their names in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir H. Linstead: In view of the importance of the work of this Council in the field of preventive medicine, can my right hon. Friend say whether or not a representative of the Ministry of Health will serve on the Council?
    Mr. Amory: The Council itself consists of ladies and gentlemen appointed in their personal capacities; 11 have been

    1323
    appointed to represent the public, three to represent the food trades and three to represent the workers in those trades.
    Mr. Willis: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that we welcome very much the appointment of this committee and that we wish it Godspeed in its work, but that we very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman should go out of office without having laid the food regulations before the House?
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that at least there is full contact between the Ministry of Health and this very important Council, in view of the discussion we had in this House not very long ago on this subject?
    Mr. Amory: Yes, certainly, very much so. All the regulations which come before this Council are introduced by the Minister of Health and myself.
    Following are the names:

    FOOD HYGIENE ADVISORY COUNCIL
    Chairman—LORD STRANG
    Members
    Mr. S. W. Barnes, Secretary to Board of Governors, King's College Hospital.
    The Hon. Daphne Courthope, Councillor, Battle Rural District Council.
    Mr. H. Crane, O.B.E., National Industrial Officer, National Union of General and Municipal Workers.
    Alderman Mrs. J. H. Engwell, Barking Borough Council.
    Mr. C. W. Fulker, O.B.E., Secretary, Parliamentary Committee, Co-operative Union Ltd.
    Mr. J. Fuller, Principal, Catering Department, Battersea Polytechnic.
    Mr. C. Leslie Gillitt, Past President, National Federation of Grocers' and Provision Dealers' Associations.
    Dame Florence Hancock, D.B.E., Member, General Council, T.U.C.
    Mr. J. D. Hiscock, O.B.E., Assistant General Secretary, Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers.
    Alderman F. J. Jackson, Chairman, Clean Food Guild, Leicester.
    Miss A. Lumby, Chairman, Food Hygiene Committee of Women's Group on Public Welfare.
    Mr. K. McCullum, Director of Trust Houses, Ltd.
    Sir Frank Shires, Past President, Food Manufacturers' Federation.
    Sir Harry Sinderson, County Director for Sussex of the St. John Ambulance Association.
    Mr. G. Squire, Past President, National Federation of Meat Traders' Associations.
    Mrs. James Tweed, Chairman, House Committee, St. James' Hospital, Balham.
    Alderman D. T. Williams, O.B.E., J.P., County Borough Council, Cardiff.

    Rabbits (Myxomatosis Clearance Areas)
    Mr. Vaneasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied that he has sufficient powers to prevent the re-introduction of healthy rabbits into areas now cleared by myxomatosis; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Amory: I have no powers to prevent the re-introduction of healthy rabbits into areas cleared by myxomatosis, but under the Agriculture Act, 1947, I can require the destruction of the rabbits. I shall not hesitate to use those powers against persons who are found to have brought rabbits on to their land.
    Mr. Vane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is easier to tell people to destroy rabbits on their land than it is to see them destroyed? Is it not a fact that the action of a few selfish people can do inestimable harm to the industry as a whole as well as to their neighbours?
    Mr. Amory: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend has said.
    Dr. Stross: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any evidence that any area has been absolutely and literally cleared of this pest by myxomatosis?
    Mr. Amory: If one means absolutely and literally down to the last rabbit, it is very difficult to get that evidence, but there is a lot of evidence that some areas have been cleared to the extent of, I should think, between 95 per cent. and 100 per cent.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Lung Cancer
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Health the number of deaths from lung cancer in England and Wales at the latest date; and what are the comparable figures for 1934 and 1944.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): The provisional number of deaths attributed to cancer of the lung in 1954 is 16,332. The numbers of deaths so attributed in 1934 and 1944 were 2,775 and 6,684.
    Mr. Dodds: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the fear which exists throughout the country in view of the

    1325
    rapid increase in deaths through lung cancer? Can he at some time make some statement indicating what has been done to try to deal with the problem? Would the right hon. Gentleman himself try to expedite some sort of control over chemists dealing with food that goes into the household, because many people feel that nowadays food contains ingredients which should not be consumed by human beings and which help to cause cancer?
    Mr. Macleod: I could not accept the implication of the last part of that supplementary. It is true that this graph is rising steeply, and it is a matter of very great concern. A number of inquiries are going on, and most particularly the one that is being made by the Medical Research Council into the question whether there is any connection between smoking and this disease.
    Mr. Hastings: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the great importance to the health of the community resulting from the pronouncements that he made on this subject some few months ago? Will he consider making a similar pronouncement setting forth our increased knowledge as a result of research up to date?
    Mr. Macleod: I recognise the public anxiety here, and I shall be very glad to consider this suggestion.
    Dr. Stross: Would it not be true to say that, whatever be the cause of this disease—and many people now suspect what may be the cause—it cannot be the ingestion of any foodstuffs that is causing the rise in cancer of the lung, for it would affect women as well as men, and that it does not do?
    Mr. Macleod: Whatever may be the reason, it is true that this increase is very much more—indeed, it is more than twice as great—amongst men than women, which would seem to indicate a special cause.

    Doctors' Lists (Postal Votes)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that political party organisations are asking doctors for lists of patients for the purpose of the postal vote at the General Election; and if he will instruct National Health Service doctors to refuse to give this information in respect of National Health Service patients.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): My right hon. Friend is certainly not aware of any such arrangements.
    Mrs. Castle: Will the hon. Lady inform her right hon. Friend that I have in my hand circular letters from Conservative associations to local doctors in their areas asking them to supply the Conservative Party with the names of blind, sick and aged patients on their registers in order that they may be contacted with a view to their having a postal vote? One of these letters, from the Hornsey Conservative Association, states:
    "Mr. David Gammans, M.P., is particularly anxious that this should be done as the new electoral law severely restricts the number of cars to take electors to the poll in a General Election."
    In view of this, will the hon. Lady ask her right hon. Friend to institute an immediate inquiry and inform the doctors that this is contrary to professional etiquette and their duty to their patients?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: If the hon. Lady will let my right hon. Friend have the evidence, I can assure her that he will look into the matter. The vote is secret and, in their individual capacity, it is certainly helpful to see that as many as possible obtain their vote.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Will the hon. Lady, on behalf of her right hon. Friend, give an assurance that neither directly nor indirectly will those associated with the National Health Service be co-operators with any political party organisation in connection with the forthcoming Election? Is she aware that there was the strongest impression at the last Election that such malpractices took place?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I can certainly give the assurance that the Health Service will not be used in this way.
    Mr. Russell: Would not my hon. Friend agree that, if this is done for both parties, it is in the interests of the electors that they should obtain a postal vote if they cannot go to the polls?
    Mr. W. R. Williams: In view of the fact that the name of the Assistant Postmaster-General has been specifically mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle), will the hon. Lady ask her right hon. Friend

    1327
    the Minister immediately to contact the Assistant Postmaster-General to find whether it is true that he has done this? If so, will the Minister take action immediately with the Prime Minister with a view to the removal of the Assistant Postmaster-General?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I have already said that if the hon. Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) will let my right hon. Friend have the evidence, he will certainly look into it.
    Mr. H. Morrison: In view of the important allegations of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) and others, will the Minister of Health be good enough to make expeditious and immediate inquiries and make a statement a little later in the week?
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Of course I will look into this at once. Whether I make a statement upon it depends on what I find when I look into it.

    Poliomyelitis Vaccine
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Minister of Health whether he will make a further statement about poliomyelitis vaccine in view of the decision taken in the United States of America to suspend all injections of Salk vaccine made by the Cutter Laboratories.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Health what information he has now received in respect of deleterious effects arising from the use of the recently-discovered vaccine for poliomyelitis treatment; and what instructions have now been issued in regard to limited experimentation with this vaccine.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I am aware of the Press reports of action by the American authorities which, I assume, the hon. Members have in mind. As I mentioned in the House on the 25th April, a small field trial is being carried out by the Medical Research Council. All vaccine used in this trial, whether imported or manufactured here, will first have been the subject of rigorous tests by the Medical Research Council. Plans for large-scale immunisation are, of course, dependent on the Minister of Health being satisfied so far as is humanly possible as a result of these tests and trials that the vaccine to be used is both efficient and free from danger.
    Mr. Fletcher: Would the Minister say whether any supplies of Salk vaccine from the Cutter Laboratories have been received in this country and whether he is satisfied that all possible information from the United States will be received to enable the experiments being made by the Ministry to be continued with the fullest advantage?
    Mr. Macleod: No Cutter vaccine has been received in this country. In reply to the second part of the supplementary question, we are in very close touch with the American authorities on all aspects of this problem.
    Mr. Sorensen: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet had information from America or elsewhere as to the cause of this deleterious effect of what might be a very beneficial vaccine? Secondly, when he is assured that there is no deleterious effect likely to arise from the use of this vaccine, may we take it that progress will be made in distributing the vaccine in order to deal with this very deplorable disease?
    Mr. Macleod: I have no information so far beyond the Press reports about what has happened in the last few days. In reply to the second part of the supplementary question, as soon as we are absolutely satisfied—and we must be so satisfied—that the vaccines we will use in this country are as safe as they can be made, there will be no delay in going ahead.
    Sir T. Moore: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House and the country are deeply grateful to him for his wise and cautious approach to this remedy and his refusal to be stampeded into unduly hasty action by many hon. Members and people outside the House?
    Mr. Follick: Are the vaccines which are being made by the Glaxo Laboratories of their own special prescription, or according to a prescription imported from America?
    Mr. Macleod: I understand that what they are making is, in fact, the Salk vaccine. The difficulties in this case have arisen, I understand, from a batch made by the Cutter Laboratories. As we have none from those batches in this country, there should not be difficulty in that particular direction.

    Health Estimates (Wages and Salaries)
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Health what provision has been made in the National Health Service Estimates for 1955–56 for increases in wages and salaries negotiated during the last 12 months.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: So far as England and Wales are concerned, about £5½ million more than is estimated to have been required in 1954–55 as the result of such increases.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does that include the recent wage increase for nurses negotiated during the last few months and which has not yet been distributed to nurses?
    Mr. Macleod: Yes, and there is a big increase not included which will have to be covered presumably some time in the financial year—the one to dentists.
    Mr. Bottomley: When will authority be given for the payment of salaries and wages increases already agreed upon by the National Whitley Council machinery?
    Mr. Macleod: I do not quite follow the question the right hon. Member has in mind. Insofar as we can be sure that increases will come within the financial year, they are covered by the Financial Estimate.

    Chest Diseases, Tyneside
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the high level of chest diseases, particularly tuberculosis and bronchitis, on Tyneside as compared with the rest of the country; and whether he will give all possible support both to research into causes and to provision of adequate facilities for treatment.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Yes, Sir. There is a particular research project in hand dealing with bronchitis in Newcastle. The methods of preventing chest diseases are, however, no different in one part of the country than in another and local authorities and medical officers of health were recommended in March, 1954, to intensify their preventive measures generally. I understand that the regional hospital board regards the number of beds available as generally adequate, but proposes to make improvements in the
    1330
    accommodation for in-patients and outpatients as soon as opportunity offers.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the Minister aware of the great anxiety because of the high incidence of tuberculosis and bronchitis in Newcastle and Tyneside compared with the rest of the country. Could further investigation be made with regard to that? Will the right hon. Gentleman give full support to the inquiry, to which he has referred, now taking place in regard to bronchitis and, in particular, consider any development of chest clinics to include more careful investigation about bronchitis as well as tuberculosis?
    Mr. Macleod: Yes, I am fully seized of the importance of this problem and of the high incidence in the area referred to. I will certainly do everything I can to encourage research. On the specific question of chest clinics, I understand that the regional hospital board has a number of plans for additional chest clinics. I think it intends to give priority to Gateshead, where I believe the problem is perhaps more serious than anywhere else.

  HOSPITALS

    Mentally Defective Children, Berkshire (Institutional Care)
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Health what progress is being made in providing places in institutions for Berkshire children who have been certified as imbecile where it is necessary for the sake of other children in the family that a child should have institutional care.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The regional hospital board have in hand schemes which will provide some 360 additional beds for mental defectives. Sixty of these will come into use at once and the balance progressively over the next 12 months. Admission is governed primarily by the urgency of the need in the individual case and children in the category referred to by my hon. Friend would normally be in the highest priority group.
    Mr. Hurd: Will my right hon. Friend do his best to press forward these plans? Is he aware that in recent years this distressing problem has been rather

    1331
    neglected and that not only in Berkshire but throughout the Southern counties we have too many children having to stay at home and being denied proper institutional care? Is my right hon. Friend aware that it would be a great help and relief to many parents if these children could be better looked after?
    Mr. Macleod: We are no doubt slowly getting on top of this problem. The waiting list in the region to which my hon. Friend refers is 305 and my answer indicates that within a short time we shall have an additional 360 beds, which should cover most of the problem.

    Cromer Management Committee
    Mr. Bowdenasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the assurance given to his predecessor by the East Anglian Hospital Board, in November, 1948, that representation of the views of Leicester should be given on the Cromer Hospital Management Committee is now not being carried out and that the recent nomination from the Leicester City Council to that committee has been ignored; and if he will take steps to see that the undertakings given when the Holt Convalescent Home was taken over from the Leicester City Council are implemented.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I understand that while on this occasion the nomination made by the city council was not accepted by the regional hospital board, the member actually appointed to the hospital management committee had represented the Leicester interest on the committee for the previous six years and had twice before been nominated by the council. I am however making further inquiries and will write to the hon. Member when they are complete.
    Mr. Bowden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the gentleman concerned was certainly a member of Leicester City Council but was defeated at the polls as a Conservative candidate and that this is the first time that the direct nominee of Leicester City Council has been rejected?
    Mr. Macleod: I said that I would look into the matter. As far as I am concerned, I think it is almost certainly a genuine mistake. As soon as it is cleared up, I will write to the hon. Member.

    Leicester Royal Infirmary (Boilers)
    Mr. Bowdenasked the Minister of Health what progress has been made with the work on the boilers of the Leicester Royal Infirmary to eliminate the emission of dust and grit; when this work is likely to be completed; and at what total cost.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I am informed that two boilers have been fitted with mechanical stokers of a more suitable type than that previously used. An economiser has been delivered and is to be installed and working before the end of the summer. The total estimated cost of this work is £9,200.

    Swiss Sanatoria (Birmingham Patients)
    Mr. Shurmerasked the Minister of Health how many tuberculosis cases from the Birmingham Regional Hospital Area and the City of Birmingham, respectively, are now in sanatoria in Switzerland.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I understand that the figures are ten under the National Health Service, of whom three are from the City of Birmingham.
    Mr. Shurmer: Is the Minister aware that in the Midland region there are at present over 500 people waiting admission to sanatoria, including 322 from Birmingham? In view of the fact that so small a number has been sent to the Swiss sanatoria and the Minister has now indicated that the scheme is closing down in the autumn, will he consider keeping the scheme open until every man and woman who needs treatment in a sanatorium and is unable to get there shall have that treatment in Switzerland?
    Mr. Macleod: I should like to look at the figures the hon. Member has given, which are at variance with those in my possession. It is extremely difficult to make up the parties which go to the sanatoria. In the most recent party, which left on 27th April, there were two patients from the region which the hon. Member has mentioned, and they were the only two who were recommended as suitable by the consultants concerned.
    Mr. Shurmer: In view of the fact that there are 900 patients who are mainly in the early stages of the disease or are people whose treatment has already reached a stage where six months rest

    1333
    would be particularly suitable in advancing recovery, why is it that many of these patients, who are still waiting admission to sanatoria, cannot go out to Switzerland? Is the Minister aware that I have had a scheme for five years whereby 32 boys went out there for six months? Is he aware that the education authority was afterwards able to dispense with special schools and send them to the ordinary schools, and that 90 per cent. of them benefited from this treatment? Why are the sanatoria now being closed?
    Mr. Macleod: I have explained the matter in my original statement. I have said that it is becoming extremely difficult to get suitable patients for these sanatoria and that the only two recommended from the region the hon. Member mentioned have been taken.

    Hospitals, Stoke-on-Trent (Combined Unit)
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Health what consideration he has given to the need to develop the Royal Infirmary and the City General Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent as a combined unit; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: It is already the policy of the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board to develop these two hospitals as a combined unit. They intend to provide a joint out-patient, accident and casualty department but cannot yet say when it will be possible to fit this into the building programme.
    Dr. Stross: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply and say that people in North Staffordshire have been looking forward to the association of these two great hospitals, which will provide roughly 1,500 beds and offer every type of facility to people who need them in every possible branch?
    Mr. Macleod: I understand that everybody concerned is anxious to get on with the integration of these hospitals, and where consultants are being appointed it is normal for them to be given sessions—no doubt a very good thing—at both hospitals.

    Facilities, Stoke-on-Trent
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Health what number of hospital beds are available in Stoke-on-Trent for the Treatment of all conditions other than mental
    1334
    disease; and what is the total population which is served by this accommodation in North Staffordshire.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I am informed that the number in the group was 2,419 at the end of 1954 for an estimated population of 477,340.
    Dr. Stross: Would it be fair to say that this is perhaps a little better than the national average?
    Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. I think it is about five per 1,000 population, which would make it, though not far away, a little worse.

    Black Notley Hospital, Essex (Laboratory Technicians)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the medical laboratory technicians employed at Black Notley Hospital, Essex, are dissatisfied at the delay in dealing with outstanding questions of salary revision and grading; what are the causes of the delay; and what steps are being taken to expedite the matter.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: These are matters for the appropriate Whitley Council in the first place. I understand that a further meeting is being arranged to discuss them.
    Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Whitley Council negotiations have dragged on for a good many months and the staff side have been constantly put off by the management side? Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to say a word to the management side in order to expedite the matter?
    Mr. Macleod: I understand that a meeting is being arranged later this month, which will discuss the matters which are mentioned in the hon. Member's Question. I think that some agreement on emergency duties has already been reached.

    Garlands Hospital, Carlisle (Accommodation)
    Mr. Hargreavesasked the Minister of Health, in view of the overcrowding of patients in the Garlands Hospital, Carlisle, what proposals he has for providing additional accommodation.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Along with other proposals from other boards I am considering proposals from the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board to provide additional beds, but I cannot yet say when it will be possible to do so.
    Mr. Hargreaves: Does the Minister recollect that for three years or more now the position at this hospital has been brought to his attention? Is he aware that during that time the position has worsened and 1,000 patients are in accommodation designed for only 600? Will he please consider more urgently making this provision?
    Mr. Macleod: It is certainly true that there is overcrowding in this hospital, and I am afraid that that is true of many hospitals in this category in the country. The first decision in this matter rests with the regional hospital board in the priority which it will give the scheme. It is a matter which the board is now considering and will submit to me.

    Hampstead Hospital (Boy Patient)
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Health why John Kitson, aged 10, who was admitted to Hampstead General Hospital on 30th March with a fractured and dislocated arm, received no medical attention for more than six hours, during which time he was offered neither food nor a sedative.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I am very much afraid that the facts are as stated and it is clear that the hospital staff failed grossly in providing proper attention. On behalf of the board of governors and myself I must apologise to the child's parents. I assure them that the board take a serious view of the whole incident and that those responsible have been severely reprimanded.
    Mr. Robinson: Whilst I welcome the admission by the Minister of the responsibility of the board of governors for this matter, and of course accept his assurance of regret, does he not agree that the public has been led to expect that the teaching hospitals should set a standard of conduct in these matters, and does that not make the incident even more deplorable?
    Mr. Macleod: No doubt that is true. I am bound to say that the only thing I welcome about this issue is that the hospital at once, frankly admitted an error.
    1336
    As we know, errors happen in the hospital service. I deeply regret that this should have happened, and my views have been put very strongly to those concerned.
    Mr. Hastings: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear it is his desire that at every general hospital there should be medical cover throughout the 24 hours and that so many doctors should not live away from their work as at present?
    Mr. Macleod: It is certainly desirable that, wherever possible, cover should be provided, if not on a 24-hour basis, at least urgently and near.

    Newcastle General Hospital (Out-Patient Department)
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Health whether he will make a further statement as to when a new accident and out-patient department can be started at the Newcastle General Hospital.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I am unable to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 15th November of last year.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the Minister aware that this is a rather unsatisfactory position, as a great deal of development is taking place at this hospital for regional needs for pathological and other matters without provision for such urgent matters as accidents and out-patient treatment, which is being woefully deferred? There is great anxiety because of the lack of provision in this regard.
    Mr. Macleod: Those matters are in the mind of the regional board. I understand that it is shortly to consider what to do about this project but has not yet fitted it into its programme.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Would the Minister at least consider providing that relatively small increase in capital grant needed to enable this work to be done within the current financial year?
    Mr. Macleod: I will look at any claim any region chooses to put to me.

    Coventry and Warwickshire Hospital (Building Scheme)
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Health (1) whether he is aware that there is anxiety existing in Coventry at the negligible progress made in phase three rebuilding at the Coventry

    1337
    and Warwickshire Hospital, following his grant of £80,000 for this purpose in March, 1954; and what action he proposes to take in the matter to speed up progress;
    (2) in view of the fact that the urgency for additional accommodation at the Coventry and Warwickshire Hospital was recognised by his Department more than a year ago, why steps were not taken by his Department before the end of the last financial year when the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board had failed to submit plans for three of the seven items contained in phase three rebuilding; and why steps were not taken to speed up the procedure in the case of two further items on which objections had been raised by his Department;
    (3) whether he is aware that the working party, composed of members from the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board and the Management Committee of Coventry and Warwickshire Hospital, announced last July that work on the kitchen, dining-room and clinical block would start on 1st September, 1954; that plans for these were not received by his Department until October; that they are not yet complete; and what instructions have been sent by him to the regional board.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Progress on this scheme has been slower than I should have hoped, but I cannot accept any implication of unwarranted delay by the regional board or negligence by my Department. There is no reason for special instructions to the board, with whom my officers have kept in touch throughout. I regret that earlier estimates for 1954–55 were over-optimistic; but I am not aware that any announcement about the starting of the kitchen and clinical block on 1st September, 1954, was made by the working party to which the hon. Lady refers.
    Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that that Answer is completely unsatisfactory? Is he further aware that we in Coventry did not believe that the delay was due to him? Does he really think that it is good enough to get up in this House and say that when a regional board has had a delay of seven months or more—in this case, some of the delay was 12 months—in submitting plans, he does not think that any blame should be attributed to the regional board? Is the right hon.
    1338
    Gentleman prepared to do nothing at all in this matter?
    Mr. Macleod: The hon. Lady made some very tempestuous observations on this subject last week, which I now gather she has discovered were wrong after studying my answers. Of coure I regret the delay, as I regret all delays in these matters, but there is nothing unusual in this particular delay. It is, I am afraid, quite common for regional boards and hospital management committees to overestimate the amount of work they can do in any year. Of course, this does not mean that the money will be lost. It will be used in this particular year. I hope that it will be used as soon as possible and that Coventry will get its hospital as soon as that can be done.
    Miss Burton: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that in view of his answers last week we feel far more tempestuous now than we did then? Is he prepared to do nothing at all to get the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board to get a move on? This really is scandalous.
    Mr. Macleod: I am perfectly prepared to do anything I can to help the Coventry Hospital Management Committee and the regional hospital board. The services of the officers of my Department are at their disposal.

    Nursing Staff, Essex
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Health the approximate shortage of nursing staff and student nurses in hospitals serving metropolitan Essex; and how many beds are not being used because of this shortage.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The shortage of all grades of nursing staff, including student nurses, is estimated at approximately 400; about 90 beds are out of use for lack of staff.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does this not seem to indicate quite clearly that an effort should be made to secure some of the nurses and student nurses from the relatively overstaffed training hospitals in London? What is the hon. Lady doing about it?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: We are negotiating with the General Nursing Council in an endeavour to bring about a scheme of seconding nurses from the general side to the mental side. I hope that the pilot scheme which has been suggested will produce results in this direction.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS CATERING
  Mr. Doddsasked the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, what action he has taken to ensure that the fullest use is made of the Refreshment Rooms to offset the estimated loss of £14,000 turnover arising from the impending dissolution of Parliament.
  Mr. Steward: Nothing can be done in respect of the period 6th to 26th May, when there will be no Members of this House. From 27th May onwards, a number of functions have been booked and every effort will be made to encourage this source of revenue, after the new Parliament assembles.
  Mr. Dodds: In view of the splendid results that were obtained in last year's accounts, does the hon. Gentleman think, in view of this heavy loss of turnover, that it will be possible that next year's accounts can be out of the red, or does he think that the age of miracles has passed?
  Mr. Steward: While there is life there is hope. Every effort will be made when we return.
  Mr. Warbey: Is the Kitchen Committee taking out an insurance policy to safeguard its funds against loss arising from cancellations of functions arranged by Tory Members to celebrate victories that will not take place?
  Commander Donaldson: Did the figures which my hon. Friend gave at the end of December, which were so favourable, include the Government subsidy for payment of staff during the normal Summer Recess last year? Would this not help to offset the figure mentioned by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds)?
  Mr. Steward: The figure of £424 profit last year ignored all subsidy or, as it is better known, grant-in-aid. When the grant-in-aid was added, the figure was over £11,000. The loss which is estimated this year will, I think, be recoverable through grant-in-aid, but I am, of course, always hoping that we can manage without grant-in-aid. That will be our aim when the House resumes.

  CYPRUS (ATHENS RADIO BROADCASTS)
  Major Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how far Athens radio broadcasts are still encouraging sedition among the people of Cyprus; and how far recent action taken by the Greek Government in response to his representations have effectively modified the tone of these broadcasts.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. H. Turton): I am sorry to have to reply that these broadcasts are still most objectionable and at times certainly constitute incitement to sedition and violence. Her Majesty's Government have made frequently representations to the Greek Government, who control the Athens radio and therefore cannot evade full responsibility for what is put out. But so far there has not been any substantial or enduring improvement.
  The Greek Government have assured us that they value, as much as we do, the old friendship between our two countries. I hope they will therefore recognise that these broadcasts are clearly inconsistent with our ties of friendship and alliance.
  Major Wall: Has Athens radio tended to encourage or discourage the recent outbreaks of terrorism in the island?
  Mr. Turton: We have made it plain to the Greek Government that these broadcasts cannot be dissociated from the recent outbreak of terrorism in Cyprus.
  Mr. K. Robinson: Is the Minister aware that the mistaken policies and ill-chosen words of his right hon. Friends in charge of colonial affairs are far more responsible for the unrest in Cyprus than any broadcasts from Athens?
  Mr. Turton: I am not so aware, and I deprecate the fact that the hon. Member is trying to aid and abet Communist terrorism in Cyprus.

  UNITED NATIONS ASSISTANCE (REFUGEE STUDENTS)
  Mr. W. Wellsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct the British member of the executive committee co-operating with the United Nations High Commissioner

  1341
  for Refugees to press for adequate assistance to refugee students and improved grants for maintenance funds and scholarships.
  Mr. Turton: The High Commissioner's proposals for expenditure in 1955, include 106,000 dollars for assistance to students in Germany, Austria and Greece. These proposals will be discussed next week by the Executive Committee at Geneva. Meanwhile they are being studied by Her Majesty's Government.

  DISARMAMENT (LONDON TALKS)
  Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the progress of the talks on disarmament now taking place in London.
  Mr. Turton: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the reply I gave on 28th April to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes).
  Mr. Fletcher: What progress is being made, and how long does the hon. Gentleman expect these talks to continue?
  Mr. Turton: There has been no delay on the part of Her Majesty's Government. At present, as the hon. Member probably knows, there is a certain amount of postponement owing to the indisposition of the Soviet representative. I hope that the hon. Member will join us in wishing a speedy recovery to Mr. Malik.
  Mr. Beswick: Is any consideration being given to the suggestion, which I made to the Minister's right hon. Friend, that at the end of the conference a verbatim report of proceedings should be published? Have the other representatives been sounded as to the possibility of doing this?
  Mr. Turton: Certainly, consideration is being given to the representation made by the hon. Member.

  AUSTRIAN STATE TREATY
  Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when and where the Austrian State Treaty is likely to be signed.
  Mr. Turton: As my right hon. Friend stated in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Warbey) on 25th April, Her Majesty's Government proposed in a Note to the Soviet Government on 22nd April that the Ambassadors of the four Powers should meet in Vienna on 2nd May in order to prepare the ground for a meeting of the Foreign Ministers. The Soviet Government accepted this proposal on 26th April and the four Ambassadors are therefore presumably in conference at this moment. Until we have their reports on their discussions it will not be possible to say when and where the treaty will be signed.
  Mr. J. Hynd: Is the Minister aware that the Austrian Government are satisfied that the conditions they received in Moscow are infinitely better than those which we had already announced we were prepared to sign at Berlin two years ago? In these circumstances, can the Minister give an assurance that unless something else emerges in the discussions, the British Government will be prepared to sign to these conditions?
  Mr. Turton: As we are at present engaged in conference with the Austrian Government on these matters, it would be very improper for me to make any disclosure while the conference is being held.

  FORMOSA (SITUATION)
  Mr. Beswickasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in his discussions with the United States of America regarding the future of Formosa, he will make it quite clear that Her Majesty's Government cannot undertake any commitments which might involve the use of British troops to safeguard the present position of the Chiang Kai-shek Government.
  Mr. Turton: In the course of the debate on National Service last Thursday my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made Her Majesty's Government's position perfectly plain. I have nothing to add.
  Mr. Beswick: The Prime Minister's answer dealt with every variation and permutation of this question except that contained in my Question today. If the

  1343
  position has been made quite plain, cannot the hon. Gentleman say whether the answer to this Question is "yes" or "no"?
  Mr. Turton: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by the Prime Minister. If he does not find that completely full, I refer him again to the answers given by the Secretary of State on 27th April. I think those statements made our commitments absolutely plain and clear.
  Mr. Shinwell: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Government are in conversation with the Government of the United States on Formosa, and to what purpose?
  Mr. Turton: There is normal diplomatic correspondence going on on all matters of foreign policy with the American and other Governments. Beyond that, I do not know to what the hon. Gentleman refers.
  Mr. Shinwell: That is a statement of a very general character, and everybody is aware of the obvious. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, in respect of the matter embodied in this Question relating to Formosa and the possibility of difficulties arising with Chiang Kai-shek over Formosa, the Government are in conversation with the United States?
  Mr. Turton: I rather misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman's first supplementary question. If he is asking whether we are in conversation with the United States Government over commitments in respect of Formosa, the answer is "No."
  Mr. Beswick: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have in my hand the statement to which he has referred, and that in it the Prime Minister made references to what his intentions are or were, and about what he had been asked to do and what he had done, but that he did not give an assurance on the lines for which I ask in this Question? If the answer is so simple, would the hon. Gentleman not be good enough to say whether it is "yes" or "no"?
  Mr. Shinwell: The Prime Minister is here now.
  Mr. Turton: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the words the Prime Minister used last Thursday. He said:
  1344
  "We have one commitment in respect of Formosa and that area—the same commitment as right hon. Gentlemen opposite have—and that is to support the United Nations in any action which it may think necessary from time to time to maintain peace or to resist aggression in any part of the world. That is our commitment, and it is our only commitment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1955; Vol. 540, c. 1201.]
  That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question.

  ALBANIA (BRITISH CLAIM)
  Mr. T. Reidasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Government of Albania still continue to disregard successfully the decree of the International Court, allowing damages of £800,000 to Britain for the deaths of British sailors in the Corfu Channel; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Turton: The Albanian Government have not yet shown any willingness to pay the compensation which was awarded to Her Majesty's Government by the International Court.

  INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (JUDGMENTS)
  Mr. T. Reidasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the fact that the United Nations Organisation Charter often indirectly favours States which disregard judgments against them for breach of international treaties or agreements, while States which abide by the decrees of the International Court are debarred from taking any action except through this Court when they win their cases, he will move to amend the Charter so that no member State of the United Nations Organisation can flout the decree of the Court with impunity.
  Mr. Turton: Under Article 94 (1) of the United Nations Charter each member State has undertaken to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party. Moreover, Article 94 (2) provides for recourse to the Security Council if measures are needed to give effect to the Court's judgment. It would therefore seem that no amendment to the Charter, in the sense suggested by the hon. Gentleman, is necessary.
  Mr. Reid: Is it not clear that any third-rate State today can "cock a snook" at decisions of the International Court? Must that go on?
  Mr. Turton: I think that if the hon. Gentleman will refer to my answer he will find that I have made it clear that under Article 94 (2) there is recourse to the Security Council. The difficulty in the case of Albania is, of course, that Albania is not a member of the United Nations and is a country which, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) said on 1st March, 1951, has a Government
  "… who do not respect the rule of law or the principles of international law as do the Western democracies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 2513.]
  Mr. Ernest Davies: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us exactly what is the position in regard to this claim at the present time? Does he recall that when he and his right hon. Friends were in opposition they were advocating that very vigorous action be taken on our part to enforce payment of this claim? Will he now admit, now that they are in the Government, that they have been no more successful than we were in that respect, because it is impossible?
  Mr. Turton: If I may recall past history, I seem to remember that some of my right hon. Friends advocated that earlier action should have been taken in this matter. I regret to say that it is now three and a half years later. The International Court has given its judgment. At the moment we have not been able to execute that judgment.
  Mr. Davies: Would the hon. Gentleman recall that the vigorous action he and his right hon. Friends advocated was drastic action such as the sending of British warships to that area?
  Mr. Turton: I remember that the action advocated was earlier action. We said action taken earlier might have obtained satisfaction.

  KOREAN RECONSTRUCTION AGENCY (UNITED KINGDOM CONTRIBUTIONS)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs our present financial responsibility in respect of
  1346
  reconstruction and rehabilitation in Korea; and what progress in this has been made in Korea.
  Mr. Turton: Her Majesty's Government have recently made a final contribution of £535,715 to the United Nations Korean Reconstruction Agency. This brings our total payment to £9,585,715. Her Majesty's Government have also provided supplies to the value of approximately £470,000 as a contribution in kind towards reconstruction in Korea. The United Nations Reconstruction Agency has performed an invaluable task in relieving suffering in Korea, and has been of real assistance to the Korean economy.
  Mr. Sorensen: Has this reconstruction and rehabilitation been operating in the north of Korea as well as in the south? How many nations have been participating in this progressive service to the unhappy people of that country? Can the hon. Gentleman also say what proportion of the total amount spent our £9 million represents?
  Mr. Turton: I think that if the hon. Gentleman would put down the first two parts of his supplementary question I could give him a full answer. As to the last part, the Government have contributed roughly 20 per cent. Out of a total contribution of 127 million dollars our contribution has been 25 million dollars.
  Mr. Shinwell: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the services he has mentioned, financial and otherwise, include services rendered by our troops in Korea?
  Mr. Turton: These are entirely our contribution to the United Nations Korean Reconstruction Agency. The sum of £470,000 that I mentioned is of supplies in kind which were given from military sources.
  Mr. Sorensen: Would the hon. Gentleman say when I should put the extra Question down and to whom?
  Mr. Turton: It depends on the optimism the hon. Gentleman has concerning his fortunes in the next three weeks?
  Hon. Members: No, the Government's.

  PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

    War Pensions (Parents)
    Mr. D. Jonesasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will give consideration to permitting an increase in the amount of other income which recipients of parents pensions receive without their parents pension being reduced, thus providing for the increase in the cost of living.
    The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Osbert Peake): With permission, I shall make a statement at the end of Questions.
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many dependants' pensions are in issue to the parents of deceased Service men; and what is the average amount of such pensions.
    Mr. Peake: About 48,500 dependants' pensions based on need are in payment to the parents of deceased Service men. The average weekly value of these pensions is 16s. 4d.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Are we to understand that the average reduction from the 16s. 4d. pension is now 7s. 6d.?
    Mr. Peake: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be good enough to await the statement I am just about to make.
    Mr. Callaghan: In that statement will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what it would cost him to meet such a concession as is asked for?
    Mr. Peake: I think I would ask the hon. Member also to await my statement.
    Mr. Callaghan: Will that figure be given in the statement the right hon. Gentleman is to give us?
    Mr. Peake: I think that perhaps the hon. Gentleman had better see what the concession is before he asks what the cost of it is.

    National Assistance
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what was the number of people drawing National Assistance for each year since the war.
    Mr. Peake: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Captain Pilkington: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it has gone up or down in recent years?
    Mr. Peake: I am glad to say that during the last 12 months the figures have practically stabilised.
    Captain Pilkington: Could my right hon. Friend convey that information to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite so that they can use it in the Election?
    Following is the answer:
    The number of persons receiving regular weekly national assistance grants at the end of July, 1948, at the end of that and each subsequent year, and on the latest date for which information is available were:

    July, 1948

    …

    842,000

    December, 1948

    …

    1,011,000

    December, 1949

    …

    1,157,000

    December, 1950

    …

    1,350,000

    December, 1951

    …

    1,462,000

    December, 1952

    …

    1,667,000

    December, 1953

    …

    1,761,000

    December, 1954

    …

    1,796,000

    29th March, 1955

    …

    1,807,000

    NOTE: The National Assistance Act did not come into force until July, 1948, and comparable figures are not available for earlier dates.
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many persons were receiving regular weekly payments of National Assistance in the inner London region in March. 1954, and March, 1955, respectively.
    Mr. Peake: The figures are 205,172 on 30th March, 1954, and 199,724 on 29th March, 1955.
    Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although that represents a reduction as compared with March, 1954, it still leaves 18,000 more people in the London area drawing National Assistance than in March, 1952?
    Mr. Peake: I have frequently expressed concern at the increase in the numbers on National Assistance, but it is a matter of great satisfaction that the figures are now stabilised and that in fact in the inner London region they have gone down.

COAL SUPPLIES, ABERDEEN (FOREIGN LANDINGS)
Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that the City of Aberdeen is short of coal; that the Aberdeen Fish Curers and Merchants Association some months ago arranged as agents for German ship owners to provide additional supplies of coal from German vessels; that the Association was prevented by his Department from landing those supplies, thereby causing loss of trade and inconvenience to the citizens of Aberdeen; and if he will investigate the causes of this and take steps to ensure that those or comparable supplies are landed at the port of Aberdeen.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks): No action has been taken by my Department, nor, so far as I am aware, by anyone else to prevent the landing of coal at Aberdeen.
Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister explain why the coal is not being landed and why his Department is accused of being responsible? Cannot he take some steps to see that the coal now required is landed?
Mr. Joynson-Hicks: If any accusations have been made, I can only assume that it is because the advocate has been badly briefed.

WAR PENSIONS (PARENTS)
Mr. Peake: With permission, I should now like to make a statement in reply to Question No. 58.
Ever since 1922 parents' pensions have been on a needs basis. They are designed, within the limits imposed by standards of need, to replace the contribution which it is assumed the Service man would have made towards the upkeep of his parents had he survived. They are thus liable to be, and in practice frequently are, adjusted in accordance with changes in the parents' other income.
In 1946 the basic means standard was 40s., and it remained at that figure until 1952. In 1952 it was raised to 50s. and I am now raising it to 60s. Where there are two parents, the basic standard will be 90s., compared with 60s. in 1946.
1350
Cases which have recently been reviewed on the existing means standard are being looked at again in the light of these figures and I think the results will give general satisfaction.
Mr. D. Jones: While expressing grateful thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for this death-bed repentance, not unconnected with an incident which is to take place on 26th May, may I ask him whether he will do the same thing with National Assistance rates, in order to prevent widows who have lost no son from having to make sacrifices because these facts have not been taken into account?
Mr. Peake: The hon. Member will observe that what I am doing is to increase the means standard for these pensions, which has not been increased since 1952. The scales of National Assistance, as the hon. Member is also well aware, were increased as recently as February of this year.
Mr. Elliot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the announcement which he has just made will give most lively satisfaction, I am sure, to all those on all sides of the House who have the interests of these people at heart?
Mr. Isaacs: I think we must ask the Minister to make this a little clearer. In his statement he refers to the single basic pension and gives the 1952 rate as 50s., rising to 60s., but when he refers to the two parents together he does not give the 1952 rates but says that the basic standard will in future be 90s. compared with 60s. in 1946. That makes it look as though there is an addition of 30s. We ought to be told what was the 1952 rate. We ought also to be told whether all these widows who have had certain sums deducted from their pensions will get exactly that sum given back to them.
Mr. Peake: I am happy to explain to the right hon. Gentleman that the means standard for two parents was raised from 60s. to 75s. in 1952. But these figures of the means standards are, of course, not the amounts of the pensions. They are the amounts by reference to which the amount of the pension is calculated. What my statement means is this: that any parents' war pension for which a reduction has been notified on account of an increase in an insurance pension or benefit will be

1351
fully restored. It goes further than that, in fact, because it also means that many parents' pensions will themselves be increased.
Mr. H. Morrison: While noting the customary comforting observations of the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), may I ask the Minister, in view of the fact that the Government have been asked to take this step for some time, why he had to wait until within three or four days of the dissolution of Parliament, and under the threat of a General Election, before he made this modest concession?
Mr. Peake: I certainly take full responsibility, and blame if need be, for having overlooked the fact that the very generous increases in insurance benefits and pensions which I announced before Christmas would have the effect in a very small number of cases—
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: More than 6,000.
Mr. Peake: No, about 4,000 cases—that the increases in those insurance pensions brought about no improvement in the income. I certainly take full responsibility for that, and as soon as the matter was brought to my notice by letters and Questions from hon. Members on both sides of the House I took immediate steps to put the matter right.
Mr. Callaghan: Is not the Minister aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) raised this matter during the debate on the National Assistance increases in December and that his statement was rejected? Is he not further aware that his Parliamentary Secretary told us that these cases had been carefully reviewed in the light of the increase given in old-age pensions, and that no increase could be given in these cases? While I would not accuse the Minister of electioneering, may I ask him why it is that he waited until a public outcry was created by the Opposition before he moved?
Mr. Peake: I think the answer is this: hon. Members who are familiar with war pensions know that the calculation of the parents' pension in any individual case is an exceedingly complex matter.
1352
It was not until a number of cases were brought to my notice about a week ago that it became obvious that it was essential that action should be taken immediately to deal with these grievances.
Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that a specific case was quoted in the debate on 20th December and that he went out of his way to justify the action which was being taken?
Mr. Peake: I have certainly no recollection of that, but I will refresh my memory upon the matter.
Mr. Simmons: Could the Minister tell us the estimated cost of this concession?
Mr. Peake: It is not possible to give a very accurate estimate of the cost because each case has to be looked at individually, but in a similar operation undertaken in 1952 the increase in the means standard cost a little over £200,000 a year.
Mr. Hastings: Can the right hon. Gentleman now assure the House that there will be no reduction in these widows' pensions received in respect of deceased sons? If he cannot give that assurance, will he say in how many cases a reduction will take place?
Mr. Peake: I thought I had made it clear that no reduction will take place in any parents' pension as a result of increases in National Insurance benefits or pensions.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock; and that if the first two Resolutions proposed shall have been agreed to by the Committee of Supply before half-past Nine o'clock, the Chairman shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at half-past Nine o'clock by paragraph (6) of Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply).—[The Prime Minister.]
Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means and on the Consideration of the Lords Amendment to the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crookshank.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [13TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1955–56; ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1955–56; MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1955–56; NAVY, ARMY AND AIR ESTIMATES, 1955–56.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £222,344,007, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with Agriculture for the year ending on 31st March, 1956, namely:

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1955–56

  £

  Class VIII, Vote 1, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries

  7,544,989

  Class VIII, Vote 2, Farming Grants and Subsidies

  28,174,730

  Class VIII, Vote 3, Services to Agriculture

  6,217,580

  Class VIII, Vote 12, Department of Agriculture for Scotland

  6,267,443

  Class VIII, Vote 10, Ministry of Food

  174,139,265

  Total

  £222,344,007

  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £21,831,178, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with Development Areas for the year ending on 31st March, 1956, namely:

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1955–56

  £

  Class VI, Vote 1, Board of Trade

  2,774,800

  Class VI, Vote 8, Ministry of Labour and National Service

  12,934,080

  Class VI, Vote 4, Services in Development Areas

  4,178,540

  Class VI, Vote 5, Financial Assistance in Development Areas

  412,510

  Class I, Vote 25, Scottish Home Department

  1,531,248

  Total

  £21,831,178

DEVELOPMENT AREAS
3.41 p.m.
Miss Margaret Herbison: The matter that we have decided to raise today is one of importance not only to the men and women who are living in the Development Areas, but to the whole nation. Between the wars these areas were known as Distressed Areas, a name which was, indeed, most apposite. Thousands of families who lived there were in distress year after year. They knew hardships and suffering and, indeed, the tragedy that accompanied the long periods of unemployment. They also knew that the break-up of homes by the heartless means test applied to those who were seeking unemployment benefit.
Thousands of men and women—and I knew many of them in my own area—suffered not only from poverty and misery, but they had the hopeless feeling that they were on the scrap heap, tossed aside by the nation and were the care of no one. I saw time and time again this distress embittering the soul of many people.
Between the wars, the Labour movement was very much aware of all that was happening in these areas. We sent to them teams of our people to examine the position and to report to our National Executive Committee. As a result of those examinations we were ready with plans to ensure that those areas would, in future, no longer be known or deserve to be known as Distressed Areas. It was in the Coalition Government that those Ministers who were from our party urged the making of plans so as to be ready, immediately the war was over, to bring hope to thousands of men and women in these areas.
As a result of that urging we had the Distribution of Industries Act. We in the Labour movement can claim much credit for that Act, and particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), who was completely untiring in his efforts to bring work and hope to those many people.
I want now to turn to what is happening in our country today. The latest figure that I have been able to get for unemployment in Great Britain is 1· 3 per cent. of the insured population; in Northern Ireland, it is 7· 8 per cent. I

1355
will not speak about Northern Ireland, because the problem there is to be discussed in the House later this week. But in my country, Scotland, unemployment is 29 per cent.
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) is not at present in his place. I listened carefully to his party political broadcast on Saturday night in which he made great claims for the Government which he supports. When he talked about full employment, I wondered what the people in Lanarkshire and other areas in Scotland, or the people in Wales or Lancashire, were thinking of this vaunted full employment. I wondered what the people of Bellshill were thinking, a place I know very well. When I went to school there, between the wars, the steel works were closing, the pits were closing and there was misery everywhere. Today, in Bellshill, almost 7 per cent. of the registered population are unemployed. I wonder what their answer would have been and what they were saying some under their breath—and some not under their breath—about the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.
In Wales, there is a high level of unemployment compared with the rest of Britain. It is 23 per cent., which is not as high a figure as that for Scotland. But in the London and South Eastern regions I find that the unemployed figure is 09 per cent., in other words, lower than that for Great Britain as a whole. I have tried to get some other figures. I find that when we left office in 1951 the unemployed in Scotland totalled 53,400. The latest figures I can get for unemployment in Scotland is for February, 1955, when there were 62,100 unemployed. That shows an increase of 8,700. The figure that I have given for 1951 was an average for the year, not just one month.
Possibly, I shall be told, as we have been told in previous debates, that more people are in jobs. That is true. I know that from the figures. When we left office there were more vacancies than there were unemployed, so that this Government would have been less able than I think they are if more people were not in work. But the fact is that there are 8,700 men and women unemployed in Scotland now, and there are many in
1356
Wales and in the Development Areas in England.
There is another question we should like to have answered. We objected very strongly to annulling Section 62 of the National Insurance Act, 1946. The annulment of that Section meant that some men and women were transferred from the employment exchanges and are now no longer shown as unemployed. Some of them are receiving National Assistance, others are receiving nothing in place of unemployment benefit. I raise that question because my area is particularly affected, as are all mining areas and areas of heavy industry, by industrial injuries and pneumoconiosis.
The figures show that in Scotland unemployment is higher than it was, on an average, in 1951. This means that 8,700 men and women are living, with a rising cost of living, on benefits which make it quite impossible for them to get, not only for themselves but for those whom they hold dear, even what I would term the necessities of life, far less the luxuries.
At the end of September, 1954, in the London area there were under construction 12,333,000 square feet of factory space and in Scotland there were 6,210,000 square feet. In other words, in the London area there was under construction double the amount that there was in Scotland, yet our figure for unemployment is 2· 9, compared with 0· 9 in London and the South-Eastern area. In London, 18,212,000 square feet of factory buildings have been completed since the end of the war. For Scotland, the figure is 40,240,000 square feet.
From those two sets of figures it will be seen that there has been a complete reversal of policy by Her Majesty's Government. Under a Labour Government every effort was made to take work to the people in the Development Areas. The result was that Scotland got more than twice the floor space of new factories compared with London. Under the present Government the London area, with a very much smaller figure of unemployed, is getting double the factory space that Scotland is getting.
I am sure that our people will be very interested, especially after the broadcast they heard on Saturday, to compare these figures which show that when Labour was in power we had a Government who put

1357
the needs of Scotland very high. The present Government have done a great deal of window dressing which has not brought a job to Scotland or given the area any greater control over its affairs.
Often the problems of Scotland, Wales and the Development Areas of England have been brought to the notice of the Government. I want to deal with Scotland, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) will deal with Wales and other hon. Members with England. Scottish Members, by Question and in debate and deputation to Ministers, have brought the problems and needs of Scotland forcibly before the Government. Time and again we have had no answer to bring any hope to these areas. I am glad to see present the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who has not given to our people in these areas the hope that they had when Labour was in power.
There are four special problems in Scotland which ought to be discussed in this connection. First, there are the Highlands and Islands, some parts of which have a higher rate of unemployment than the 29 for Scotland as a whole. The second problem is that of the Development Areas, including one which has the largest population of any Development area in Scotland, Lanarkshire. The third is the area of the expanding coalfields in Fifeshire which is also posing great difficulties. The fourth is the overspill of population from Glasgow.
Whatever Government may be in office, these are four great problems which must be tackled if Scotland is to play the part it can play in bringing real prosperity to Britain. In the Highlands and Islands security for the farmers and the crofters was ensured under the Labour Government. Great plans of afforestation were carried out and great strides were made in the hydro-electricity schemes. Nothing on a similar scale has been done for the Highlands since the present Government came into office.
On the second problem, Lanarkshire is not only a Development Area, with all the problems which that presents, but it is a place where the one staple industry, coalmining, is every year providing work for fewer people. The Government can be in no doubt about these problems, which have been raised repeatedly in the House of Commons. The Government,
1358
a Government who boast of their great business acumen, have shown themselves to be either unwilling or lacking in ability to deal with these difficulties.
I will not bore the Committee with all the answers that hon. Members on this side have received to their representations, but I would say that anyone reading them would agree that the sum total of all the answers shows quite clearly that in this great problem of the Development Area of Lanarkshire, and the dwindling number of men employed in the coal industry, the Government simply have not a clue to a solution. If they have one, I hope that we shall be told today. In two major debates the problem has been posed and certain methods of dealing with it have been suggested from this side of the Committee, but in each case the Joint Under-Secretary of State has been able to give us no hope whatever.
The third problem is that of the area of the expanding coalfields. It is one which the Joint Under-Secretary should know very well indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) has raised the matter frequently in the House. Miners are being forced to move from the West of Scotland to the East of Scotland. I accuse the Government of building up an area which will be almost wholly dependent for employment on coal getting. We know of the suffering caused by that in the past in the Welsh mining villages and the Scottish coalfields, and we do not want it ever to happen again in any other area.
In the old mining areas we knew of homes broken up because girls of 14 were obliged to leave home in search of work, and because boys were forced either to work in the coalfields, which was uncongenial to them, or leave home to find work elsewhere. Yet, when I examine what is happening in these developing coalfields in Fifeshire, I have the greatest fear—as have other hon. Members interested in that area—that again we shall see growing up an area dependent almost wholly on coal getting to provide work.
The fourth problem is the overspill of population from Glasgow. I wish to ask the Minister, what are the plans for Cumbernauld? Is it to be a dormitory area for Glasgow, and if not, what steps do the Government propose taking to ensure that in every sense Cumbernauld

1359
will be a new town, not only with houses, but with jobs for the people who go there? We know that in Glasgow there are a great number of what might be termed slum factories. Many of the owners are desirous of finding new factory space and are willing to go outside Glasgow to new factories, taking their industries with them. Will help be forthcoming from the Board of Trade to ensure that some will go to Cumbernauld?
There are many areas in Lanarkshire where people would be delighted to welcome families from Glasgow. What steps, if any, have the Government taken to ensure that where great planning needs to be done, industrialists in Glasgow will be assisted to take their factories to places where they will receive a welcome and where there will be a good life for the people? So far, there has been no indication at all that the Government are ready with plans to deal with this problem.
In their last three years of office the Labour Government built over 15 million more square feet of factory space than did this Government in their first three years of office. In the Development Areas the picture is even blacker. When the Labour Government were in power, 30 per cent. of all factory building in Britain was in the Development Areas. Under this Government, only 18 per cent. of new factory building has taken place in these areas. I obtained these figures from the Ministry of Labour Gazette. In other words, where it is so necessary to bring work, this Government have cut down the share of new factories for Development Areas by almost half.
I wish to touch upon another matter about which I have often asked Questions in this House, to which I have received no adequate answers. While the Labour Government were in power, over 1½ million square feet of advance factory building was completed in Scotland, in addition to much more completed in other areas. We knew then, as we know today, that a modern new factory is a great incentive and encouragement to an industrialist to set up business in a Development Area. I am sure that the fact that we built so many of these advance standard factories in Scotland brought thousands of new jobs to our people which might have been missed had the Labour Government
1360
waited until there was a tenant before starting even to prepare the site for a factory.
I have repeatedly urged this Government to continue the policy of the Labour Government and build advance factories. The answer has been a quite definite, "No," and not much more than that. No reason was given, except that the Government did not think it a wise thing to do. Yet all the history shows how wise it was for Wales and for the Development Areas in England and in Scotland. I understand that in Scotland—and I expect that it applies also to other areas—there is an unsatisfied demand for factory space, particularly for small factories of about 20,000 square feet. Recently, about a dozen applicants were trying to obtain the tenancy of the only vacant factory in Scotland. What a different position would obtain had this Government followed out Labour's policy. Then, instead of getting one industrialist into that factory, advance standard factories would have been ready for the other eleven, which would have meant bringing to those areas the jobs so desperately needed for some of our people.
I say—and I am sure the message will be conveyed—that the President of the Board of Trade has proved himself a failure to the people in the Development Areas. The people in Bellshill and in some parts of the north of Scotland and of Wales—
Mr. Sydney Silverman: And in Lancashire.
Miss Herbison: Yes, and in Lancashire. In all the Development Areas and the textile areas people are in no doubt about their assessment of the President of the Board of Trade as a failure.
We have watched carefully what has been happening and it has been clear that the President of the Board of Trade has either been content to take a back seat, or has not been strong enough and has been pushed into a back seat by other members of the Government, particularly by the present Foreign Secretary. Having had a little experience of Government committees, I can well understand what has happened to this poor failure of a President. It would seem clear that the limiting factor resulting in the things of which I have spoken is the amount of capital investment that the President of the Board of Trade has been able to

1361
secure from the Chancellor for new factory building.
That there is a queue for vacant factory space shows that there is no risk in investing capital in advance factories. I hope that the Minister will stress that fact to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of course, I have a much greater hope, which I am sure will be fulfilled, which is that it will soon be a Labour President of the Board of Trade who will know not only the problems of Lanarkshire, but of Lancashire, and will be ready to take steps to deal with them.
There is one question to which I should like an answer. Has any area, and particularly have the Scottish Industrial Estates, made representation to the President of the Board of Trade about the building of advance factories? My information is that they have, and I want to know what is the answer of the President of the Board of Trade or the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter. Those responsible for the Scottish Industrial Estates cannot be dubbed as Socialists, yet they realise that unless pressure is brought to bear upon the present Government the need for building new factories will not be met by them.
When in opposition, the Government told the country quite clearly that they did not believe in planning. They sneered and jeered at the very word. But they had nothing to put in its place except the old Tory laissez faire, which brought misery to so many between the wars and which is today bringing misery to many in Lancashire, to the people in my cotton factory in Lanarkshire, and to people in Development Areas all over the country.
I began by saying that this was a matter of importance not only to the men and women in Development Areas, but to the whole nation. As the Government know, we are living today in a highly competitive world, and our factories require the most modern up-to-date machinery that can possibly be obtained, and new factories. In other words, if there is to be future prosperity for our people we must use to the full the whole of our industrial potential.
Part of that potential are the machines in the factories, but one of the most important parts of our industrial potential are the skills, the abilities and the talents of our people. As a nation we
1362
cannot afford to have unemployed 23 per cent. of the insured population in Wales. In Merseyside and in Lancashire many people are unemployed. In Scotland, 29 per cent. of the insured population are unemployed. These people want jobs and want to play their full part in building up a prosperous Britain. They are ready to play that full part, but they realise that, as a result of the policy of the Government in those areas, they will not be given the chance.
I have no doubt that the knowledge of this will make these people more and more determined to return a Government who not only focused the limelight on the distressed areas, but a Government who acted to ensure that hope and jobs would be brought to them, a Government who, when once again returned to office, will complete the job which they began so well.
4.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Donald Kaberry): The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has spoken in challenging language and has issued a challenge which I, on behalf of hon. Members on this side of the Committee, am very glad to accept. I wish, first, to thank her for initiating this debate on the Development Areas, because it gives me, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, for whose enforced absence this afternoon I apologise, a welcome opportunity of saying something about the Government's Development Area policy generally.
As a start, I do not think I can do better than to borrow words from and to quote a part of the introduction to the 1948 White Paper, which dealt with the aims and objects of the distribution of industry policy and which described these as
"so to distribute industry as to provide regular work for the greatest possible number of those seeking it in all parts of the country, especially in those parts which are known as the Development Areas, and so help to raise the number in work and the nation's total output to the highest possible level."
The Development Areas possess two of the greatest assets of the British people, the capacity for hard work and the gift of craftsmanship, and it is our aim to see that those potentialities are used in the best way and in the best places.

1363
I do not think that Her Majesty's Government have any need to apologise for what they have done for the Development Areas. We have pursued, with a considerable degree of success, our policy of using fully the manpower resources of the country. In considering the details of the Development Areas and the specific measures by which we help them, we must not forget the main basis of their prosperity. This depends on the health of the economy of the country as a whole, for one-fifth of our workers live in these areas. No miracle can make them prosperous if the rest of the country is depressed.
Perhaps the greatest contribution made by the present Conservative Administration is that during the last three and a half years the country has experienced a steady expansion without crisis. If we can maintain that record, we can maintain general confidence, and there need be no fear in the Development Areas. If those men on whom British industry depends have confidence and faith in the future, and if they have a chance of earning fair rewards for their labours, industry will continue to flow in the direction of the Development Areas.
In this connection, I wish to make a point about Industrial Development Certificates. As we all know, the use of this control cannot compel industry to go to particular places. It would be quite wrong if it could. All that we can do is, in the last resort, to refuse permission to expand or to start an industry in a given area. That power must surely be carefully used, because it would be a very serious thing to say to an industry, "You cannot build here." The proper location of a factory is something far more complex than it looks on a planning map. There is an infinite variety of factors involved such, for example, as transport, access to raw materials, markets, the type of labour, availability of skilled management or managerial staff and technicians, and the nearness to other processes. These factors should never be, and have not been, brushed aside, and for that reason we have to be quite sure when we refuse Industrial Development Certificates. In our view far more is achieved, and far more good will is created, in the Development
1364
Areas, by persuasion than by compulsion.
Mr. Granville West: How successful has the Board of Trade been in the matter of persuasion in Blaenavon?
Mr. Kaberry: I hope to deal with specific areas later. I recall that I had the good fortune to hear last week a deputation led by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. West) about Blaenavon.
I should like to give some concrete examples of what the Government have done generally, over the whole broad picture of the expansion of industry and the creation and maintenance of a high level of employment generally in the Development Areas. First, we must put upon record the fact that this Government have maintained a strong and expanding economy. This is as vital to the Development Areas—which contain one-fifth of our working population—as it is to the country as a whole. The powers of the Distribution of Industry Acts are not a substitute for all the many policies which go together to make up a successful economy.
I should now like to refer to one or two questions dealing with figures of unemployment, and I will take the Development Areas in general. In March of this year, the last recorded figures show that there were 12,500 fewer unemployed in the whole of the Development Areas than in March, 1951. During the same period, the rate of unemployment fell from 2· 9 per cent. to 24 per cent.; indeed, the figure for March of this year is at the lowest rate since the war, for this time of the year—no mean achievement.
Dealing with the question of employment and taking into account—
Miss Herbison: Before the hon. Member leaves the question of unemployment, can he state the relevant figures area by area? Some hon. Members are particularly interested in that aspect of the matter.
Mr. Kaberry: Yes. I said that I was dealing with the picture as a whole. I shall deal with individual areas later.
Coming to the question of employment; taking into account the fall in unemployment and the increase in the number of insured workers since 1951, it is

1365
estimated that there are now at least 50,000 more people at work in the Development Areas than in 1951.
New industrial projects approved in the Development Areas are running at a very high level. In the first quarter of this year, 3· 4 million square feet of factory space was approved, which is the highest figure for the first quarter of a year ever achieved in the Development Areas. Over 2· 2 million square feet of Government-financed factory building was started in the Development Areas in the financial year 1954–55. Expenditure in the year was £4· 3 million, and approvals involved the sum of £6¼ million, which was the highest figure for six years.
Mr. Percy Collick: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now give us the figure of factory building outside the Development Areas, so that we can compare the two.
Mr. Kaberry: I shall give the percentage figures for comparison. I was hoping not to weary hon. Members too much with a long list of figures and statistics, but since November, 1951, the area of factory space started has amounted to 4,031,000 square feet and, of this, 2,208,000 square feet was started in the financial year 1954–55. Furthermore, in the last three and a half years the Government have spent £12 million on their industrial estates. Employment continues to rise in estate company factories, and by the end of 1954 it had reached the striking total of 182,000, which was broken down as to 93,000 men and 89,000 women. The estate companies themselves now administer about 41½ million square feet of factory space, which consists of many smaller types of factory.
Mr. S. Silverman: I am not quite sure whether the Minister has answered the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick). The Minister was talking about the overall figures of new factory space started, but what my hon. Friend wants to know—and what a great many of us would be interested to know—is how that figure breaks up, so that we can make the appropriate comparison between new factory space in the Development Areas and new factory space in the rest of the country.
Mr. Kaberry: I appreciated what the hon. Member was asking, and I shall endeavour to answer it in due course, as I come to specific points.
Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman appeared to be leaving the point.
Mr. Kaberry: If I miss anything I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour will deal with it far more adequately than I can.
I turn now to individual areas, each of which has its own problems. We all know that many of them have passed through the hard school of adversity and, perhaps because of that fact, the wage earners in those districts can contribute much, because of their knowledge and the skill which they have acquired, and, by their work, can give service to the whole community. As I have discovered, especially in recent days, they have a great local patriotism, which adds to their strength, and I would assure hon. Members opposite that that is a character which we should wish to preserve. No one would wish to see the traditions, customs and culture of many of these places wither away.
I should like to give some examples of the success with which our policy has met. The hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North has been concerned with Scotland, and especially with North Lanarkshire—
Miss Herbison: Oh, no.
Mr. Kaberry: I appreciate that the hon. Lady referred to the whole picture, but she was particularly concerned with North Lanarkshire.
I shall deal with one or two points which arise in dealing with the Scottish problem. Government-financed factories in this part of the Development Area already employ about 20,000 people, or nearly one-seventh of the insured population. There are still many jobs which will be available in factories already built, now under construction or which have been approved and upon which work will shortly start. Progress in the last year has been particularly impressive. From 1st January, 1954, to the middle of March of this year, factory projects in North Lanarkshire both in respect of those financed by the Government and those privately financed,

1367
total just over 1½ million square feet, or 35 per cent. of the total approved in the Scottish Development Area during that period.
Miss Herbison: Surely the Minister does not mean North Lanarkshire; he means the whole of Lanarkshire.
Mr. Kaberry: I apologise. I should have referred to Lanarkshire as a whole.
Among the major projects, perhaps I may mention in particular the factory for Ranco, Limited, at Bellshill. Work upon it is expected to start during the next few weeks, and it is likely to provide employment for up to 1,000 people. I think that answer ought to dispel the fears which the hon. Lady expressed about the future of Bellshill.
There are also large extensions, which will provide work for several hundred people, at the Newhouse Estate and new factories for the Sunbeam Electric Corporation and Waterlows, at East Kilbride. Our policy has also met with success in the Port Glasgow area, with its hitherto almost intractable problem of unemployment. Both the International Latex Corporation and the Vanguard Raincoat Company are hoping to occupy two Government financed factories. In 1954–55, we approved more expenditure on Government financed factories in the Scottish Development Area than at any time since 1947–48, the figure running at the rate of £2· 7 million.
In the Highland Development Area, where no Government financed building has been undertaken since the area was scheduled, we are now starting the first industrial estate to accommodate initially three small factories.
The hon. Lady asked me some questions about advance factory building. On this, I would point out that in all our Development Area policy it is essential to aim at matching industry with what a particular area has to offer. It is important to remember that firms do, in fact, prefer their factories to be what I might call "made to measure" or "made to fit." Factories built in advance will not necessarily suit those who come along or they may require extensive and expensive adaptations to meet their requirements. It is possible that they may have to be kept vacant for some time before they are let.
Mr. H. Rhodes: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that modulated building can be procured which will suit a group of industries? If that is so, surely there is no handicap there. They can go ahead with it.
Mr. Kaberry: We all know the speed with which buildings can be prefabricated and put up quickly, but experience is that persons chosen or asked to go to sites in any area prefer, if possible, to put up their own buildings to suit their own requirements.
There is a risk that a building put up may stay empty for some time, involving expense, and this risk is, in fact, heightened if the area is a particularly difficult one. I assure the Committee of the difficulty which has recently been experienced in the factories in the Port Glasgow area, where, for as long as two years, factory buildings have remained empty, although, recently, we have had the good fortune to have them filled. We believe that in the matter of advance factory building it is better if the industrial concern which is to take a site in the area is left free to put up a building to meet its own particular requirements.
Mr. Collick: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again. I have been constantly pressing the Minister about an advance factory in my own constituency of Birkenhead. I have had all sorts of excuses given as to why it cannot be provided, but the one which the hon. Gentleman now offers to the Committee is quite a new one. I should like to know when this new one was made, because it is the first I have heard of it.
Miss Herbison: Before the hon. Member leaves the question of advance factories, can he answer a question that I raised—whether any representation had been made by Scottish Industrial Estates, because they know the needs in Scotland? The hon. Member did not mention factories standing idle at Port Glasgow. Can he tell us how many applicants there were for the last factory in Port Glasgow?
Mr. Kaberry: Perhaps I may be allowed to leave the whole series of questions fired at me for my hon. Friend to reply to at the end of the debate. I can assure hon. Members that the most careful note is being taken of these points,

1369
and that answers will be given. So far as I know no direct representations have been made, but I am open to correction on that point and I should like an opportunity of correcting my statement if I am wrong.
Mr. S. Silverman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way again. I am sure he will bear in mind that many of us who represent these areas have to explain these matters to our constituents. The questions which my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) asked in her opening speech are not abstruse questions, invented for the purpose of puzzling the Minister. They are matters that arise directly in consideration of this problem, and it is unfair to the rest of us if answers to them are not to be given until the end of the debate.
Mr. Ness Edwards: Can the hon. Member tell us whether the Government have abandoned the advance factory programme or not?
Mr. Kaberry: No. The Government have not abandoned it at all, for the reasons which I have been giving. It is believed that in view of the demands made for specific building to be up to the requirements of individual industrialists it is a far better way of introducing buildings into the Development Areas.
In the Development Areas generally, in South Wales the male unemployment figure was down in March this year to 7,500 compared with 13,800 in March, 1951. Total unemployment has fallen below 2 per cent., and this in spite of the fact that considerable redundancies in the old tin-plate works have been declared.
The Lloyd Committee, set up by the Government in January, 1953, recommended new road developments of great importance to South Wales, and these are being implemented by the Government. They also made a very careful survey of the industrial potentialities of the area. Modernisation of the area's steel and coal industry continues on a large scale.
In the North-Eastern area, important Government financed projects include factories at Sunderland, at Peterlee and a large extension at Annfield Plain. In addition, important new tenants have been found for factories which were vacant at Team Valley and Sunderland.
1370
The new industry introduced into Sunderland will, it is felt, make a very considerable contribution to the special problems of this area. Another development of great importance to the North-East is the new factory of 264,000 square feet, privately financed, to be erected in Newcastle.
The West Cumberland area, which suffered very severely before the war, can, I think, be put down as one of the success stories of the Development Area policy. It has had many new industries taken to it, among them the vitally important atomic energy project.
In the Lancashire Development Areas nearly 5 million square feet of new factory space has been built, in the Mersey-side Development Area, during the present Administration. Nearly all of it is private building and unemployment is now down to 16,000, which is at a rate of 2· 6 per cent—the lowest rate ever recorded for March. In North-East Lancashire, the largest factory ever undertaken by the Board of Trade is being built. A London firm has just announced its intention of building a large factory there for the production of refrigerators.
Mr. S. Silverman: In what part of Lancashire?
Mr. Kaberry: In North-East Lancashire. Areas like some of the textile districts and Development Areas like that of Merseyside have proved attractive to industry and major developments are to take place at several points.
Mr. Collick Mr. Collick rose—
Mr. Kaberry: Perhaps I may just say this. The figures that I have been giving show throughout that there is more factory space, more employment, and an overall lowering in the unemployment figures.
Mr. Silverman: In North-East Lancashire?
Mr. Kaberry: Yes. That has been our policy.
Mr. J. T. Price: Where?
Mr. Kaberry: The figures show what has been done.
Mr. Ness Edwards: Where?
Mr. Kaberry: I have given the right hon. Gentleman figures and statistics area by area, showing the progress which has been made during the last three-and-a-half years by the present Administration. That is the policy that we have pursued. We have been determined to show that the Development Areas are not depressed areas. I have tried to show that the Development Areas themselves are able to give services and to provide the labour required for an expanding industry.
The debate coincides with the publication of a booklet entitled "Room to Expand." At the British Industries Fair, which opens today, copies of this booklet are available for all who go to the stand of the Board of Trade. Copies of the booklet are available also to hon. Members. Industrialists will have an opportunity at the Fair—and I hope they will take it—of seeing the Board of Trade's Distribution of Industry stand, which will show the facilities available throughout the country.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North emphasised, quite rightly, that these areas are not depressed, and have much to offer. They have every right to be proud of the many facilities which they can offer. It is the earnest desire of hon. Members to remove any fear that may exist because of what I might call the "Depressed area mentality." In conditions of full employment a proper distribution of industry is of economic and industrial consequence to our whole economy. Thus, the transfer of expanding industrial units from the congested areas to the Development Areas makes good commercial sense for them as well as good economic sense for the nation.
4.45 p.m.
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I think most hon. Members would agree that the impact of the Distribution of Industry Acts upon the areas which, at one time, were depressed, and whose people had lost all hope, has been quite immeasurable and that, materially and spiritually, they have been completely transformed. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), who opened the debate so admirably, was quite right in saying that great credit is due to the Labour Government for the initiative and energy
1372
with which they tackled the difficult problem of the Development Areas. During the past few years we have heard much about the Tennessee Valley Authority in the United States, but in our Development Areas we see an even greater achievement accomplished with less resources.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North and those hon. Gentlemen who intervened during the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary that much remains to be done, but I think they would agree with me that the task of industrial development in South Wales is nearing completion. There are one or two difficult places, one of which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. West). Industrially speaking, the Development Areas of Wales are now "Developed" Areas. Factories have been built and others are going up. The old, dangerous dependence upon two or three basic industries has vanished. There is full employment, and the demand for labour now exceeds the supply. That is a source of satisfaction to all hon. and right hon. Members of the Committee.
I wish to refer to areas which, although not scheduled as Development Areas, nevertheless suffer from a very high incidence of unemployment. I have put this problem to the Government on many occasions. It affects Caernarvon and Merioneth, as well as my own constituency. Although the unemployment is chronic and has existed for a long time, those places are not designated as Development Areas. They derived no benefit therefore from the Distribution of Industry Acts. Let me give one example. In my constituency is the town of Holyhead. It is an industrial town and port, with a population of nearly 11,000.
In the 'thirties unemployment in that town averaged between 40 and 45 per cent. of the insured population, yet neither that town nor the county was scheduled as a Development Area. The Committee will find it significant when I say that between 1932 and 1939 the average unemployment in the County of Anglesey was higher than that for all the Development Areas of Great Britain.
Successive Governments have considered the problem, but have set their face against making them Development

1373
Areas. On 1st April last year I asked the President of the Board of Trade about the Government's policy towards unemployment areas as distinct from Development Areas. His reply was:
"The policy towards these areas of relatively high unemployment remains unchanged. The Board of Trade do what they can to encourage industry development, and these areas receive equal consideration with Development Areas when Government orders are placed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 2207.]
That is all very fine, but there is a paucity of industry in the areas and it is extremely difficult to persuade Government Departments to place contracts. In areas in the counties of Caernarvon, Anglesey and Merioneth the argument that the Government give priority of contracts is not really effective. It sidesteps the issue.
I fully appreciate the difficulties lying in the way of designating as Development Areas these pockets of unemployment. Obviously, one cannot bring the whole of our countryside within the ambit of the Distribution of Industry Acts, but surely something more positive and constructive could be done to help these areas than has yet been done. I suggested in the debate on Welsh Affairs on 24th November last that the powers of the trading estate companies should be extended, in some limited degree, to these pockets of unemployment. I am quite certain that if the Government put their minds to it methods could be devised, short of scheduling them as Development Areas, to assist them.
The truth is that the present machinery is completely inadequate, although here I should like to pay tribute to the Development Commisison for the assistance which it has given in Anglesey. The Commissioners are deserving of the warmest praise. For example, the Commission is enabling us to erect two factories at Llangefni, in the centre of the island, which will alleviate the chronic unemployment problem which has existed there for upwards of thirty years. That apart, I would suggest to the two Ministers that something might be done to expedite or improve the machinery of the Development Commission. At present, it takes a considerable time for the Commission to come to a decision after an application for a loan has been made to it.
1374
Such an application was made to it from Anglesey last December, but the approval came through only two or three weeks ago; it took well over three months for a decision to be reached. I do not criticise the Commission—it is doing a very good job indeed—but the present machinery is somewhat cumbersome. It will be readily appreciated that the danger of such a delay is that industrialists who are interested in a certain site, might, in the meantime, find a site in another district, and we cannot afford to lose the slightest chance which may come our way.
The two industries that are to settle in Anglesey are coming as a result of the initiative and enterprise of local authorities in the county, and not through any action by the Board of Trade. I am afraid that the Board of Trade is not acting effectually in inducing industries to come to these unemployment areas. This is because it has abandoned the necessary instruments whereby it could prevail upon industrialists to establish in places where there is a real need of work. The Departments concerned with this problem—the Board of Trade, the Treasury and the Ministry of Labour—should study the position carefully to see what may be done.
I recently asked the President of the Board of Trade about a survey which had been conducted in this area and which had taken over twelve months to prepare. His reply was not really satisfactory and did not tackle the heart of the problem, or point to any permanent solution. During the past few years unemployment in Anglesey has fluctuated between 5 and 10 per cent. of the insured population. In April, 1952, it was 5 per cent.; in April, 1953, it was 65 per cent., and in April, 1954, 98 per cent. It will be seen that the figure is rising progressively from year to year; but another significant point is that in 1954 the insured population of the county fell by 1,000. Nor does that latter figure take account of an annual average of 500 school leavers, many of whom leave the county to work without going on to the register at all.
The position is serious. We do not want to be a county of children and elderly people; we do not want to lose the cream of our young people. Nevertheless, that is the present trend and it is causing a great deal of concern. I

1375
think that the Committee will agree that these areas represent a serious flaw in the boast that we have full employment. I hope that the Government will look at this again critically and consider what can be done to assist these parts of Wales which are so rich in culture and which can make so great a contribution to the country as a whole.
4.58 p.m.
Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: May I first refer to the speech made by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and congratulate her, if it is in order for me to do so, on the fact that she has been chosen to make one of the party political broadcasts. It is always attractive, and sometimes useful, to have a preview of what she is likely to say on that occasion.
I think that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary answered with skill and conviction the criticism that little had been done for the Development Areas; nevertheless, I feel that there is something in the hon. Lady's argument and, indeed, in that of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) that these Development Areas were designated, and the Distribution of Industry Act was devised, at a time when circumstances were rather different from the present.
The advantages which the Distribution of Industry Act gives to an employer, and which act as an added attraction to him to settle in a Development Area are, first, that there is a supply of skilled and unskilled labour there which is easily accessible, and which, to an industrialist, is a very important consideration. In many cases, there are ready-made factories at low rentals, and a third advantage is the priority in Government contracts, under certain rather closely defined circumstances, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and, finally, in some cases there is the advantage of being able to obtain a loan.
Unemployment is a very different problem, and, happily, a very much less acute problem, than it was at the time when the Distribution of Industry Act and the conception of the Development Areas was first thought of. To show how close, in Scotland—and it is to Scotland, in particular, that I wish to refer—the unemployment figures in the Development
1376
Areas and outside them have now come, I may say that, in December of this year, the unemployment figure for the whole country was 27 per cent., and that for the Development Areas was 29 per cent.
That shows a very narrow difference, and I am sure that, if one analysed particular parts of Development Areas, we should find some better and some worse. There are some like Greenock, Port Glasgow and Bellshill, which were mentioned by the hon. Lady, where all the advantages of the Development Areas conception should continue to be applied, but there are others in which I think we shall find that unemployment is no worse, and perhaps even better, than in the country as a whole.
If one goes on pumping all available industry into Development Areas merely because they have been scheduled as Development Areas, we may end up by pumping it into places where, in fact, there is less need of it than there is outside the Development Area itself. There are all kinds of different problems connected with it, to some of which the hon. Gentleman referred, and one might easily make out a considerable case for a particular industry being settled in some other area rather than in a Development Area itself. We may even arrive at the paradoxical situation in which, by persuading industry to go and settle there, we—and this is claimed to be the case in Scotland in some instances—hurt the rest of the country.
There are, for example, and I have mentioned this matter before, the expanding mining industries. The conception there was that places like Glenrothes are in need of some form of employment for the daughters, and perhaps for the wives, of the miners—some lighter form of industry which would employ the whole of the employable population in that area. That is just the sort of place which, I think, needs special attention.
Then there are small and remote communities living in a declining economy. Instead of waiting until pockets of unemployment have shown themselves, it surely would be wiser to try to find out and mark down particular places—towns or areas—of that kind, and try to persuade some industry to go there in order to stop the decline, or even to prevent it before it has started. There is the

1377
example of the Dundee Development Area, where, I understand, for a time—and, perhaps, it still is so—there has been a shortage of labour for Dundee's historic jute industry. Yet, despite that fact, new industries were being persuaded and attracted into the Development Area, thereby injuring the jute industry, because there was not enough labour to go round the whole lot.
Though, perhaps, not endorsing exactly the same kind of machinery which has been indicated by hon. Members opposite, I would join with them in asking the Minister and the Government to review the whole situation. Whether it can be done by amending the Distribution of Industry Act, whether it can be done by giving limited, or perhaps all, advantages of that Act to other areas, whichever be the system employed, the Government should have the power to attract industries to that part of the country. I am speaking particularly of Scotland, though I have no doubt the same arguments apply to England, in preferring places where such action will do the community the greatest amount of good, whether it be in a Development Area or outside.
The whole of the picture which rests in the mind of the Government, which was originally painted many years ago, ought to be looked at again. We should be assured that such attractions as we are offering just now to foreigners and our own industrialists to settle down should have the effect of bringing industries to those places where they will be of the most benefit to the community, whether that community be inside or outside a Development Area.
5.6 p.m.
Mr. Percy Collick: I confess at once that I was exceedingly disappointed by the first speech made on behalf of the Government in this debate. I suppose that it is a disadvantage that the debate comes at the end of a Parliament, and I am conscious of the difficulty of trying to impress upon the Minister to do this, that or something else because of the feeling in my mind that, within a few weeks, he may not be there to do anything of the kind—and I certainly hope that that will be the case.
Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman talked as though he hoped that, too.
Mr. Collick: I am quite certain that, if the people in the Development Areas could have been in the House and could have heard the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, they would have noticed what I confess I thought was a complete lack of any constructive policy for the Development Areas for the future. I should have expected, and I submit that it is not unreasonable, that the Government today would have taken the opportunity of saying exactly and clearly to the country what was their policy for the future in relation to the Development Areas. We have heard nothing of the kind.
If the Parliamentary Secretary had read the last debate which took place on the Development Areas, he would have been aware that the present President of the Board of Trade was himself discussing whether or not there should be a change in the Development Area policy. He was asking in what respect such changes should be made, and it was obvious to anybody who listened to that debate that the mind of the right hon. Gentleman was in a state of flux on this matter, and that he was inviting the House to put forward suggestions. I came to the House today quite expecting, in the light of that debate, that the Board of Trade, on behalf of the Government, would state quite clearly and specifically what its policy was in relation to the Development Areas, but that is not the position.
Mr. West: We must be perfectly fair to the Minister. Did not the hon. Gentleman say that the only policy which the Government have had is the policy of persuasion, and that is that?
Sir Frederick Messer: That is not policy.
Mr. Collick: I think that point is answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer), who makes the comment, "That is not policy." I should think it is an obvious comment. I shall develop the point about persuasion in a moment or two.
I have the honour to represent in this House the constituency of Birkenhead, the workers of which have produced some of the finest ships that sail the seas. It is almost wholly dependent on shipbuilding and on the docks for its livelihood, and the concern of anybody who has been interested in this question of

1379
development policy has always been that, where we have an area of the country primarily dependent on one or two big industries, there is an overwhelming case for doing all that is possible for diversifying its industries and bringing new industries into the area.
Everybody who knows the history of this matter is aware of the amazing success which attended the inauguration of this policy of bringing new industries into the distressed areas. That is now common ground. In Birkenhead we are in rather an unfortunate position, in that within the County Borough of Birkenhead there is not too much land available for the building of new factories. In fact, there are no new factories available for any industrialists who want to go there. But we have a very fine site near the docks which was owned by one of the old railway companies.
When the industrial development committee in Birkenhead speculated on whether we could get possession of that land with the idea of bringing new factories there, we discovered that it was tied up with a leasehold of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. It was at the time when there were changes going on in railway ownership, from private ownership to the Transport Commission. It took us years before we were in a position to get control of that land on which to build new factories. In fact, it was not until private legislation was promoted that that land could be made available.
One could almost write a book on the history of getting possession of that land. Hon. Members who are familiar with this form of legislation can imagine all that could be said about it. We eventually got possession of the land, and we were looking forward to the erection on it of what was known as a communal factory. I do not think that that word is very popular on the benches opposite at the moment. The local authorities urged it upon the Board of Trade. I have done my best to persuade the Parliamentary Secretary, and the Merseyside committee which dealt with the matter has done its best. We have had all sorts of answers, but the one that the Parliamentary Secretary gave us today was quite a new one. The Department must have thought that one up since the previous ones were given.
1380
Years afterwards we got possession of the land and the Corporation of Birkenhead eventually made it available to the Board of Trade. That land remains as it was, undeveloped and unoccupied, and with no new factories. I did not want to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary too much, but I wanted to ask him what had been done in Birkenhead. I have met the previous Parliamentary Secretary again and again. We have done all that we can to get what we now call an advance factory. I suppose the expression "advance factory" sounds a little more respectable than "communal factory."
We are still waiting for this advance factory to be built on this land, which is one of the finest sites in the whole of Britain. The Department has had this matter under its control, through Northwest Industrial Estates, for years. My criticism of the Government is that they have done nothing whatever about developing that factory in the Borough of Birkenhead.
I want to know what the policy of the Government is. When the Government made their decision to end the control of building, I could never see how anything could be done in these Development Areas. One of the great advantages that the Labour Government had was that they were in a position to say to an industrialist who wanted to build a new factory, say, in London or in Birmingham, "Yes, you can have your factory, provided you build it in Birkenhead or on Merseyside or in Scotland or in one of the Development Areas." Because the Labour Government had that power, the factories went up in those Development Areas. A few went up in my own division of Birkenhead.
The Government having abolished control of building, I want to hear how they propose to get industries into the Development Areas. I do not know, and apparently my hon. Friends do not know either. I am not at all sure that hon. Members opposite know.
Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: I instanced four influences which had the effect of attracting industry into the Development Areas. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not notice that I gave four specific points.
Mr. Collick: I am still waiting for those to apply in Birkenhead. Why did we make Merseyside a Development Area? Because industrialists were reluctant to go there.
Sir F. Messer: They were not attracted
Mr. Collick: As my hon. Friend says, they were not attracted.
If industrialists had been attracted to what were distressed areas, there would have been no need for these Development Areas at all. It is because they were not attracted that the House found it necessary to introduce the Development Area policy. Now that building controls are abolished, I want to know how the Government propose to get industries into those areas. If someone can answer that question, I might get a clue as to how we can attract one or two more industries to Birkenhead. I expected the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us exactly how that was to be done, now that building controls have been swept away. I do not regard that as an unreasonable hope.
It is all very well telling us what building has been going on in the Development Areas, but it is of little value unless at the same time we are told what is the amount of building in other areas than the Development Areas. The Minister promised to give us the figures some time during the debate.
Mr. Kaberry: The figure last year was, in fact, 18 per cent.
Mr. Collick: Eighteen per cent. of what?
Mr. Kaberry: I was asked to state the relationship between the amount of building in the Development Areas and that done throughout the whole of the country. That figure was 18 per cent. For what it is worth, it coincides with a distribution of 18 per cent. of the employed workers in the whole of the country.
Mr. Collick: I am not sure that I understand the hon. Gentleman. We want to get this quite clear. Am I right in understanding that the Minister is now saying that of the total factory building going on in this country, 18 per cent. has been in the Development Areas? Is that correct?
Mr. Kaberry: That was the figure last year.
Mr. Frederick Willey: I want to get this clear—
Mr. Collick: The argument is mine, if my hon. Friend will allow me.
1382
The figure is 18 per cent., in which case the indictment is greater than I had presumed. If the Parliamentary Secretary will look at HANSARD of 25th February, 1953, he will find that his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said this on this very point of the figures of building in the Development Areas:
"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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 2134.]
Now the hon. Gentleman tells us that the percentage is 18. The Development Areas, instead of having 40 per cent. of new building, are now down to 18 per cent. under the present Government. If that is not a condemnation of Government policy, I do not know what is.
Mr. S. Silverman: Is that what the Minister meant?
Mr. Collick: He said that that was what he meant. I am willing to give way if the Minister wishes to deny that, but I see that he chooses not to rise and, therefore, quite obviously he accepts the fact.
We had 40 per cent. of new building going on in the Development Areas and now we are told officially from the Government Front Bench that it is 18 per cent. That is my complaint. It is a shocking state of affairs. If we are to take it that the Government statement means that the Government accept that it is perfectly right and proper that the percentage should come down from 40 to 18, I can tell the Minister what my constituents will say about it when I tell them next week, which I certainly propose to do.
Is it not utterly wrong? If we are to have new factories built, why build them in London, in Birmingham, and in the centres of mass population, where problems of road transport, etc., are aggravated, when there are areas like Merseyside and Birkenhead in which these developments are wanted? It is not merely a question of diversification of industry but of another matter on which we have had no word at all from

1383
the benches opposite. Despite the reduction of the figures, which we all welcome, Merseyside still has one of the highest levels of unemployment in the country. The particular tragedy of Merseyside is that whereas for some of the Development Areas the problem is that of employing the more aged part of the population, 50 per cent. of those who are unemployed in Merseyside are under 40 years of age. That is borne out conclusively in a recent report on Merseyside.
There is every reason for going vigorously ahead with the building of new factories in these areas, particularly in Birkenhead, and I am exceedingly sorry that it has not been done. This had been urged upon the Government for a long time and then one fine day the present Minister's predecessor went to Merseyside to be made familiar with the problem. People began to think that something was going to happen now that the Minister had been there. In the following fortnight I put a Question to the Government to find out what had happened. I was given the usual sort of answer with which hon. Members are familiar, and still nothing happened. Until the Government—whether this Government or, as I hope, a Labour Government—do something, I assure the Committee that no Government will have any peace until the problem is tackled and some progress is made in Birkenhead.
5.25 p.m.
Mr. H. Rhodes: I feel tempted to tell the story of what a householder said to a representative of Birkenhead Brass Band Benevolent Fund, but it would scarcely be Parliamentary. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) knows it full well, and perhaps at a later stage he can tell the story to the Committee.
We had an excellent opening speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and a good speech from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in his second effort at the Dispatch Box. While they were speaking, there passed through my mind the words of Lord Chandos, then Mr. Oliver Lyttelton, who, in a debate on the Address in reply to the King's Speech on 2nd November, 1950, said that if an industrialist borrowing money at 5 per cent. could not make a
1384
profit he regarded his investment as marginal and eventually discarded it.
Anyone on this side of the Committee who wants to win a seat in the Election will find a number of suitable quotations in that speech. The right hon. Gentleman restated in that speech a principle which is now, of course, out-of-date. The days when that kind of Tory economic philosophy was current are over, because the workers were then discarded along with the marginal investment—
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Watkinson)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Watkinson) indicated dissent.
Mr. Rhodes:—and we will not tolerate it today. The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head, but he should know that better than anybody in the House if he has been doing his job and going round the country. He should know that where workings were exhausted in places like Workington, on the Cumberland coast, there was no employment for the people, and in the days before the war they were to be found leaning apathetically against their door posts. There is no disputing that that happened. The fact that an investor who could not make a profit after borrowing at 5 per cent. discarded the enterprise without due regard to workers is a matter of history, and is something which has gone with history.
It is also old-fashioned to talk about Development Areas. If modern Governments have been doing their job, the need to schedule an area as a Development Area should not arise because, according to the 1945 and 1950 Acts, distress is the criterion on which a Development Area is assessed. That is still the case. If the criterion for the scheduling of an area as a Development Area is distress, a present-day Government would be failing in their duty if they had not already removed the reasons for scheduling the area as a Development Area. I believe that that statement would be accepted by everybody.
The argument may be advanced that some of these Development Areas are already full, but that has nothing to do with my argument, because all areas should have full employment. The advantage which the Development Areas have had during the last few years is

1385
that they have had new buildings erected. The modern floor space which they possess will stand them in good stead for many years to come. That is a bigger advantage than is enjoyed in many places in Lancashire, despite the fact that full employment has been the rule in those places for many years.
I take exception to the Parliamentary Secretary's statement that private individuals and industrialists should have the choice of what type of factory they put up, if that means excluding the Government from erecting any factories at all.
There are areas where few or no factories are being built. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in my division, embracing Mossley, Ashton and Droyls-den, all the buildings which have been put up since the war, either new or as extensions or improvements of existing buildings, would find employment for only 1,000 males and females? Buildings which have been in existence for 40, 50, probably 100 years, have only changed in proportion since the war to the extent of approximately 2 per cent. in terms of a working population of about 50,000.
That being the case, let us examine it from the point of view of an area depending on an old industry. We have to get down to this question sooner or later, sooner rather than later. I may say that it also applies to the division of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), as probably there are more cotton workers there than in my division. I do not know how many cotton workers there are in the working population of his constituency, but in mine the number is 9,000 out of 50,000.
Mr. S. Silverman: In mine the proportion is much higher.
Mr. Rhodes: Nevertheless, 9,000 out of 50,000 is a very serious matter to me.
I wish to try to persuade the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to bend his mind to the question. Perhaps he can give us his private view of what the Government intend to do with regard to areas such as mine and that of Nelson and Colne, where there are old buildings which today are not suitable for modern machines to go into, even for the industry for which those buildings are being used at present; they could not house the machines. If, because of the way in which they are situated, mills in my area cannot
1386
successfully house the modern machinery available, what on earth are we to do about the problem? The problem is there and needs tackling.
Let us think of the country as a Development Area instead of labelling different areas as Development Areas because at one time they were so regarded. It is just nonsense. My constituency is an area in which the buildings have not kept pace with modern financial investment and where buildings are not being put up to house new machinery available for its particular industry. Buildings should be put up to house new machinery and constructed to house machinery for future industry which may be attracted to the area. I suggest that either this Government or the next should get down to the problem and begin erecting the advance factories which have been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North.
I have been raising this question over a period of three years now. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that I dealt with it two years ago in a Budget debate. I think that had some little influence on the Chancellor when, last year, he brought forward the investment allowance for buildings. To a certain extent that has worked, but it is no use the Parliamentary Secretary saying that the design of buildings and their style must be left to individual manufacturers alone. What is the use of that if no buildings are being put up? We want to know what is going to be done about it.
Although there has been a slowing down of the drift from north to south, it still continues. The drain is still going on gradually. Are we building houses just as a kind of blind to satisfy people, or do we really believe in building them so that work can be brought to the people? I have pointed out in this House many times that in areas such as mine and many others in Lancashire the inhabitants depend on being able to live near their work. They cannot get their living in the fields; often there are not any fields.
What is going to be done? Under our noses a distressed area can be growing up. We do not want to wait until it is a fait accompli and then have to deal with such an area. We should be reading the signs of the times and taking action. If necessary, we should be improving legislation to enable us to take action. Here

1387
is an opportunity to improve an existing Act, one tiny, constructive thing that can be done. That would be to widen the scope of the Act so that it would be possible to build factories in areas like mine and get ready for their use.
It may be that those factories would be empty for 12 months; they might be empty for two years. What does that matter in terms of human welfare? It does not matter twopence about a factory waiting for people to work in it simply because those people are already in existing industry if, in a year or two, they may have to be finding jobs in another industry. The course I suggest would be a good investment for a small amount of money.
I ask the Government to state a case on this question. What is their view about it? Do they agree that advance factories should be built in areas where there may be full employment now but in which industry may be vulnerable and where at some time in the future those factories will be needed? Let us take time by the forelock and get on with the building of a few factories, perhaps experimentally. No one would blame a Government who had the pluck to do that. I ask the Government seriously to consider doing it.
5.38 p.m.
Sir William Darling: This is a very interesting debate for me because it moves along the lines on which I have been compelled to think. I share the views expressed by the Opposition that the redistribution of the population is imperative and urgent.
No one from Scotland can look at the continued growth of London except with apprehension. The agglomerating of the growth of wealth and strength, power and authority, in the south-east of England is a deplorable circumstance which one day some Government must attack. It cannot be repeated too often that one-tenth of the population of this island lives in a third of its area—5 million in Scotland and the other 45 million spread over the rest of the United Kingdom.
The narrow discussion we have had this afternoon has been a criticism of Government policy for giving up the somewhat rigid view that was held as to
1388
what was a distressed area. Perhaps the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) has been even slower than I have been to read what has been said in "Room to Expand." It states:
"The Development Areas are not distressed areas. During the last 20 years, some of the older industrial areas have been undergoing a remarkable transformation."
That is the position at which my right hon. Friend has arrived. There is no need any longer, it seems to me, rigidly to classify the country into distressed and non-distressed areas.
In the city that I represent, which was never officially a distressed area, we have suffered severe restrictions in the city's development because we were not allowed the advantages of so-called distressed areas.
Mr. Collick: The hon. Member appears to have forgotten that these areas are no longer called distressed areas, but Development Areas.
Mr. Rhodes: My point was that we should be helping transformation now and not waiting for the new distress to come.
Sir W. Darling: Those are pertinent observations, and are supplementary to what I have said.
I was remarking that in the City of Edinburgh, which was not a distressed area, so-called by Schedule, we have been hindered for many years in the legitimate development of our business. The City of Edinburgh is an attractive place, both for industry and in other respects, and we have suffered a grievous disadvantage—a limiting disadvantage—in the fact that the major areas of Scotland—the Clyde area, for example—were scheduled as distressed areas while we were excluded. That did not make for any increased development in the so-called distressed areas but merely hindered the development of Edinburgh. I am inclined to think that the two policies could have run quite successfully the one with the other.
The explanation why people start businesses in certain places is very obscure; none can tell. If the Government or their predecessors knew the reason, they would have the key to the Industrial Revolution. Why, for example, did J. and P. Coates set up the thread

1389
industry in Paisley? There was nothing in Paisley especially to justify it. It was a Lancashire industry because it was based on cotton, but it was set up there because Messrs. J. and P. Coates belonged to Paisley, and they said, "Here and in no other place we will set up an industry and make it a success." The successful initiation of industry depends upon persons—
Mr. Rhodes: Robert Owen started the cotton mills in Lanarkshire and the thread manufacturers drew their supplies from him.
Sir W. Darling: One of the most gratifying things, on the few occasions when I speak, is the mental stimulus which I give to the Opposition. Usually dull and unresponsive, they are sunk in the natural gloom which now oppresses them in view of the imminence of the Election. I am grateful for the opportunity of stirring them.
I was remarking that the starting of new businesses is not the act of any Government at any time. The great businesses of the world, especially the great businesses of this country, have been started because persons said, "Here and in no other place I will set up my business. I elect and choose to start my thread factory in Paisley. It might be better in Lancashire or somewhere where cotton is the major and staple industry, but I am having my factory in Paisley."
We all know the initials and name of W. D. and H. O. Wills. Those gentlemen, for some reason or other, without Government encouragement and support, said, "We will start the business of manufacturing tobacco in Bristol." At that time they were seriously threatened. Messrs. F. and J. Smith were manufacturing tobacco in Glasgow, and still are, but it was thanks to the enterprise, energy, character and quality of the Wills's that the main centre of tobacco manufacturing came to Bristol.
What I want my right hon. Friend to do is to look for the Coates's and the Wills's of this world, because they are the dynamo which drives businesses into being and creates successful industry.
Mr. J. T. Price: I plead guilty to being stimulated by the hon. Member. In the way that he is developing this argument, he is getting himself caught up. He is
1390
extolling as a virtue the setting up of the cotton thread industry in Paisley because a family decided to have it there, and the setting up of other industries in other parts of the country, although earlier in his speech he condemned the unequal and inordinate growth of London and the great centres of population. London has grown to its present ridiculous size for exactly the anarchic reasons which the hon. Member is condemning.
The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Order. This appears to be a speech rather than an intervention.
Mr. Price: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) had given way.
The Deputy-Chairman: That may be so; but hon. Members can talk as often as they like in Committee, and they ought to await their turn.
Sir W. Darling: I was putting forward a suggestion which, I thought, would help my right hon. Friend in the dilemma in which he and other Governments find themselves in trying to discover how businesses come into being. They come into being, not by any act of Government, but because persons of character and ability deliberately say, "Here I will have my business and nowhere else."
Why did Ford go to Dagenham? Why did Morris choose to build a motor business in the neighbourhood of Oxford? There was only the reason of a person's determination to have it there. Morris had a cycle shop and developed it into an engineering business. If the Government in those days had resorted to the direction of industry, which was current during the war and which, apparently, is still in the minds of hon. Members opposite, Mr. Morris would have been told, "You cannot have your motor business in Oxford, within the shadow of this ancient university. Birmingham or Coventry is the place for you—anywhere but Oxford." But the stubborn-minded Mr. Morris said, "It is here or nowhere," and he made it "here." Consequently, one of the most important motor industries in the country—I do not think it is without its disadvantages—is established in the neighbourhood of Oxford.
What, then, is the idea in the minds of hon. Members opposite? Their view, it seems to me, is that the Government,

1391
with their clumsy, interfering hands, should try to direct the establishment of industry in places which are suited to their purposes, which deal with the problems of distress and of unemployment. I do not think that way. I think that the Government of the day must take an over-riding interest in the placing of industry up and down the country; but the initiation of industry, with all the enterprise which is required to keep it going, is not the Government's function, and if the Government attempted it they would fail.
We are, I suppose, rightly proud, and appreciative, at any rate, of what has been done in distressed areas—so-called Development Areas—but do not let us be too happy about it. I have never seen any great reason to be particularly happy about it. At a great deal of expense and at the restriction of industry elsewhere in the country, we have established industries in Development Areas, where they cannot have a permanent root. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) knows well the fluctuations which have taken place in the Lanarkshire area, with which she is so familiar. In spite of the fact of first-class factories and ample supplies of labour, the uncertainties of business and the mistakes or misjudgments of industrialists have had their effect and it has been extremely difficult to root industry, which has no natural root, in these very distressed areas.
I am not saying that we should not pursue the policy because it has been unsuccessful, but that the picture of a tremendous overall success for this policy is slightly overdone. I believe that the better way is to trust the natural genius of the people. Let us look for the Wills's, the Coates's and the Morris's. Let us find, if we can, another Robert Owen. When so much is being spoken of the direction of industry, where are the powerful Co-operative Wholesale Society and the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society? They have done something, but they are an organisation animated with an idealism which is foreign, at any rate, to the ordinary run of commercial industry. Where are they in these active fields of development? Why do they not take interest in some of these unsuccessful areas and turn them, as free enterprise has done, into hives of industry and success?
1392
I know that the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society has done something. I know that in the retail distributing side it has invaded the North of Scotland with some success, but that is mainly in the retail distributing side and not in the manufacturing side.
Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Member is putting before the Committee an entire distortion of what has taken place with the Co-operative Wholesale Society. I need mention only the immense development of industry on Tyneside by the English Co-operative Wholesale Society to demolish completely the point that the hon. Member is making.
Sir W. Darling: It is claimed—the mention of Robert Owen's name by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne brought it to my mind—that the Cooperative Wholesale Society and the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society have behind them an idealism and purpose which is not to be found in ordinary commerce.
I was remarking, I think with truth, that considering its enormous membership, considering the political power which it enjoys, considering the enterprise we may expect from it, we could turn to that important business enterprise. When hon. and right hon. Gentlement opposite complain that private enterprise has failed to develop in some areas as it might have done, we could ask that co-operative enterprise to do more. No other business enterprise has the backing of an important political party, and I am inclined to think that it could help in the duty of development of this sort, sadly neglected by these practical idealists in pursuit of a dividend, who have been not so careful of the ideals of their country and of themselves as they might have been. I put this suggestion because that enterprise has the finance and political backing, and it has the opportunity, and I should like to see it realised.
The future of the Development Areas, I think, should continue on the lines on which it has naturally proceeded. We have worked this experiment, and we are still working this experiment, very fully and completely. I do not think that any project which a Development Area has put up to the Board of Trade has me with rebuttal or refusal.

1393
The question was posed, what advantages are there in starting up a business in a Development Area? One hon. Member opposite said that, control of building having gone, the Government had no control over what happened in industry. There are, I would remind him, other controls which still exist, other advantages which still exist. If I want to start a new industry in a Development Area I can get financial help from the F.C.I. It is a very important thing in these days to get financial help, to get such financial help as has been given and is being generously given by the F.C.I., which, as the hon. Member knows, is partly supported by the insurance companies and the banks, and is partly supported by the Treasury.
If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) is thinking of strengthening Birkenhead, and if, among his ardent supporters, are persons of character and idealism which makes them willing to build a new factory in Birkenhead, he can tell them that there is no difficulty about building materials, and I can give him the information to pass on to them that, if they want more finance, which, I learn from Socialists, is also important, they can get it from F.C.I.
Mr. Collick: I was not unaware of the facilities provided under the Distribution of Industry Acts, but I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee what controls there are which prevent industry from being established elsewhere than in Development Areas.
Sir W. Darling: Development Areas have certain advantages. If I want to start a factory in Birkenhead, instead of starting it in Edinburgh, I shall have a certain advantage. If I start a factory in Edinburgh I have to find the money. I do not need to do that if I want to start a factory in Birkenhead. That is an advantage. That is an advantage which Birkenhead has over Edinburgh. I do not begrudge Birkenhead that advantage. Birkenhead has produced many famous men, and some of them have sat in this Committee.
Nor do I despair of humanity, as does the hon. Member. I believe that in Birkenhead there are men of ability and character who, properly stimulated, and not discouraged by lethal legislation, may be persuaded to make of Birkenhead
1394
something more than Birkenhead is today. Why should they not? Are all the great men dead? Has industry been smothered by Socialism? Is that what the hon. Member believes? Or is Birkenhead to be saved by the people of Edinburgh or of Bournemouth? Are they to go over to help Birkenhead? Is that the cry? Has Birkenhead lost the ability to help itself? I hope not. If the hon. Gentleman is going to tell that to his constituents he will not be able to lead them into this development which is so desirable.
There is another aspect of the question. There is a suggestion that we should build factories in anticipation of demand for them. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, who has left the Chamber, was very eloquent about the importance of erecting large numbers of factories all over the country whether we need them or not, and he said that if we did not need them for three months or six months or for a couple of years, that was nothing. It is an interesting suggestion, and there is something to be said for it. When the building trade, possibly, slackens, I for one should be quite willing to consider it.
I remember how, during the war, we had to build in Scotland storage to preserve necessary supplies for the people in the southern part of the county. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that to build factories in advance of the need may well be a policy for some distant time. However, what he overlooks, and what, I think, the Committee overlooks, is that if this sort of development of factories in advance has not been taking place it is not because the Government have been idle. We have been building houses, we have been building schools, we have been building hospitals.
If another policy had been followed, if we had been building factories in advance of the need for them, what would right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have said about the Government? They would have said that the Government had built factories for alien capitalists, for Americans to start businesses in distressed areas, empty factories standing idle, and requiring watchmen and all sorts of other labour to be absorbed in looking after them. The Government would have been blamed for having done that instead of having built houses and schools and hospitals.

1395
Instead of building factories in advance, the Government, in a measure which commands the admiration and envy of the Opposition, have been building houses by the tens of thousands. That is our achievement, and I think we may leave that to the consideration of the electors of Birkenhead—if I may return to them, for I am quite familiar with them by now—so that they may consider what relief they have had through this provision of houses, which they would not have been able to enjoy if the Government had followed the somewhat fantastic policy of building factories in advance.
On the whole, the policy of the Government has been a policy which any sensible man of affairs would have followed. If the problem of the distressed areas is urgent and demands drastic measures, then that is one consideration, but now they have largely been drawn into the general economy of the country, and I think that the future policy of the Board of Trade must be, not to direct special attention to special areas, but to direct its attention to the stimulus of industry all over the country, so that the upsurge already manifest, the upsurge represented by a figure of unemployment down to 2 per cent., will be increased, and so that factories are started not only in the old Development Areas but everywhere, as in the early days of the Industrial Revolution. Like the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North, I hope that the advance will be most noticeable in that part of the country which she and I have the honour to represent.
5.58 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: I gather from the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) that he is perfectly satisfied with the Government, their policy and their record. That does not surprise me, because he is always a loyal supporter of his party. The Parliamentary Secretary was so obviously satisfied with himself that it would have been extremely disloyal on the part of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South not have come to his support.
Sir W. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is a judge of disloyalty.
Mr. Silverman: Of course I am, and if that means that the hon. Member accepts
1396
what I say in the complimentary phrase in which it was offered I am delighted, because I can find nothing else to justify his speech but his loyalty to the Government.
Sir W. Darling: An admirable quality.
Mr. Silverman: There are other qualities which are necessary when we are dealing with the lives of human beings, other loyalties than loyalty to a particular Minister or a particular Government at a particular time, when there happens to be an election coming on.
I can quite understand why the hon. Member was eager to rush in. He does not represent a Development Area. He does not have to go to the City of Edinburgh to defend the Government's policy in the Development Areas, because the electors there are no more interested in them than he is himself, but if the hon. Member really believes one word of what he says—and he is far too intelligent a man for me to believe that that is possible—then I invite him to help me with a personal problem.
During an election there is a great drain upon intelligent and eloquent speakers, particularly when it comes to the end of the campaign. I am at my wits' end to find a suitable speaker at the eve-of-the-poll rally at Nelson and Colne, and if the hon. Baronet will come to Nelson and Colne on 25th May and speak at my eve-of-the-poll rally I can promise him an enthusiastic reception and an audience of 3,000.
The offer will remain open until 25th May. Whatever other offers I receive in the meantime, I promise him that I will accept any offer by him to persuade the electors in Nelson and Colne that the Government's policy in the Development Areas is satisfactory and deserves support. We will send him a car, or an aeroplane if he likes, and give him all the entertainment of whatever kind he prefers, Scottish or otherwise.
The Deputy-Chairman: I doubt whether these offers or counter-offers arise on the Vote.
Mr. Silverman: With great respect, Sir Rhys, if I may say so they are extremely relevant. The value of an argument has to be tested by the audience to which it is addressed and I am inviting the hon. Member to address his argument, in

1397
order to test its validity, to people who are concerned with this matter and not merely to people who want to make swashbuckling speeches in the House of Commons to get the Government out of a difficulty.
Sir W. Darling: The hon. Gentleman said it would be easy to make a speech in the City of Edinburgh on the subject as it is not a Development Area. I can tell him that the people of the City of Edinburgh often are aggrieved about the Government's distressed area policy because they are not allowed to expand their business—and I speak, for example, of an engineering works of which I am chairman.
Mr. Silverman: I am certain that all the areas in the country which are not Development Areas and which are represented by Conservative Members are satisfied with the Government's policy in Development Areas. Why should they not be? What I am saying is that the test is for the hon. Gentleman to persuade the people who are affected by these policies that they are right. That is the test: come and try it.
I had no intention at the beginning of the debate of taking part in it at all. It did not seem to me to be worth while. The answers of the Government about this problem, at the end of their term of office, when they are about to go out, are not nearly as important as they used to be, and the argument can be better addressed to the more sympathetic and more constructive minds of my right hon. and hon. Friends who will be sitting on the Government Benches in a month's time. If I take part in the debate at all it is because I was stimulated to do so by the speeches in defence of the Government—but not the speech of the hon. Member. It was the Minister's speech which shocked me into offering some contribution to the debate.
I do not want to say anything unnecessarily unkind. The Parliamentary Secretary has not been in the Department for very long. I think he has only once before had to defend the policy of his Department in a major debate in the House. I am not blaming him in the least for the way in which he addressed himself to his task, which I am sure was quite competent. If the case which he had to present sounded so lamentably
1398
inadequate I am content to agree that it was the facts which defeated him and not his ability in presenting them.
With great respect to him, I do not think he has ever addressed his mind to what this problem is. I do not believe for one moment that the Government as a whole or any Minister in it agrees with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South. The hon. Member is still living in the middle nineteenth century. He still agrees with Bright and Cobden—
Mr. Ede: (South Shields): Cobbett.
Mr. Silverman: No, Cobden. My right hon. Friend rightly corrects my history, but I think I am right in saying that those gentlemen were never members of the Conservative Party.
Mr. J. T. Price: I think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) agrees even more with Prince Kropotkin.
Mr. Silverman: I will not be led into those realms, If I were tempted to do so I do not think I should get very far.
The Conservative Government at no time and no Government this century have believed that we can safely leave the distribution of industry to the whim and fancy of entrepreneurs. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South can go on thinking so if he likes. He can make eloquent, attractive, swashbuckling speeches which give great entertainment to us, but they have nothing to do with the facts and do not agree with the opinion of any responsible politician.
Nobody believes that we can leave this alone. Nobody with any sense of social responsibility would tolerate for a moment the idea that we can leave all these matters to the private competition of individuals competing with one another and hope that the public benefit, as a kind of incidental by-product, will come out of it, although nobody is thinking of it and nobody is planning for it.
That is not the Government's case. The Government's case is that there are areas in the country which need special assistance in diversifying their industry, in some cases, or in attracting any kind of industry to them, in other cases. The Government feel that they are entitled to special assistance because of something or other in their nature, in the locality, in the historic or economic development,

1399
in the geographical surroundings, in the movement of world economic forces; and because, if we leave it to the industries being attracted to these areas by their own selfish interest, they will not be attracted and industries will not go there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) pointed out that when the Labour Government tried to improve and adapt to post-war conditions the Development Area legislation they retained in their hands the power to make it good. If one retains a power to control buildings, that is not as severe a sanction as to give oneself a power to direct industry to places, but it is a negative sanction in the same direction and a negative sanction can be just as effective as a positive sanction.
As one of their first acts, this Government abandoned that power, yet they retained the belief that industry, for other than purely commercial motives, must be attracted into those areas which, owing to their special circumstances, require special assistance. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South would have been in no difficulty. He says flatly, openly, without qualification of any kind, "If you do not succeed on your own commercial merits in attracting industry into your area, then go without."
If that were the Government's case we would be quite happy to meet them on that ground. But that is not the Government's case. The Government believe at one and the same time that they ought to assist Development Areas to attract industries which would not go there without that assistance and also that they must abandon the only power which they ever had to bring about that result. There has been no answer to this question, although several of my hon. Friends have pressed it: "If you do not control building and you do believe that there ought to be special powers in respect of Development Areas, what are the special powers which you have; and if you have none, what are the special powers which you propose to take?"
The Parliamentary Secretary apparently never thought of it at all. He makes speeches which I and some of my hon. Friends find extremely difficult to understand. I do not know whether they agree or disagree with earlier pronouncements from the Government on the same issue. I hope I am not being unfair, but
1400
the hon. Gentleman, in the answers which he offered, did not seem himself to know whether they agreed or disagreed with previous statements on Government policy. Has there, in fact, been a fall in the proportion of new buildings in Development Areas to new buildings in the country as a whole?
Mr. Willey: More than half.
Mr. Silverman: Is it possible to get a plain answer to that question by which the Government will stand?
At one time they were saying that 40 per cent. of new building was in the Development Area last year, but the hon. Gentleman presumably intended to be understood as speaking not of last year but of this year, and he said that the proportion is 18 per cent.? Is this a fact or not a fact? Is it admitted or denied that the Government, as a matter of State policy, have altered the ratio of new building in the Development Areas to new building elsewhere, and how have they done it without any control on building?
Sir W. Darling: By a free market.
Mr. Silverman: What does the hon. Member say?
Sir W. Darling: If the hon. Gentleman would allow me, let me tell him of two important industries started in Scotland outside Development Areas, Distillers at Grangemouth and Ferranti at Edinburgh. That was because of a free choice.
Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member has made his speech and I have said enough to convince him that I understood it the first time without his repeating it every second sentence of mine.
We know perfectly well—and this is the whole basis of the argument—that, if we leave it to free choice, then the people will go where they prefer and the pattern of industry to which we object will not be cured. We understand the hon. Member does not mind that, but, as I have already said, if the Government did not mind either then we would understand their case and would meet them on that ground, though we should not agree with it for a moment any more than we agree with the hon. Member.
That is not their case, however. They say they want to interfere. They do not

1401
think it ought to be left to free choice. They recognise that if we leave it to free choice we shall get a badly proportioned national industry, and some communities, through no fault of their own, will bear a bigger share than they ought to bear of setbacks in industry as a whole or in particular industries. What all of us are looking for, except the hon. Member, is some way of preventing that. What I am asking is, was it the Government's intention and did they deliberately produce the result which is not the result they said they wanted, not the result we wanted, but the result that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South wanted but which nobody else in the country wants?
I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say that the 18 per cent. which the new building in the Development Areas bears to the new building in the country as a whole, corresponds—I hope I have got this right—to the proportion of insurable population between the Development Areas and the rest of the country. If that is so, then, obviously, we get no advantage at all. The level is exactly the same. There is no discrimination in favour of the Development Areas when it is the hypothesis on which the policy is being advanced by the Government, and all of us say that there ought to be a discrimination in favour of the Development Areas.
If one has understood the Minister correctly, what has happened—if we have got it wrong it is not our fault; we are repeating what he has told us this afternoon—within the space of twelve months is that the Government have altered matters in such a way that whereas there used to be 40 per cent. building in the Development Areas as against 60 per cent. in all the rest of the country, that has now been reduced to 18 per cent. as against 82 per cent. everywhere else, so that the Development Areas no longer get an advantage at all.
If that is what the Government have done and if that is what the Government intend to do and are prepared to defend, why do they have an Act dealing with Development Areas at all? Why do they pretend to have a Development Area policy?
Mr. Anthony Greenwood: It is a confidence trick.
Mr. Silverman: I do not want to be too long about this, but I wish to go at once to the particular area in which I am interested. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) spoke just now with his great knowledge of the textile industry as a manufacturer of standing and of long experience in that particular trade. He dealt with this kind of situation as it affected his own constituency and he gave us some figures. He said that out of an insurable population of 50,000, 9,000 were employed in the textile trade. He thought that was a very serious proportion which entitled him to make representations to the Government about his area. He was quite right. I certainly have not a single word to say in dissent from his proposition, but if his figure is 9,000 out of 50,000 who earn their living out of the cotton industry, how much more is it true of an area in which 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of the insurable population are trying to make their living out of the cotton industry?
The Government, very belatedly, have recognised the difficulties. I have been here nearly twenty years. I spent a great part of my Parliamentary activities, together with other Lancashire Members, in the years before the war, trying to persuade the Government of those days to make Lancashire, or at any rate this part of it, what we used to call in those years a Special Area. They would not do it. It is true that my right hon. Friends when they were the Government between 1945 and 1950 did not do it either; but in those years there was no reason why they should. Those are the only five years in almost a hundred years when there has been no difficulty or unemployment or depression in the cotton industry at all.
But now there is. There is unemployment and there is short time, which is growing. The omens are not favourable. The trends show a rapidly worsening situation. I grant the Parliamentary Secretary that it is not a crisis yet. Do the Government intend to wait until it is before doing anything about it? Almost every day last week we were promised a Government statement about the position of Lancashire and the cotton trade before Parliament is dissolved. There are but three days left. Was the Minister's

1403
speech just now the Government's contribution to the solution of the difficulties of the cotton trade? He hardly mentioned it until he was reminded of it.
The Government, four years ago, at long last made this area the North-East Lancashire Development Area. Is the hon. Gentleman proud of the results? Does he know what they are? There is no answer; no enthusiasm, obviously. There is less enthusiasm in North-East Lancashire. My constituency—and everybody knows that it is as seriously placed in this matter as any other area in the whole of the land—has not profited one scrap or shred by the Order declaring North-East Lancashire a Development Area.
Mr. J. T. Price: Will my hon. Friend allow me to supplement that? My constituency is in the South Lancashire Development Area, which the Minister described in glowing and self-satisfied terms, and it, too, has not received one scrap of assistance from the Government in the whole of the four years during which I have had the honour to represent it in the House of Commons.
Mr. Silverman: There are other places about which, with equal accuracy, the same could be said. Some of my hon. Friends were jealous of us at the time. There was a little debate in the House of Commons when the Order was promulgated to make this a Development Area. There were many of my hon. Friends around me who represent neighbouring constituencies. They were very good about it. They were unselfish and comradely. They did not say a single word against North-East Lancashire having these vast advantages that the Government were offering; but they said that it was a pity that the area was so restricted.
They put in a plea for their own constituencies, many of which, though not quite so hard hit as some of those within the area, come so closely to it as to make the distinction hardly worth drawing. The debate was not one against the Order at all. It was an appeal by the excluded for a widening of the frontiers so that they could come in and share it with us. Share what? They need not have expended so much eloquence. We have got absolutely nothing whatever out of it—nothing at all.
1404
There has been much boasting from time to time by the President of the Board of Trade. He says, "Do not say that we have not done anything at all in North-East Lancashire; we have planned to build the biggest factory that has ever been built by the Government in the area." For four years they have planned to build something, but we have not got it yet; and when we do get it, where will it be? It will be at Simonstone. I am not begrudging it to them. Anyone who can get anything out of this Government is to be congratulated on having got it. It is in the extreme south-west tip of the area, in that part of it which is the least hard hit and in which industry was already rather better diversified than it is in most of the rest of the area; and it happens to be represented in the House of Commons by the only Conservative Member representing that part of Lancashire.
Is the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South now prepared to accept my invitation to come to defend the Government's record on Development Areas? The invitation still stands.
Sir W. Darling: When I do accept an invitation the hon. Gentleman protests that I am interrupting him. I will not be discourteous. He has invited me to come to Nelson and Colne and I invite him to come to South Edinburgh on the night before the poll.
Mr. Silverman: If an arrangement can be made, and both our Election agents will agree, I shall be delighted to speak in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, either on his platform or on anybody else's. I shall make the same speech whichever platform it is.
The Deputy-Chairman: Those speeches can be made some other time rather than on this Vote.
Mr. Silverman: I leave the point, Sir Rhys, but I say that, whether or not I am able to accept the invitation, if the hon. Gentleman accepts mine there will be no interruptions. He will be listened to with bated breath by as many people as we can crowd into the hall and in perfect silence—the silence of extreme wonderment and curiosity. In all their lives they will never have seen such an exhibition before.
These are the hard facts of the situation. Whatever may be said about the

1405
policy on Development Areas generally, I do not think anybody can argue that where we have a constituency or an area which has all its eggs in one basket—where the sole trade, as with the cotton trade, is an industry which cannot look forward to the same kind of virtual world monopoly that it had in the early days fifty or a hundred years ago—there is absolutely no intelligible argument against Government assistance, Government direction, planned, deliberate, Government policy, in order to diversify industry. Power to do it was given four years ago, but the Government have done just nothing whatever about it ever since.
It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to get up in this Committee and become a kind of Billy Graham of Conservative politics, using a quiet, gentle, persuasive self-hypnotism with the hope that, somehow or other, it will spread and that people will forget their troubles and say, "Well, after all, for the moment, at any rate, things do not seem so bad." I tell him that in Lancashire the people are more realistic than that, that they are harder-headed than that, and that if the Government lose very heavily in the General Election in Lancashire, as I for one hope and believe they will, they will have only themselves to blame.
6.28 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Willey: I wish to speak about the North-East Development Area and I start by saying that we are bitterly disappointed at the attitude of the Government towards this area. We have suffered badly in the past few years. The Government banned the utilities and services schemes which had already been prepared. Water and sewerage schemes were banned by the Government and they were scrapped.
In addition, we have had the loss of priority for the Tyne tunnel and the scrapping of the Boldon airport scheme. All this has happened under the Conservative Government and, worst of all, we have had a miserable deal from successive Ministers of Transport on road schemes. We have seen both Ministers of Transport and absolutely failed to get a square deal for the North-East. I had the disappointing job of pressing the President of the Board of Trade for over a year when we had two factories vacant in Sunderland, and could not get a spark
1406
of enterprise from the Board of Trade. The factories were vacant until we were fortunate enough to get a couple of tenants, but meanwhile—and I would stress this to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling)—the women who worked in the factories had to leave the town to find work elsewhere or to "sign on" for the dole. That is what has happened in Sunderland.
We are now convinced that of all the areas affected by the 4½ per cent. Bank Rate increase, the North-East will be as badly hit as any. And why? We are shipbuilders, and ships are built on borrowed money. We have these new enterprises in the North-East expanding on borrowed money. They are now prejudiced, and that is why I am surprised and shocked to observe that throughout the whole of this debate we have not for one minute had the attendance of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams).
I can understand the hon. Member's sense of immediate insecurity and its distractions. But I should have thought that, as he has done his best to upset many of the efforts we have made in the North-East he would have been here to render his account today. I should have thought that, at least, he would be taking this opportunity to say something on behalf of those in Sunderland and the North-East.
The Parliamentary Secretary talked of advance factories. What is the position in Sunderland? Half the factories there—this is no exaggeration—are no longer occupied by the original tenants. We had the assurance of an advance factory for Sunderland, but when this Government came into office we lost it. That is what this Government have done for the North-East. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and other hon. Members, it is clear that the Government now admit, through a Parliamentary Secretary—who has had no responsibility; he is not responsible for what has happened but has been honest enough to admit it—that they no longer have a Development Area policy.
The best that the hon. Gentleman can say is that as many factories are being built in the Development Area as in the rest of the country. That is not a

1407
Development Area policy. A Development Area policy means that more factories are being built in the Development Areas. In Sunderland and elsewhere in the North-East Development Area we have double the national rate of unemployment. I felt sorry for the hon. Gentleman when he quoted figures. I will quote another figure. When, at last, the President of the Board of Trade saw the Northern group of Labour Members—after shilly-shallying, and he has not yet seen the representatives of the Durham County Council—he was as urbane as usual, and pleased with himself, and he wrote to me afterwards, putting it on record. That is what he said:
"Between 1948 and 1953 the numbers in employment for the Development Area "—
that is, our own North-East Development Area—
"increased by about 36,000."
Well, of course, he was right, but I have asked for the figures each quarter, and what is the position? Out of that 36,000, 35,500 were provided with employment under the Labour Government. Out of that 36,000, this Government provided employment for 352.
If we give this Government credit for all that they have done during the past three years, and bring the figures up to date, whereas, in the three years prior to the General Election, we provided employment for 35,000, this Government have provided employment for 1,500—the figures are in HANSARD. I asked for the figures every quarter. That is the measure of the Government's Development Area policy. The increase under the Labour Government was nearly thirty times the rate of that under the Conservative Government, and all this Government can say is, "Well, we are not doing anything to damage you in the Development Area. You are no worse off than anyone else in the country." That was the burden of the Parliamentary Secretary's speech.
We are worse off than the rest of the country. For the last few years we in Sunderland have been running at a figure of 4,000 unemployed, rather more or less. That is why we want new factories. That is why we cannot tolerate factories being left idle and vacant. In case the Parliamentary Secretary thinks that I am being too extreme in what I am saying, I will
1408
call his attention to the recently published Report of the North-East Industrial and Development Association. These are some of the points it makes. I quote from the Report and would like the hon. Gentleman to answer these points. It states that in textiles, clothing, and electrical goods, unemployment has shown a tendency to rise.
What have the Government done about it? How is aid through Government contracts for firms in the North-East working? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that today there is acute anxiety in the furniture factories where overtime has stopped and where some will be working short-time? What is he doing about it? I quote again from the Report
"The female unemployment rate in the North-East remains unduly high."
Those are not my words. What are the Government doing about it? What are they doing to help the women in the North-East? The Report states that as far as male unemployment is concerned
"it widened slightly in the first seven months of 1954. A contributory factor was the slack time experienced by the ship repairing industry in the winter and spring."
What have the Government done about it? What have the Government done to help us with shipbuilding on Wearside and Tyneside? We had all the difficulties when they bungled the steel allocations but this Report points out that we are being prejudiced in comparison with Tees-side and I want to know what the Government propose to do. I am not prepared to stand idly by and hear the Government say," Well, it is true that your unemployment figure is higher than the rest of the country, but it is not very high." That is an attitude which we in the North-East cannot tolerate. We say, "Why, therefore, have you stopped all these development schemes, these projects which we had in the North-East?"
I will conclude by dealing with the case of Sunderland. That is a matter which directly affects the Government, because the Government built the factories. In Sunderland, we have 1,000 fewer people working in these factories than when this Government took office; and that, in spite of the fact that before this Government took office we brought the Bristol Aeroplane Company to Sunderland. I will give the figures—they are all in HANSARD, because each quarter I asked for them. In September, 1951,

1409
there were 5,544 people engaged in the Trading Estate factories in Sunderland. On 28th August last year that figure had fallen to 4,081 a drop of 1,500.
This is not even a case of saying that we run in line with the rest of the country. Here we have factories in which the Government invested their money and yet by midsummer last year—the latest figure we have—these factories were employing 1,500 fewer people than before. I have not yet the later figures from the Trading Estate Company, but I assume that the figures have recently improved. At a time when we were employing 1,500 fewer people than when they took office, this Government did nothing at all. They said that it was up to private industry, private enterprise, to come and help us in the North-East. Today, if we survey Development Area policy, what do we find? In the North-East as a whole, whereas we were increasing employment by 10,000 to 15,000 a year, under this Government there has been an increase of a few hundreds a year, and indeed the numbers employed in the Government factories in Sunderland have fallen since this Government took office.
I can think of no greater indictment of this Government, and when I heard the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South I could see why. There are far too many back benchers in the party opposite hagridden by free enterprise and worrying the Government. That is why there has been this dramatic change in the Development Area policy. That is why we in the North-East are worried, and it is probably because of that anxiety that the hon. Member for Sunderland. South is not in his place today.
6.40 p.m.
Mr. Niall Macpherson: I regret that the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) is not in her place, because she began her speech by giving some very highly selective unemployment figures for Scotland. She took the latest figure for unemployment in Scotland and compared it with an annual average. The hon. Lady must know that unemployment is always at its highest at this time of the year. Indeed, in July, 1954, unemployment in Scotland was the second lowest figure for that time of year since the war. The hon. Lady should also know that that was after the figure for February, 1954,
1410
was very much higher than it is now—about 10,000 higher. Therefore, we might easily have, and, indeed, we hope to have, at least the same recovery this year as we had last year.
The hon. Lady also referred to possible huge developments in the Development Areas in Scotland. I should have thought that she would have known the facts here, too. For example, in the Annual Report of the Clydesdale and North of Scotland Bank, Ltd., a copy of which I believe all hon. Members received, is given a very detailed account of the many new factories completed in Development Areas, including extensions and factories projected at the present time. I have the list here, and it is a very impressive one.
There is the question, of course, whether all the development should be concentrated in Development Areas. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) laid claim for a much larger proportion of new factories than are now being built in Development Areas. It is interesting to note that the Scottish Council for Development and Industry reached the following conclusion:
"It is the firm conviction of the Executive Committee that the Government's distribution of industry policy requires modification "—
this is a non-party Committee—
"to meet conditions which are very different from what they were at the conclusion of the Second World War, and that the criterion in providing facilities for development at the public expense should be … the general advantage of the community as a whole, irrespective of geographical location."
That being so, it is doubtful whether the present policy, so far as Scotland is concerned, is the right one. In actual fact, the proportion of new building in Development Areas in Scotland, according to the figures given in the Report of the Clydesdale and North of Scotland Bank, Ltd., are well maintained at the present time, or were at any rate up to the time of the latest figures given in that Report.
Then there is the marginal question, which is one that concerns the constituency which I have the honour to represent. The Lanarkshire Development Area comes down just into Dumfriesshire and stops on one side of the railway line in the middle of a town. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) spoke about areas with all

1411
their eggs in one basket. In his case, the eggs were made of cotton, whereas, in this instance, mine are made of coal. It is the Sanquhar and Kirkconnel district, a coal mining area, in which there is a shortage of employment for women and a lack of diversification of employment, which is always a difficulty, the more so because miners are coming into the area from Lanarkshire, where they have been accustomed to a certain amount of diversification of employment for both themselves and their families.
The fact that diversification of employment does not exist in the Sanquhar and Kirkconnel area means that people may have to go 24 to 28 miles into Dumfries to find employment. That is not always a very agreeable prospect, especially in the depth of winter. Therefore, there is a strong case for marginal adjustments being made to the boundaries of Development Areas.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne also spoke about the need for some form of Government direction in order to get industry to the place where it is most needed. What is to be the form of that direction? During the last few days I have been told of an industry which was virtually directed to go to a certain place. It pointed out that to go there would mean increasing its transport charges very heavily indeed and thus rendering it non-competitive. In the end, it did not go there.
Can we direct firms to go to places in which it is not economic for them to manufacture? We know, of course, that it is possible to make concessions in respect of rent in the early years of factories built by the development estates. That represents a certain aid in the early stages when a factory is seeking to establish itself.
I very much wonder whether a more fundamental solution to the problem is not required. After all, there are many boroughs and towns throughout the country—generally speaking, of medium size—which have strong local traditions. It is in such places that it is to the advantage of the country as a whole to maintain and stimulate the life, and it is necessary to ensure that they will not gradually die.
It seems that in Scotland, at any rate, there is a tendency for labour to be drawn
1412
just from those very places into the Development Areas. We start by bringing work to the people in the Development Areas, and then, at a certain time, the work may well exceed the capacity of the local people and more people have to be drawn in. For example, how many Italians are unemployed at Trostre in South Wales at present?
Miss Herbison: Has the hon. Gentleman any evidence to prove that any of the Development Areas in Scotland have been drawing people from the small towns? I think that his point is a valid one, say, for example, in the Border areas and elsewhere, but does he know of any Development Area in Scotland where there is no unemployment at present?
Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Lady has asked two wholly distinct questions. Certain types of industry will attract certain types of people to them, and I know of people who have been drawn away in that fashion. What I am saying is that, for the life of the country as a whole, it is important to reinforce the life of these medium-sized towns.
What are the difficulties? There are difficulties of technical training and the acquirement of skill. If we are to direct factories to Development Areas, we must quite clearly do two things. We must ensure in the early days, when that skill is being acquired, that during the development period the firm does not go bankrupt. It must be supported in those early days, and I doubt whether a mere concession in the matter of rent is sufficient to enable that result to be obtained. We must also make certain that technical education is greatly strengthened in these smaller places. This task is being pursued just now, but there is still room for great progress.
I urge the Government to consider the two points which I have made: first, that there should be marginal extension of development areas, where reasonable, and, secondly, that additional encouragement might be given other than the temporary remission or reduction of rent in the early stages of the life of a factory.
6.50 p.m.
Mr. Granville West: The Parliamentary Secretary has had a difficult time today. I think we can find it in our hearts to be a little sorry for

1413
him, because he is newly come to his office and has to try to deal with the deficiencies of his predecessor and the complete absence of a policy on the part of the President of the Board of Trade. We are grateful for him for one thing; at long last he has given us what we now recognise to be the policy of the Tory Government in relation to Development Areas.
My hon. Friends and I have been trying for a long time to find out from the Government what that policy was. In November last, during a debate upon Welsh affairs, I quoted a speech made by Sir Percy Thomas, who was then the Chairman of the Welsh Board for Industry, and who had said that now that building licences had been withdrawn the attraction of new industries would depend upon the zeal and enthusiasm of local people, and that that would have to be the spur. I dealt with that point in the course of the debate and asked the Minister whether that was the true position. We have never had an answer to that question until today—and now the Parliamentary Secretary has told us that the only policy pursued by the Government has been one of persuasion.
I should like to know how the Government have been implementing that policy. The zeal and enthusiasm of local people—as the Parliamentary Secretary knows—has been demonstrated, at any rate by my constituents in Blaenavon, who have been to see his predecessor on innumerable occasions. We demonstrated the grievous situation which exists in Blaenavon to such an extent that, in the end, the hon. Gentleman's predecessor refused to see our delegations. Nothing has been done. Some correspondence and telegrams passed between the President of the Board of Trade and myself, and in one of the letters the President promised to visit Blaenavon to see the conditions, but he has not done so.
What have the Government been doing in their policy of persuasion? We have been trying to persuade the Government to do something, but as far as we know they have not done a single thing. Is it a fact that instead of persuading industrialists to come to Blaenavon the Board of Trade have dissuaded one industrialist from doing so?
Mr. Kaberry: That is not correct.
Mr. West: I am very glad to hear that, because we know, and he knows, that there was an industry upon which the town depended and which has been closed during the period of this Government's office.
It may not be within the knowledge of the Parliamentary Secretary, but there was a time when the undertaking which was in operation in Blaenavon had as much as £500,000 worth of orders upon its books and ready to complete, provided that it could get some money to carry it over. Application was made to the Government under the Distribution of Industry Acts for assistance to enable it to do so, but it was not forthcoming. The result was that the industry was closed; the orders were lost, and the people were thrown out of employment.
The hon. Member has talked about the increase of employment and of the good employment position both in the Development Areas and the country as a whole, but he has not said that his figures do not show the large number of skilled men who have had to take up inferior jobs, such as labouring. The fact that these thousands of skilled men are having to take up unskilled jobs is a great disadvantage not only to them and to their locality, but to the nation.
The Government have not done a single thing to help the town of Blaenavon. Very shortly after being appointed to his present post the Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to see a deputation from that town. That deputation had seen the Chairman of the National Coal Board, who graciously received us and listened to our case. We hoped that the Coal Board would be able to help us. While in London we were determined that, in one way or another, we would try to have another interview with the President of the Board of Trade, even if we had to be turned out. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for seeing us in the House of Commons, thus preventing that unfortunate occurrence.
The Parliamentary Secretary was very sympathetic, but we have had expressions of sympathy from the Board of Trade time and time again, and not a thing has been done. We want to know why the Government have not done something to save this town. We have demonstrated that the population is dwindling, that

1415
local government services will become impossible, and that the churches have been holding meetings to deplore the fact that church membership is falling because people have to go out of the district to find employment. All this means that Blaenavon is becoming a derelict town, and this has been happening since the Government have been in office.
The Parliamentary Secretary will not be able to do anything about it in the short time left to him in this Parliament. All I can say, speaking in the closing stages of this Parliament on behalf of Blaenavon, is that we condemn the Government for their inaction and hope that very soon we shall have a Government which will do something to help us.
6.58 p.m
Mr. William Hannan: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) has now left the Chamber. He said one or two things which I should have liked to take up in his presence, but I do not think that anyone will grudge me the opportunity of putting something upon the record, which he may read tomorrow.
He seemed to take my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) to task for selecting certain figures. Even if he was true in that, it is not an unknown practice in the House, and it did not seem to me that there was very much in it. I was more interested when he went on to say that there was a need for a departure from the policy laid down by the Distribution of Industry Acts, in the sense that their provisions should be extended to wider areas. That was also the theme of the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Scotstoun (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison). Their point seemed to be that the building of new factories in the Development Areas—especially in Scotland—was now approximating to the building of new factories in the rest of the country.
If any criticism is to be directed by hon. Members opposite, it should be directed at the Government for not accepting the proposals of the Cairncross Committee, which proposed that Government help should be extended to the building of factories in areas throughout Scotland, and not necessarily only in the Development Area. It became apparent,
1416
from an answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) on 5th February, that the area and value of factories built in 1951 as compared with 1952 was so astounding that they ought to be drawn to public attention. In 1951, the area of factories which had actually been started was 3,449,000 square feet, whereas in 1952 that figure had slumped to 949,000 square feet. I think that in those two figures alone, the contrast between the former policy of the Labour Government and that of the present Government is to be seen.
In the Report on Industry and Employment in Scotland for 1954, the claim is made that more new factory building was approved in that year than in any year since 1946. What it fails to state is that in the two years prior to that the figures were extremely small, and, indeed, it takes the figures for the last three years to equal those for the two previous years of 1951 and 1950. Moreover, it is a great compliment to the Labour Government's activities that the Report has to go back to 1946, the first year after the war, with all its attendant difficulties, when over 6 million square feet was assented to in that year.
The figures of unemployment in Scotland have probably been already quoted, but I want to make one comparison. The monthly average of unemployment from 1949 to 1951 in Scotland was 60,068. The average unemployment figure from 1952 to 1954 was 64,500. In February of this year, the unemployment figure was still 62,177. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will be aware that while the average unemployment figure for the whole of the country is 1· 3 per cent., in Scotland it is 2· 9 per cent.—
Wing Commander Eric Bullus: Smaller than it has ever been.
Mr. Hannan: —which is more than double the average for the whole of the country.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State cannot avoid the fact that in West Renfrew the unemployment figure is 5 per cent., and that within that average there are some areas which still need more attention. He knows, as well as anyone else, how concentrated industry is in Scotland. We have practically all our heavy industry concentrated within 1,000 square miles.

1417
The charge which some of us want to make against the Government is this—that whereas, in the past, the need for labour supply compelled employers and industrialists to go to the Development Areas where the Government had built factories and where, in Scotland, we were very glad to receive them, these pressures, due to the action of the post-war Government, do not now exist to the same degree; and, therefore, comes the new argument from hon. Members on that side as well as on this side that some attention ought to be paid to the other areas outside that industrial belt.
The Cairncross Committee did, as the Joint Under-Secretary knows, make proposals which would have helped that situation, but the Government turned down the Report of the Committee. More recently, we had an example of how the Government could have helped in the spreading out of industry and breaking up the concentration if they had acted in the spirit of the New Towns Act at Cumbernauld, where industry could have been helped exactly in the way which the hon. Member for Dumfries and others have been suggesting.
These things we still require to wait for another Government to achieve. It is not merely in the economic field that the Government have failed, but in carrying out the great social purpose of the Distribution of Industry Act and of the New Towns Act which would have helped Scotland particularly, and we hope that when the new Government is returned—which will be a Labour Government—they will get on with the great job of rebuilding many of these neglected areas of our country.
7.6 p.m.
Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I am sure that we are all delighted at the great change which has come over the Development Areas, remembering our pre-war experience of them and what has happened since the war. We all realise with joy and delight, what it has meant to people living in those areas. I believe that one needs to live in a Development Area to understand that. But while we have seen this great change, and have gloried in it, it is true to say that many problems are still left, such as those which many of my hon. Friends have been raising, and that the gains which have been made could very easily be lost.
1418
I want, first, to emphasise that this great development in the Development Areas, and the great change that has taken place, are due essentially to the acceptance of the propriety of Government intervention and positive Government planning for employment. It seems to me that the paramount issue on all this has been the acceptance by the Labour Government of responsibility for providing employment in areas where that responsibility was never accepted in the past.
The change in which we glory is due to that positive view about the rô le of the Government in relation to industry. It is that very issue and the proper planning of our resources and the proper use of Government machinery which lie at the root of the difference in attitude between the two sides of the Committee. It is natural that there should be continuing real anxiety about the attitude of the Government when it is well known that the Government reject the whole of that basic philosophy and do not accept the view of those wishing for a positive rô le of the Government in industrial planning and development.
I think it is right to call attention, as some of my hon. Friends have done, to a few of the remaining problems which still cause us anxiety in our own industrial areas. For example, while we are delighted that there was great development almost entirely in the period of office of the Labour Government, nevertheless it is true that today these areas, particularly the North-Eastern Development Area, still depend very largely on the same basic industries as they depended on years ago, before the war.
Diversification has made great changes, but has not yet come to an end. There are still more things to be done. The high level of employment in those areas is very much dependent on the present level of arms production. We all hope that at a not-too-far-distant date it may be possible to limit concentration on arms production, but it is right that we should think about areas like this, which are so largely dependent on arms production work. Realising the value of the employment that has been provided, especially in the years immediately after the war, we need to keep that point clearly in mind.

1419
Now I wish to refer to the valuable Report issued by the North-East Industrial Development Association, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) referred earlier in the debate, and to mention a very striking paragraph. It says:
"During the last three years for which figures are available,"—
which includes 1953—
"the Region had an unfavourable balance of migration. This was in contrast to the position in the preceding seven years."
That means that there was a net inflow of insured population into the North-East Region during the seven years just after the war, and a subsequent net outflow.
This migration of insured workers calls to our mind bitter memories, and if it begins to appear again it will be a matter for anxiety. I do not want to exaggerate. The present drift of population is nothing like that which we experienced before the war, when the life-blood of areas like this was drained away. Nothing of that sort is happening, but there has been some migration of insured workers out of this area.
There has also been a fall in male employment, although there has been an increase in female employment. We should keep these matters under careful investigation. Quite apart from the desirability of other areas sharing industrial development, it is important that in areas of the size and significance of the northeast area, upon which the whole country very much depends, the proper proportion of skilled workers should be retained. A proper proportion of male workers should also be retained in the area. We would not dream of compelling people to stay in particular areas, but it is a matter for serious thought and consideration if industrial workers are pulled very strongly away from the areas where they live. I should be glad to know where consideration is being given to the matter.
We still have on Tyneside a considerable pocket of unemployed men and women. That is a matter for anxiety, and we all wish to put it right. I am not pretending that the figure has grown, but as long as there is a reservoir of unemployed people we must be concerned about it. It is fair to add that, while there is that reservoir of unemployed, in some industries there is a shortage of
1420
certain types of skilled workers, who have been attracted away to other districts. This is a cause for complaint by important industries, who might be able to take more unskilled labour if more of the skilled labour were available that they need.
This matter may be outside the scope of the Board of Trade, but not of the Ministry of Labour. I hope that this Ministry will consider whether the period of National Service and the effects of the call-up have any bearing on the problem of retaining skilled men in certain industries which need every encouragement at this time.
The Government appear to be too complacent about this position. While we welcome the great changes that have taken place, we ought to recognise that they were brought about by the positive intervention of the Labour Government in these areas immediately after the war. We should be glad to know that the Government are keeping in touch with the developments which have been mentioned in this debate and that they will give attention to the points which I have raised.
7.16 p.m.
Mr. J. T. Price: I intervene in this debate because I have been strongly tempted to break a lance with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling). I am sorry that he is no longer in his place. He delivered from the Government benches a speech which contained the most complete defence of anarchy that I have ever heard. I could not be so unfair as to suggest that the views expressed were those of Her Majesty's Government, but I am entitled to suggest that some of the actions of the present Government during the past three and a half years are a clear indication that their basic policy rests upon anarchy and upon nothing else.
That may be a very strong statement, in a Parliament in which most of us pride ourselves upon being good democrats. Nevertheless, all informed opinion admits that unregulated and uncontrolled industrial development, such as is seen in the great conurbations of London, Manchester and Birmingham, is not only an economic menace but an even greater strategic menace in time of war. Those of us who represent constituencies of that character

1421
are greatly concerned with the problem, because it is apparent that the continued growth of these conurbations spells disaster to the older industrial areas.
Ever since the passing of the Distribution of Industry Act we have recognised that it has had no effect and has failed to do its job. The hon. Member pointed out that the historical growth of industry in this country had very often begun with the individual whims and decisions of private families who started industries in a small way, and then, with great enterprise and initiative, developed them into very great industries. There has been a continuous multiplication of that development over the 150 years since the Industrial Revolution, and now we are faced with the complex and conflicting problem of having pockets of population which are out of all proportion to the needs of the rest of the country.
Let me for a moment deal with that part of Lancashire which I have the honour to represent—the south Lancashire area, adjacent to the old Wigan coal field. That coal field is rapidly diminishing as a source of supply; the seams are gradually being worked out after generations of active exploitation. In Westhoughton alone 24 coal mines are closed and flooded, with millions of tons of coal left underground, coal which cannot be won because of the cost of the apparatus necessary to restore those pits to their former state.
In that area, which has been a Development Area since about 1943, nothing whatever of a practical nature—apart from one scheme initiated by a Labour Government—has been done by the Board of Trade to assist my constituents. I admit that the Government have had no positive powers of direction of industry. It must be understood also that the natural complement of directing industry in particular localities is the direction of labour in particular localities, which most of us do not like facing at all. In times of peace we think it undesirable to direct labour, but were my constituents faced with the prospect of being largely unemployed because industry had left the area, I would much prefer some kind of direction of labour to useful and remunerative employment than that people should, by force of hunger, be compelled to go to other parts of the country or to the Colonies.
1422
As I say, nothing has been done for that area, and I am entitled to protest, and to continue to protest against the fact that—in a part of Lancashire which has been the basis upon which much of our commercial prosperity and supremacy was originally built—as the original industries the out there is nothing to take their place.
I am very glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service because I know that he is genuinely and deeply interested in this question. Nevertheless, I must point out that every time I have drawn the attention of the Board of Trade to its failure to take effective steps to bring suitable diversification of industry to my part of Lancashire I have always received the reply, either from that Box or in correspondence, that there is really very little unemployment in my constituency—that it is only 2· 1 per cent. in Westhoughton, 2· 6 per cent. in Aspull, and only 3 per cent. in some other parts. Actually while the correspondence was going on, it was 9 per cent. in the Hindley area—but let that pass.
I tell the Parliamentary Secretary now that whatever Administration is elected in a few weeks from now—whether it is of the party which I support or of the party opposite—I shall continue to urge that it is completely anti-social and against the best interests of the country, both morally and economically, that whole populations should be forced to travel as far as 20 miles a day to find employment. It is quite beyond the bounds of reason for the President of the Board of Trade to tell me that because unemployment is low there is no need to have new industries in the area.
Is the Minister of Labour confounded by the failure to get suitable labour in certain areas—particularly in the munition areas where there is over-employment—while in an area like mine, according to the local office of the Ministry of Labour, over 40 per cent. of the working population is compelled to travel up to 20 miles a day to find work in another town, with all the complications of traffic, the risk of road accidents, and the loss of wages suffered by workers who must spend part of their wage packet on transport to their work?
Nothing has been allowed in the Budget to compensate those people. As

1423
this is a debate on Supply I might fairly make this point. Nothing has been provided in the Budget by way of relief in the fuel tax on road transport to compensate those people who, because of the failure of the Government adequately to protect their working conditions, have to pay excessive fares. This problem will not be solved overnight. I do not suggest that either a Tory or a Labour Government could find a solution quickly, but I do complain that in the last four years nothing has been done by the Government to give any kind of solace to those whom I represent.
I referred in my opening sentences to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, who so often entertains us with his witticisms and the rather eccentric contributions which we all so much enjoy. Those contributions are usually made from the point of view of the successful entrepreneur who has successfully delved into all kinds of industrial and financial activities. None of us grudge the hon. Member that, but if it is to be seriously put forward that that kind of anarchistic policy is right for this nation, faced as it is with fiercer and fiercer international competition, we on this side of the Committee are entitled to dissent from that view in the strongest possible manner.
I should have hoped that, with the relatively full employment which we have had, the Government would have had a breathing space in which to overtake some of the arrears of industrial building which has been neglected for so long. I greatly sympathise with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) that, not only in the Development Areas, but in many sections of the old industrial areas which do not carry a Development Area certificate, thousands of people are working in worn-out buildings which are nothing more than industrial slums.
Finally, I would make the appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary that when he replies to the debate he should attempt to give some indication that—even though the Government may be on the eve of political defeat, as many of us hope—they have not given up the ghost in searching for a rational policy for the development of industry. This country cannot tolerate for many more generations the unregulated growth of London, of all
1424
cities. Many of us love London for its great historic and artistic associations. Nevertheless, it has now reached a size which means that traffic cannot move, people cannot breathe and many cannot even make a living honestly. [Interruption.] One of my hon. Friends considers that that observation is a little subtle, so I had better not expand it.
This Committee, as representing the people who elected us, is entitled to demand that some programme should be drawn up, either by this Government or their successors, which in future will regulate better than we now do the distribution of industry and the provision of work in those areas where such provision is now lacking.
7.31 p.m.
Mr. E. Fernyhough: The story which my hon. Friends have told in the last hour applies equally to my division. Whilst it is true that on every occasion on which I have met the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour or the predecessor of the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade they have listened with sympathy to my pleas on behalf of my division for further work to be provided to deal with the abnormally high unemployment there, I am bound to say their influence has miserably failed to bring to Jarrow the employment which it needs.
Last Tuesday I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade how many factories had been built in Jarrow up to October, 1951, and how many had been built since. He told me that 18 factories, covering 480,000 square feet, had been built under the Labour Government and since the present Administration came in their total had reached 12,000 square feet. In other words, we built 40 times more than they have built.
One of the things which has most disturbed me is that the party opposite recently issued a broadsheet in which they spoke of unemployment in Jarrow before the war as a myth, and in a caption over one of their photographs they used the words, "Booming Jarrow." I wonder what sort of state a country has to be in for it to be booming? If the measure of unemployment in Jarrow today were prevalent throughout the country there would be one million unemployed. I hope that neither the Parliamentary

1425
Secretary to the Ministry of Labour nor the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade think that if we had one million unemployed in this country it would be right to talk about the country booming.
The average unemployment in my division in all the post-war years—including, of course, the years when we were in power, but we were making efforts to remedy it—has been substantially above the national average. One of the biggest problems with which we still have to contend is the question of employment for women. That today is a paramount need.
I think the present Government threw away one of the strongest weapons they had in their hands when they decided to do away with licensing. So long as licences had to be given before any building could be undertaken it was obviously possible for the Government to say, "You can erect a factory here, but we shall not give you a licence to erect one there." It was a formidable weapon. Used with common sense and discretion, it could gradually have taken employment into those areas where it was most needed. But what have the Government done? They have swept away all controls and licensing.
There is a firm in my division—I do not want to mention its name—which came there 18 years ago. The parent body was in Birmingham. Last year that firm intimated that it had now expanded the Birmingham works and would close its Jarrow works. Since then it has rescinded that decision, and for the time being the works remain in Jarrow. But we have a situation in which, in Birmingham, there are 10 jobs vacant for every man signing on at the employment exchange, yet, under this free system, expansion is allowed in that city.
What are the consequences? They are that Birmingham wage rates are forced up all round. Obviously that could be partially remedied by the Government, but the Government were so anxious to allow the former Minister of Housing and Local Government to build 300,000 houses a year that they said, "We are not concerned about new factories in the Development Areas." The Government deserve to lose the Election because of the indifference which they have shown to the needs of the Development Areas. Under Labour, folks living in those areas were given hope and were given back
1426
their self-respect. They felt once more that they had something to live for. This Government have utterly neglected to carry forward the great work which Labour started in the Development Areas. For that reason, if for no other, they do not deserve the confidence of the people on 26th May.
7.38 p.m.
Mr. Ness Edwards: We have been discussing an extremely serious matter this afternoon. In effect, we have been discussing the life and hopes of nearly 1 million people—more than ¼ million unemployed men and women and their dependants. It is surprising that in this debate ten back benchers on this side of the Committee have spoken and three hon. Members opposite. Does that reflect the basic considerations which motivate the parties? Is it an indication that this side of the Committee is much more concerned about the conditions of the people than hon. Members opposite?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who was making his first main speech as a Minister, has had the unfortunate experience of having no one at all to agree with him. No one on this side of the Committee agreed with him. From his own side, he had two hon. Members who said that the Development Area policy ought to be modified. Apparently, the hon. Gentleman did not think so himself. There was nothing in his brief to indicate modifications.
The hon. Gentleman had the very doubtful support of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), who said, "let the Development Areas stew in their own juice. Let them solve their own problems. Leave the industrial enterprise man to go where he likes, irrespective of his social responsibility." That is the position and it was rather significant, I thought, that in what he had to say the Parliamentary Secretary had no support whatever from anyone in the Committee. It is very unfortunate that the Government's concern for the Development Areas has been expressed in the absence of a senior Minister on the Government Front Bench throughout the debate.
The last time that we had a debate of this sort, we did get the President of the Board of Trade himself to speak. If the

1427
Parliamentary Secretary compares the President's speech then with his own today, he will find very substantial differences. As the hon. Gentleman was reminded, the President was talking about modifications in 1953; he was anxious to do something. All that the Parliamentary Secretary has been able to do this afternoon—I do not blame him—is simply to express a lot of generalities. He showed a complacency which was very surprising.
It is very easy to bury the tragedies of our economy under general averages, to say that unemployment is lower than it has ever been and to ride off on that sort of theme. This afternoon, my hon. Friends have got under the umbrella of general averages and have brought out the Jarrows, the Nelsons and Colnes, the Sunderlands and the Birkenheads. They have brought out the real tragedies which exist in those areas and which any Government worth their salt ought to be facing.
I agree that we must look at the general averages, but we must not let them blind us to the great amount of work which has yet to be done. The Parliamentary Secretary himself pointed out that the average unemployment in Great Britain today is 1· 3 per cent. In Scotland, it is 2· 9 per cent.—I am using the March figures—and in Wales it is 2· 3 per cent. Said in that way, it does not sound very much, but there are 60,000 men and women in Scotland without jobs and 20,000 without jobs in Wales; and unemployment in those parts of the country is very much worse than in other areas of Britain.
Those averages also hide something else. In London and the South-Eastern area, the average unemployment is · 8 per cent. In the Eastern region, it is 1· 3 per cent.; in the Southern region, 1 per cent., and in South-Western 1· 4 per cent. In the Midlands it is · 5 per cent.; North Midlands, · 7 per cent.; East and West Ridings, · 8 per cent.; North-Western, 1· 4 per cent. and Northern, 2· 3 per cent. When the average of 1· 3 per cent. is used, it hides the fact that if we take out one region from England we get a much lower average than the one which is used.
What is our experience of Government policy? I have quoted London and the South-Eastern area with · 8 per cent. un-
1428
employment. Brighton has only · 8 per cent. unemployment, but we find it splashed in the "Star" of 22nd April that a dozen factories are in production on the town's three industrial sites and that five more are under construction and others are planned. That is in Brighton, with its · 8 per cent. unemployment.
How does Blaenavon or Lanark regard that? Is it because Brighton is not represented by Labour? How far is the policy of the Government influenced by representation? Why cannot Anglesey have at least part of the treatment that Brighton gets? Why cannot Blaenavon have the same attention as Brighton is getting? What is the Minister of Labour doing about this, and what is the Board of Trade doing? Anglesey, with 98 per cent. unemployment, gets nothing, while Brighton, with · 8 per cent., gets 12 factories.
In areas where there is a labour shortage, new factory construction is proceeding at the greatest pace. It is in areas where labour is in shortest supply, where prosperity is highest and unemployment lowest, that we find the greatest rate of construction of new factories. Is that not shown by the figures which were quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison)?
We had the astonishing admission that in 1954 the Development Areas were getting 18 per cent. of the new construction. In 1951, they had 40 per cent.
Mr. Kaberry Mr. Kaberry indicated dissent.
Mr. Ness Edwards: The Parliamentary Secretary dissents. I do not know whether he wants me to quote the President of the Board of Trade in the debate of 25th February, when the right hon. Gentleman obviously was referring to the previous ascertained figures. The year might be wrong—it might be 1952 and not 1951—but the point was put specifically to the Parliamentary Secretary: was it 18 per cent. for last year or for this year? As to the 40 per cent. mentioned by the President, there can be no doubt. This indicates that the Government have abandoned the policy of the location of industry.
Let me indicate how things are moving. I happened to pick up the "Star" today. Here is consolation for my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. West). There are one, two, three pages

1429
of advertisements of jobs, and only one page of them is of jobs outside the London area. All the rest are in the London region.
What the hon. Gentleman's policy amounts to is the pressing of industry into the southern areas, without consideration of social consequences or of strategic questions.
Mr. J. T. Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if one scans the advertisement columns of the provincial Press, of the "Manchester Guardian," for example, one finds that a very high percentage of the vacant jobs advertised are in the London area? Even the provincial Press is being used to skim the provinces of their people, and to bring those people away from the provinces and into London.
Mr. Ness Edwards: I agree. The point I was trying to make was that the amount of expansion of new factory construction is greatest in areas where there is the greatest shortage of labour. This Government have allowed that.
Let me point out how the policy has changed in another way. Between 1945 and 1951, the Labour Government provided, in Wales, 17,807,000 square feet of new factory space. During the same time the Labour Government allowed in London new factory construction of 8 million square feet. In other words, the construction in Wales was twice that in the London region. Under this Government, between 1951 and 1954 Wales has had 10 million square feet and London 13 million square feet. The whole thing has been completely reversed.
How and why did we do what we did? We all agreed immediately after the war that employment should be taken to the people, that industry should be varied and that the Development Areas should have new employment. That was the policy which was followed, and the Labour Government gave expression to that policy in the Distribution of Industry Acts. Under that legislation there was set up, under the aegis of the Board of Trade, a committee to deal with the location of industry, and every application for the building of a new factory had to go before the Location of Industry Committee of the Government. We had to decide where the factory was to go. In addition to that we had the power to issue building
1430
licences, and unless the location of Industry Committee approved the application the building licence was not granted. It was in that way that we induced by negative means the rehabilitation of the Development Areas.
All of us will agree that the main work of industrial rehabilitation of the Development Areas has been done. There are exceptions; there are small areas which still require attention; but for the most part we have provided in the Development Areas adequate employment opportunities. We have Blaenavon, Anglesey, Lanark, and Birkenhead. However, because we have done 90 per cent. of the job, because it has been nearly completed, that is no reason why we should not finish it. Moreover, when we finish the job in one place the same sort of problem breaks out in another. Nelson and Colne is one example.
The instruments for doing the job ought to be retained. What were the instruments? There were two, the building licence and the location of industries certificate. Both of those have gone. The Parliamentary Secretary explained why they had gone. How difficult it was, he said, to refuse an application; the potential employer knew best. If that is to be the attitude of the Board of Trade there will be new Development Areas emerging in this country, and there will be no solution at all of the problems of those spots which are still left with problems not remedied. What hope is there for Anglesey if everybody is to be permitted to build in Brighton? What hope is there for Ammanford if everybody is to be permitted to expand in the Midlands?
It seems to me that the Parliamentary Secretary has run away from the policy that was agreed in 1945, and that while he pays lip service to the policy he has the same attitude as that of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, which is to let the Development Areas work out their own salvation. Indeed, that is what he told my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) in an Adjournment debate only the other night. He said, "They have to save themselves. There is little the Government can do."
If both those instruments for working out the Development Area policy have gone then it means that the Board of Trade is without a policy. It may have good wishes; it may want to do things;

1431
but what is the use of wanting to do things unless one has the power to do them? It seems to be illogical to throw away the ability to do things and at the same time to say, "We want to do them."
As for the advance factory building programme, the Parliamentary Secretary had a very poor case. His Department gave him a rotten brief. He does not believe in the advance factory programme. The Department would have put that into the brief if he did. Is there an advance factory programme or not? Has that policy been abandoned, too?
Miss Herbison: Since the Government came to power.
Mr. Ness Edwards: That is not quite true. But is there a defence programme now? Where are the new advance factories envisaged? It was a policy of the Ministry of Labour. It looks as if the Government have decided that as far as the unemployed of Caernarvon, Lancashire and Anglesey are concerned, they have to be satisfied with an assurance that the Parliamentary Secretary will talk nicely to a potential employer some day somewhere. That is the ridiculous situation to which we have been reduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) will be able to go back to Birkenhead and tell the people there that the Parliamentary Secretary said that he will talk nicely to the employers, that he cannot make anybody go to Birkenhead, but that he will try to persuade employers to go there. They have been living on that ever since this Government came into power.
Let me put another point to show how this Government have abandoned the Development Area policy altogether. Not only have the Government abandoned the industrial side of it, but they have also abandoned the social side of it. The Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, had as its purpose not only the building of new factories but the rehabilitation of the social services in the Development Areas. Last year, a circular was issued to stop all grants for sewerage and water supplies and within four months after the issue of the circular we were informed from the Government Front Bench that 51 schemes, costing £12 million, had been turned down already under it. "You can have new factories or new housing but you cannot have new water supplies or
1432
new sewerage"; that has been the Government's attitude in connection with the very important Distribution of Industry Acts.
Within the last few days a book has been issued with which, no doubt, the Parliamentary Secretary is very familiar—the Tory Election manifesto.
Mr. James Griffiths: For 1951?
Mr. Ness Edwards: This is the 1955 manifesto. Let us see what the Tories say now:
"We shall press forward with the building and reconditioning of houses and the extension of sewerage, water supplies and electricity."
Yet £12 million worth of water supply and sewerage schemes in Wales have been stopped by the hon. Member and his hon. Friends.
He now says that the Government will implement the Lloyd Committee's Report. Let them publish it first and let us know what it is, because the road programme for the Development Area of South Wales is utterly inadequate. They build factories but they do not build roads so that the goods may be taken from the factories.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has drawn my attention to the position at Ammanford. This is an area which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour will know. Pneumoconiosis there is a tragedy which overshadows everything else. Men are waiting for death. The percentage of pneumoconiosis is extremely heavy, and the job of providing work for these men is a sanctified job if ever there were one—the job of giving them a new hold on life.
The factory there is shutting down. The matter has been raised with the Minister for Welsh Affairs. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say that he has power to do something about it—or will he merely express pious wishes? The Government have a responsibility for attending to the social and economic needs of the nation and it is not sufficient to say that they depend upon the good will of some one who otherwise would not go to these areas.
When we watch what has happened under the Distribution of Industry Acts and Development Area policy, we on this side of the Committee are satisfied that

1433
hon. Members opposite have forfeited the trust of the country and the confidence of the people. Their behaviour in relation to the Development Areas ought to ensure that they do not sit on those benches after the Election.
8.4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Watkinson): We have had a very good and factual debate, and it is not surprising that politics have crept into it from time to time. If I may say so, in the last days of this Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I said "this Government"—when some hon. Members' minds are probably on other matters, it is a tribute to our normal tradition in relation to the way in which we talk about industrial affairs here that this has been a factual debate in which hon. Members have raised pertinent and practical points.
I know that the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) will acquit my right hon. and learned Friend and myself of any belief that any one man or woman who has not a job is not a human problem to which any Government must pay the most serious attention, and I hope that I may reply to the debate in that sense, and try to be as factual as I can.
The right hon. Member rightly reminded us that we are dealing with people's lives and not with some abstruse economic theory. I must remind him that that applies in Brighton just as well as in Ammanford, and while I do not think he mentioned Brighton in a serious tone, it is a fact that in the winter Brighton has a very serious problem, as have all seaside resorts, including Anglesey and the North Wales resorts, of local unemployment.
Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Member knows that I used to occupy the position which he now holds. Would he tell us whether his Department recommended Brighton for new factory development?
Mr. Watkinson: Yes. My Department was certainly anxious that there should be further development at Brighton because of this very serious problem.
Another town which most people do not associate with heavy local unemployment in the winter is Torquay, but not
1434
very long ago I had to make a personal visit there because our own local employment committee, which the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, was so much up in arms that only a Parliamentary Secretary would satisfy them.
Mr. Ness Edwards: And did the hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Watkinson: The right hon. Gentleman can draw his own conclusions. It was a very pleasant visit.
Nevertheless, I will not pursue the point about Brighton, because in this connection I do not think it was made as a vital point.
Of the more serious points, I want to pursue two major issues which the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), the right hon. Gentleman and others have put to the Government. I will deal with them first, and then, if I cannot cover all the other points made in the debate, perhaps hon. Members will excuse me.
Those two major issues were, I think, first, that of the building of advance factories and, second, the most important issue of the Government's general Development Area policy. If I may, I will deal first with the advance factory building programme. It was mentioned by the hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend, and I think that a reference to it has been included in almost every speech made on both sides of the Committee.
I must first very briefly give the facts. In the immediate post-war years, when the Labour Party formed the Government, they very rightly went in for a large programme of advance factory building—very necessary, and I think a very good thing to do at that time, when industry was turning over from war to peace and there were very difficult areas in which there had been big armament plants. As we all know, everybody had the fear of unemployment in their minds, and the Coalition White Paper of 1944 suggested that sort of emergency action. I am not saying that it was not right: it was right. It is the large amount of building which took place in those years that accounts for the 30 per cent. figure which the hon. Lady used as the average in those years. I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman got his 40 per cent. from, but I will come to that in a moment.
Miss Herbison: The 30 per cent. figure was not at all in this connection. I quoted the amount of advance building in Scotland.
Mr. Watkinson: I am obliged to the hon. Lady. For the moment I am dealing with the general programme of advance building which of course has as much application to Scotland as to anywhere else.
I am saying that the 1945 Labour Government had a very large programme of advance building. In 1950, they had to curtail the programme very much, and fewer than 20 advance factories were put in hand. In 1951, when they were still in office, with impending financial difficulties, they postponed any further building of advance factories.
I must make it plain that it was not the Conservative Administration which brought the advance factory programme to an end. It was the previous Labour Administration which postponed indefinitely, in 1951, any further building of advance factories. We must get that on the record. Certainly it was not our policy and it is not our policy to stop the building of advance factories. But hon. and right hon. Gentlemen can properly say, "Perhaps we did stop it, but what we ask you is whether you can start it again?"
Mr. Ness Edwards: Why not?
Mr. Watkinson: That is a proper question to ask, and I am proposing to answer it now. It is also quite proper to make it plain that it was not a Conservative Government which stopped advance factory building.
At the moment what I want to make plain is that we certainly do not regard advance factory building as something which in any circumstances we should not do. There is no change of policy now. There is no decision by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that he will not carry out advance factory building. We are prepared to build as and when we think that the situation justifies it.
Mr. Collick: But the statement the right hon. Gentleman is making is directly contrary to a Parliamentary Answer that I had from his right hon. Friend in relation to the building of advance factory in Birkenhead.
Mr. Watkinson: That shows how easy it is to go wrong in these details, because I know the project which the hon. Member has in mind, and I listened very carefully to what he said in his able speech. Perhaps he will remember—I do not think he was able to be present—when I went to Birkenhead, saw all the local employment committees on Merseyside, and met them in conference to discuss their problems. The Birkenhead local employment committee rightly and properly mentioned this project which the hon. Gentleman described to us this afternoon, and I promised to go carefully into it to see whether that was one instance where we ought to start again to build an advance factory.
I went into the project myself. I do not want to mention names as it would be individious. When we looked at the number of firms we thought we should have to get to fill up the factory in a resonable time—we were not seeking to fill it at once—we came to the settled conclusion that what would be better in this part of the world would be one or two bigger factories that might give a long-term continuity. Whilst it would be wrong to promise anything at the moment, I can go so far as to say that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has some hopes he may have one project which may go there.
I want to make plain that we have not built an advance factory because we thought that was not the best way of meeting the situation, and that is what I said when I met the local committee. I am confirmed in that view, and we are trying hard to get one or two good projects which will occupy that site.
Mr. J. Griffiths: The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that the Government have not abandoned the policy of advance factories, but this is a problem which is very serious indeed. We have built advance factories which are now part of our national heritage. They are part of the nation, and public money has been invested in them. Take the case of my own constituency—and I am sorry I was not here earlier for this debate. If the factories already there were fully manned there would be no unemployment in my constituency. This not only applies to my constituency but also to others. I should like to hear the Parliamentary

1437
Secretary say something as to the policy of the Government, what powers they have and what they are doing to ensure that these national factories belonging to the nation are fully utilised, so that men who are anxious for work can get it.
Mr. Watkinson: I am coming to that aspect in the course of my speech. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman if I do not answer him now, but I am coming to the point which he has raised.
I hope I have made plain what is our policy with regard to advance factories. I think it is a great mistake for a Government to have all their wares for a full employment policy in the shop window. If there are not a few reserve packets on the shelf then we shall be in for a very bad time should we meet a recession, and any country might have to 'face a recession from time to time. Advance factory building generally in our view is something to be held in reserve, something to use, following the policy outlined in the Coalition Government White Paper, if it is thought that bad times are coming.
May I give one or two figures? There was a certain amount of argument in the Committee today about this question of the share of factory building that went to the Development Areas. The hon. Lady mentioned it. I want to make plain that the 1954 figure for the whole country is, in round figures, nearly 71 million square feet, and the proportion which the Development Areas had of that is 18 per cent. Let us get that quite clear. That just happens, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said, to be the same as the proportion of working population, namely, 18 per cent. I do not make it as a case except to show the balance—
Mr. Collick: For what period?
Mr. Watkinson: It is for 1954—the figure is for the whole of 1954.
What I want to add, because I think it puts the matter in perspective, is that the corresponding figures for 1949, 1950 and 1951 were also 18 per cent. so I do not think that the hon. Lady or the right hon. Gentleman—I do not make a great point of this—should tax us too much about some alarming change in the proportion of building going to the Development Areas, because we have approved
1438
to be built in the last full year exactly the same as they did in the last three years when they were in power. We would like to do more, but at least it shows a balance between factory building and the proportion of building—
Mr. Collick: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but we have had so much talk about this matter that we must get it right. The hon. Gentleman now confirms what his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said about the 18 per cent. question when he interrupted me. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that he does not think that that is very different from what we did. But I quoted during my speech an extract from a speech of his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in the House on 25th February when, referring to this very important matter—and I repeat it again—he said this:
"Of the 6,000 factories built since the war, 1,600 were in the 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 2126.]
There is a tremendous difference between 40 per cent. and 18 per cent.
Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman no doubt realises that all these statistics are very confusing. That is why I quote as few as possible, but I am giving the Committee the facts.
Mr. Collick: But those are the facts given by the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. J. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman means that the President of the Board of Trade did not give the facts.
Mr. Watkinson: I did not mean anything of the sort. What I meant is the actual figure for a single year, and that is the figure I have given to the Committee. I repeat that in 1954 we approved 18 per cent. to be built, and the figure is the same for 1949, 1950 and 1951. Hon. Members can draw whatever conclusion they like. I am giving them the facts.
Mr. Ness Edwards: Does the hon. Gentleman deny—
Hon. Members: He is confused.
Mr. Watkinson: I am not confused. The Opposition wants to confuse the issue, no doubt with their Election addresses in mind.
Mr. S. Silverman: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me?
Mr. Watkinson: No. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I give way wherever possible. I have explained this point to the Committee many times, and no matter how many questions the hon. Gentleman asks me, the answer is still 18 per cent.
Mr. Silverman: I want to put another question.
Mr. Watkinson: If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene about something else I will, of course, give way.
Mr. Silverman: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I do not want to interrupt unnecessarily, but I think the hon. Gentleman has made one thing clear, at least to me. Can he say whether it is the policy of the Government to maintain an even balance of building between the Development Areas and the country as a whole—18 per cent. for 18 per cent.; or whether it is the policy of the Government, as would seem to have been indicated in the extract from the speech of the President of the Board of Trade that has been quoted, to give a preference to discriminate in favour of new building in Development Areas so as to give them a greater proportion than their population proportion would entitle them to? Which is it?
Mr. Watkinson: That intervention shows that probably, on the whole, one should always give way. I am now able to say, in reply to the hon. Gentleman, that I said that I would deal with policy but that I am not dealing with it at the moment; I am dealing with the facts. I have certainly not said that we have no desire to maintain that ratio. What I said was that it appeared to be about on all-fours and in balance with what the Socialist Government achieved in their last three years of office.
Mr. Ness Edwards: On a point of order. I should like to ask whether it would be in order to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again," in view of the fact
1440
that the Parliamentary Secretary has now contradicted information given to the House of Commons by the President of the Board of Trade.
The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot accept such a Motion.
Mr. Watkinson: I will now get on to some more facts.
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not like either the success story of my right hon. Friend or the facts which I have given and propose to continue to give. The next point I want to deal with is the question of the long-term policy on Development Areas. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not find it funny. If he does he will convict himself, and I know that he does not mean to.
Mr. Ness Edwards: Do not be funny.
Mr. Watkinson: I am not trying to be funny. I hope that the Committee will concede that I regard this as a very serious subject. I should not like—and this is what I do not like about the right hon. Gentleman—to be accused, by inference, of not trying to treat this matter seriously and of not giving the Committee the facts.
On the long-term question of policy there is a very great difference, which I think we must bring out, between the policy which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would wish to pursue, if they found themselves in office after the General Election, and the one that we have pursued and intend to continue to pursue if we are given the opportunity. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) brought this out very clearly in his speech. He said, and I think I got this correctly, that persuasion is not a policy.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we had swept away building controls and the committee that used to deal with the allocation of industries, and therefore we had divested ourselves of every possible control of industry. Of course, both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman are wrong. We still retain the most powerful control of all, the industrial development certificate. We have retained it designedly. Much as we object to controls in general, we have no wish to be particularly doctrinaire and we have no doctrinaire objection to retaining a

1441
control. The I.D.C. control is a most practical and useful method of negative control.
The right hon. Gentleman was quite right when he fairly said that it was a negative control. That is the next point that I want to put to hon. Gentlemen opposite. As the right hon. Gentleman produced one document, I produce another, in which the Opposition say that they propose to use control, much more firm control, to try to push industry where they think it ought to go. I do not think that that is an unfair statement.
Mr. J. Griffiths: Not at all—where we think it ought to go in the interests of the nation.
Mr. Watkinson: Yes, that is fair; it is the idea of control and compulsion to try to get an industry in a certain place. That is the point I want to make.
What I would say—and I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly knows this because he was in the very great Ministry in which I have the honour to be—is that in the last analysis there is only one chap who decides where he will build a factory, and that is the chap who is going to build it. However much one may try to compel him, one cannot make him build a factory in a Development Area if he says, "I will not build it there." Unless the party opposite propose to arm themselves with more drastic powers than I assume—
Mr. Willey: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary exaggerating when he says that it is only one chap who decides? What the officials of the Board of Trade found was that many of the factories built on the Great West Road in London were built there not because of one chap but because of one chap's wife who was anxious to live in the West End of London.
Mr. Watkinson: I do not think that that enters into the argument.
The I.D.C. is a very firm control. In the end one can stop a man, or his wife, or a company, from building a factory by the use of that control. Now one must face facts in this Committee, and, without mentioning names, I will give two examples of two large American companies in this country both of which wish to considerably extend their activities here. Both have said, in terms that leave
1442
the Government in no doubt that they mean it, that unless they can extend their existing premises they will build on the Continent of Europe, where they already have an arrangement to do so.
In a position like that I think that right hon. Gentlemen opposite would grant an I.D.C. Indeed, I think it is on record that in their term of office they did, and rightly so. It is better to have more industry in this country, even if it is not always in the right place, than to lose it altogether.
The point which I wish to make plain—and this affects the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)—is that wherever we can use the I.D.C. control, which is a firm one, we intend to use it to see that factories go to Development Areas. I know that he rather regrets that Glover and Main went to Padiham and not to his own constituency, but I should make it plain that that firm wanted to build a factory in London, perhaps on the Great West Road, and was stopped from doing so by the very control which I have described.
Our policy remains much what the policy of our predecessors was, namely, that we use a negative control as much as we can. Where we have made a difference, however—and I think it is a good difference—is that we think that it is better to go to an industrialist and to say, "We want to persuade you to go to the right part of the country in your own interest and in the national interest." We think that very often that gets a better and more certain result than if we said, "We have imposed a whole set of rules, regulations and controls and you can like it or leave it." That, perhaps, is the difference between the two policies.
Mr. Silverman: I should not like it to be thought that I would have wanted the factory, or a factory, not to be in Padiham. I do not grudge them what they can get out of it, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right and that the negative controls of the Government are effective. Would he explain why, four years after the Order was made, nothing has come to us at all?
Mr. Watkinson: Well, again—and it shows the difficulties of these matters—when I had the great pleasure of going to the hon. Gentleman's constituency I

1443
had tea, and a very pleasant Lancashire tea it was, with three Lancashire mayors, and it would have been a brave man who told them that their area was where factories were most needed. But at least we have two big factories in the hon. Gentleman's area—
Mr. S. Silverman: It is hoped to have them.
Mr. Watkinson: We are doing our best—let us put it that way. I want to be fair, and say that while we may persuade a firm to go into a Development Area, we cannot always elect where in the area it will go.
One other point about policy, and again it throws back the point made in the very able speech of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes). There is a new problem which the hon. Member raised; that of areas where we have old factory buildings which will perhaps have to be knocked down, if we are to put modern factories in their places. The Government accept the fact that that is a different problem. It is not necessarily something which we regard as being normal advance factory building. I cannot commit this Government at this stage but I recognise the problem as a serious one which will have to be faced by the next Government.
The hon. Member is right in saying that the modern techniques of constructing prefabricated buildings—I think it is called sectional building in modular standards—which can be put up quickly anywhere may prove to be some answer to the problem. I cannot go further on that point this evening. We think that the money we have to spend may be spent far better on building factories for specific firms both large and small than on building speculative factories which may be empty for some time.
To sum up our policy, we will certainly build advance factories where we think fit, but that is something we prefer to keep on the shelf at the moment. We consider that our money would be better spent on building new factories for specific projects—and I could give a long list covering the constituencies of most hon. Members who have spoken—as a long-term policy for the Development Areas. The more factories we can build the better we shall be pleased. We shall
1444
not impose any sort of limit. We are retaining I.D.C. control, because we think it a good control, but we think that better results are obtained by a policy of persuasion than by restrictions.
Miss Herbison: The hon. Gentleman has said that the Government prefer to build factories for those who want them and not to have factories empty for a long time. In opening the debate I asked the question whether any representations have been made by the Scottish Industrial Estates. If the policy be as the hon. Gentleman has enunciated, is it not the case that there were almost a dozen applicants for the only vacant factory in Scotland, and that there would have been none of these advance factories left idle if the Government had built even one in any Development Area since they came to power?
Mr. Watkinson: I apologise for forgetting to answer the hon. Lady's question. We have had representations from Lord Bilsland's Committee. Indeed, I think the hon. Lady knows, as do those who saw the representations, that they are not so much a once-for-all matter as a recommendation for continuous consultation.
We had the special case of the Port Glasgow factories, which were empty for some time. But I am glad to say that they now look like being filled. I am not arguing about whether the hon. Lady is right or whether I am. I am saying that our policy is to spend money in what we think is the best way, on specific projects, and to hold back advance factory building as something extra to be done where necessary.
I should like to cover one or two specific points which have been mentioned by hon. Gentlemen. I shall have to do so very quickly. As the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) is not present now I will not go into his problems in detail except to say that we have a new project going to Llangefni which I think will help in dealing with some of his problems.
I have great sympathy with the problem mentioned by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. West), the problem of Blaenavon although I have not gone into it myself. But it does fit into the general problem, and it would seem to me that

1445
the only short-term solution for that sort of thing would be a policy of direction, which we reject. All I can say to the hon. Member—I think he knows it—is that at least we have tried. He may well say that we have tried and failed, and I shall not argue about that. Within our policy, however, we have tried to do everything we can to help in that difficult problem.
I have already referred, in answer to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, to the point about factories going to Padiham. I think we were fortunate to get those people there by using I.D.C. control, and I am only sorry that they did not go to the point in his constituency which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Both the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) raised points about their own Development Areas. I must correct the hon. Member for Sunderland, North. At least, I will not correct him, but put a slightly different gloss on the point he made about the 1,000 people who went out of work last year. I think the hon. Member knows that it resulted from the closing down of a big plant. I hope he also knows—if not I am glad to tell him—that there is a new occupant who will certainly try to build up the employment which was lost.
The hon. Gentleman quoted a lot of statistics—I know how pertinacious he is at Question Time in obtaining statistics from Ministers—and I will quote one back to him. In six and a half years under the Labour Government, just under 400,000 square feet of Government-financed factory space was built in Sunderland. In three and a half years this Government have built 280,000 square feet, in other words, 70 per cent. as much in half the time, which is not a bad record.
Mr. Willey: With regard to the Minister's first point—the fall in the number of employed, which is the essential point—if he looks at the figures he will see that they fell very shortly after the present Government came to office and before the factories closed. The closing of the factories aggravated an already bad position. Regarding the increased factory space provided since 1951, that has all been provided by way of extensions for firms already brought to Sunderland.
Mr. Watkinson: I was not arguing about that; I was only saying that the contributory cause was the situation which I described. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman denies these statistics. We cannot have more employment unless we build more factory space, and I think the whole Committee will agree with that.
Mr. David Jones: Before the Minister leaves the North-East, may I put this point to him? He probably knows very well the Report of the North-Eastern Industrial and Development Association, in paragraph 20 of which, it is stated:
"The blackest spots on the region's unemployment picture are the persistently high unemployment rates in the Wearside and Hartlepools districts. During recent years, these have continued to fluctuate and are now 4 per cent."
I hope that the Minister will note that—
"On the basis of the present employment … these areas, together with certain parts of Tyneside can clearly establish strong claims to a share in such new industry as is willing to be steered to any part of the region."
The hon. Gentleman has said nothing about that at all; he has merely said that the Government are keeping the advance factory programme in their pocket in case there is unemployment. On the evidence of the North-Eastern Industrial and Development Association, unemployment on Wearside and in The Hartlepools already represents 4 per cent. and is likely to remain at that figure in the immediate future. Is that not an indication that something should be done about advance factories?
Mr. Watkinson: I did not mention it because the hon. Gentleman did not make a speech, but we are reinforced in our general policy that there is not a Development Area, except the new one in Lancashire, which in March this year had not better unemployment figures than in 1951, or, indeed, at any time since the war. That is something in which I am sure we can all take pride.
Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman has not answered one question which I thought I had put to him rather specifically. It is whether or not the Treasury or the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is going to withdraw Circular 54/52, which cancels the grant for water and sewerage.
Mr. Watkinson: I was trying not to take too long. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman was given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government in reply to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, who asked whether my right hon. Friend would now make grants under Section 3 of the Distribution of Industry Acts. My right hon. Friend said that, where appropriate, he would. That is our present policy. We will make grants wherever we think a good case can be made out for them.
In ending, I will summarise what I think is the difference between the two sides of the Committee. We on this side are clearly pledged to the conception of partnership in this job of trying to preserve full employment and a rising standard of living. I know that right hon. Gentlemen opposite are just as keen as we are to do that, and I do not impugn their motives. But our methods are different, and I will say why they are different The difference is clearly seen in our policy in regard to the location of industry. We like persuasion. We like to persuade people to do these things, because we believe that they will do them more efficiently, more willingly and more quickly if they are persuaded rather than coerced.
We believe that we cannot have a successful Development Area policy in an economic climate which itself is not healthy. It is, therefore, right that in settling Development Area policy the Government should not be driven off its main policy of providing full employment and rising standards for the whole country. We must always relate our Development Area policy to our general economic policy, because if that is wrong there are limits to what can be done in smaller matters.
Our Development Area policy depends, as much as anything else, upon meeting the needs of our customers in export markets all over the world. If we fail in that we shall fail in our Development Area policy, just as we shall have mass unemployment. Therefore, if it is a matter of a choice between saying, "Stay where you are and build," or "Go abroad," we say, "Stay where you are and build." But if there is any chance of saying, "Go to a Development Area and build," we shall do our best, with the
1448
controls and persuasion with which we are armed.
We shall do so, however, against the background which conditions all our lives, whatever Government may be in power, which is that the success of our policy rests upon our being competitive, meeting the needs of our foreign customers, working together and not letting sectional interests upset the applecart because they want to press certain claims. We believe that all this is best done by hard work, persuasion and working together, as we have tried to do in these last three and a half years.
8.43 p.m.
Mr. James Griffiths: I rise to put one or two questions to the Parliamentary Secretary. He knows perfectly well—and history bears it out—that what he calls persuasion led to distress for twenty years.
Mr. S. Silverman: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend will agree that the matter can be carried a little further. The Parliamentary Secretary says that the policy of the Government is to try to cure the problems of the Development Areas by applying further the very courses which caused them to exist in the first place.
Mr. Watkinson: If we are to have a debating match, I shall play my part in it.
Mr. Griffiths: All I say, speaking as one from South Wales, is that when we tried to persuade Conservative Governments—and I have been in countless deputations to the Ministry of Labour; they are all on record—we always failed.
If persuasion fails, what then? We cannot afford to allow two or three great industrial metropolises to grow bigger, with their over-concentrated populations and with the traffic problem which is becoming a serious menace to the safety and well-being of the whole country. In this crowded island, with its 50 million people, any Government which are not prepared, if necessary, to use authority to ensure that the population is reasonably distributed throughout the country—and industry is the key to this—is surrendering the national interest to vested interests.

1449
If persuasion succeeds, everything is all right, but if it does not, what will happen? If there is a recession and Lancashire is very hard hit in the next five or ten years, does the hon. Gentleman mean that his Government, if in power, will not use effective powers to bring about its industrial rehabilitation?
Mr. Watkinson: Of course not. The answer is that the right hon. Gentleman has brought out very clearly exactly the point which I have been making all along. He and his hon. Friends want to go back to direction, control, building licences and every other sort of control and limitation. We say—and we shall take it to the country—that we think that that cannot possibly work, and will lead to a lower level of prosperity in the Development Areas and everywhere else.
Mr. Griffiths: We will take it to the country, too, and say this: that industry must be judged by the way it serves the nation. We believe that it is essential in the interests of the country that there shall be a wise distribution of our population. Is there anyone in this Committee who does not now agree that certain conurbations have arisen during the last thirty years? In London, traffic and everything else will soon come to a stop because of the immense development over the last thirty years. We say, "By all means persuade," but, if persuasion fails, as it failed in the inter-war years, I hope we shall have a Government which will not hesitate to ensure that the interests of the people are put before anything else.
We shall argue it out. I am quite willing, in the Development Areas and elsewhere on 26th May, or on any other date, for the record of the Labour Government during our six years to be judged side by side with the record of any other Government in the last twenty-five or thirty years. We stand by it.
I want to put two other specific points. First, I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary this important question. What action do the Government intend to take to ensure that the advance factories, when they have been established, particularly those for disabled men, will be able to carry on? I would point out very seriously to him that this is a matter of very great concern.
Unless we get the fuel and power it does not matter where the factories are
1450
sited, they will be stopped. We do not get coal from London, but from Ammanford. The fact is that in the coal mining industry we have a changed situation which we have never met before. This is a very important problem. During the last few years, for the first time in my life, and for the years that lie ahead, in a time of full employment the mining industry has had and will have to recruit lads to work in it because they want to and not because they have to. I am one of those who had to. I ask the Committee to realise that it is only in the last few years that this has become a very important problem and that it is only the National Coal Board which has faced it.
In its Report the Coal Board bring out very clearly that as a result of the success of the policy of establishing other industries in the coal mining areas, it has to compete with other industries for the essential manpower—the youth of the mining industry. I speak in the presence of others who belong to my generation, and I urge—because I think it is very important—that to leave men of 40, 45 or 50 disabled in the industry, and unable to continue working in the industry because of the nature of their disability—
The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be making a very long intervention.
Mr. Griffiths: This is the first time that I have spoken in the debate, Sir Charles.
The Chairman: I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary was speaking and that the right hon. Gentleman was intervening.
Mr. Griffiths: No.
The Chairman: I have been in the Chair for five minutes and it seems a very long intervention.
Mr. Watkinson: I had finished my remarks when the right hon. Gentleman, quite legitimately, stood up, and asked me what I thought was a final question, but I have no objection to playing Box and Cox provided you call me, Sir Charles, as often as you call the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Griffiths: This is the first intervention that I have made. We on this side should be very glad if the hon. Gentleman would intervene in the debate again. I

1451
want the Parliamentary Secretary to see this matter in relation to the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that factories which belong to the nation are fully utilised.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said earlier, I understand—I was unable to be here in time and I apologise for my absence—that the Government proposed to adopt and to implement the Report of the Lloyd Committee. The whole of West Wales is vitally concerned in this matter, so would the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what is the Report of the Lloyd Committee? The Government say that they will accept it, so clearly, the Lloyd Committee has made recommendations. Have the recommendations to do with redundancy in the tin-plate industry, and which recommendations are the Government accepting? These matters are of vital interest and significance to West Wales. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able, with your consent, Sir Charles, to answer these questions.
Mr. Watkinson: I shall be happy to respond to the right hon. Gentleman if you will permit me so to do, Sir Charles. First, in regard to Remploy factories. I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to say I am simply using soothing words when I say that I understand this problem. One factory looks as if it will be particularly affected. As long as we are the Government, that is to say, during the next few weeks, if there is anything we can do we shall do our best in the matter. I know that these men are dying by inches. Any Government must do what they can to help.
In the future, if we are again the Government and if we can expand Remploy again, it is the kind of thing we want to do. I pledge myself as clearly as I can on this question.
On the question of Government factories which may be partly empty, I know that there have been difficulties on the South Wales Estate. We shall do all we can to get the factories filled again. I cannot say more than that. We do not propose to arm ourselves with direction, other than the industrial development certificate. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can accuse us of lack of success. We have built these factories all over the country, and they have shown
1452
good results. All I can say is that we will do our best. We will not arm ourselves with direction of factory owners nor shall we arm ourselves with direction of labour, which, I gathered from remarks made by one or two hon. Gentlemen opposite on the subject of migration and conurbation, they would propose.
Mr. J. Griffiths: Can the hon. Gentleman say a word about the Lloyd Report?
Mr. Watkinson: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman detailed information without notice at this stage, but I understand that one of the first things we shall do is to build a great trunk road across the heads of the valleys because communications are one of the great needs of Wales.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £21,831,178, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with Development Areas for the year ending on 31st March, 1956.
The CHAIRMAN then proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House this day, forthwith to put severally the Questions:
That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the several Classes of the Civil Estimates and the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Revenue Departments and the Ministry of Defence Estimate, and in the Navy, the Army, and the Air Estimates, be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates.

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1955–56

  CLASS I
  That a sum, not exceeding £12,494,764, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates, viz.:

  £

  1.

  House of Lords

  86,276

  2.

  House of Commons

  754,525

  3.

  Registration of Electors

  290,000

  4.

  Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  2,052,509

  5.

  Privy Council Office

  20,037

  6.

  Privy Seal Office

  5,140

  7.

  Charity Commission

  64,854

  8.

  Civil Service Commission

  267,900

  9.

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  298,875

  10.

  Friendly Societies Registry

  52,080

  1453

  £

  11.

  Government Actuary

  14,932

  12.

  Government Chemist

  194,283

  13.

  Government Hospitality

  35,000

  14.

  The Royal Mint

  90

  15.

  National Debt Office

  3,240

  16.

  National Savings Committee

  603,975

  17.

  Public Record Office

  75,020

  18.

  Public Works Loan Commission

  90

  19.

  Royal Commissions, &c.

  103,500

  20.

  Secret Service

  3,300,000

  21.

  Silver

  4,159,500

  22.

  Tithe Redemption Commission

  90

  24.

  Miscellaneous Expenses

  88,680

  Scotland:—

  26.

  Scottish Record Office

  24,168

  12,494,764

  Question put and agreed to.

  CLASS II
  That a sum, not exceeding £61,499,150, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates, viz.:

  £

  1.

  Foreign Service

  9,657,220

  2.

  Foreign Office Grants and Services

  13,976,280

  3.

  British Council

  1,107,400

  4.

  United Nations

  350,000

  5.

  Commonwealth Relations Office

  1,293,723

  6.

  Commonwealth Services

  1,244,616

  7.

  Oversea Settlement

  135,050

  8.

  Colonial Office

  765,428

  9.

  Colonial Services

  18,456,683

  10.

  Development and Welfare (Colonies, &c.)

  13,000,000

  11.

  Development and Welfare (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and South African High Commission Territories)

  750,000

  12.

  Imperial War Graves Commission

  762,750

  61,499,150

  Question put and agreed to.

  CLASS III
  That a sum, not exceeding £56,699,555, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates, viz.:

  £

  1.

  Home Office

  3,055,496

  2.

  Home Office (Civil Defence Services)

  6,796,620

  3.

  Police, England and Wales

  23,570,704

  4.

  Prisons, England and Wales

  5,438,328

  1454

  £

  5.

  Child Care, England and Wales

  6,459,400

  6.

  Fire Services, England and Wales

  3,485,389

  7.

  Carlisle State Management District

  90

  8.

  Supreme Court of Judicature, etc

  434

  9.

  County Courts

  335,935

  10.

  Legal Aid Fund

  1,056,125

  11.

  Land Registry

  90

  12.

  Public Trustee

  90

  13.

  Law Charges

  317,027

  14.

  Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

  23,135

  Scotland:—

  15.

  Scottish Home Department (Civil Defence Services)

  664,359

  16.

  Police

  3,611,383

  17.

  Prisons

  480,368

  18.

  Approved Schools

  167,400

  19.

  Fire Services

  443,884

  20.

  State Management Districts

  90

  21.

  Law Charges and Courts of Law

  168,782

  22.

  Department of the Registers of Scotland

  90

  Ireland:—

  23.

  Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ireland

  38,156

  24.

  Irish Land Purchase Services

  586,180

  56,699,555

  Question put and agreed to.

  CLASS IV
  That a sum, not exceeding £245,465,034, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates, viz:

  £

  1.

  Ministry of Education

  185,286,636

  2.

  British Museum

  267,996

  3.

  British Museum (Natural History)

  225,987

  4.

  Imperial War Museum

  29,310

  5.

  London Museum

  16,615

  6.

  National Gallery

  36,350

  7.

  Tate Gallery

  26,730

  8.

  National Maritime Museum

  34,049

  9.

  National Portrait Gallery

  16,952

  10.

  Wallace Collection

  22,544

  11.

  Grants for Science and the Arts

  729,664

  12.

  Universities and Colleges, &c., Great Britain

  16,253,300

  13.

  Broadcasting

  19,545,000

  Scotland:—

  14.

  Public Education

  22,921,090

  15.

  National Galleries

  21,232

  16.

  National Museum of Antiquities

  8,868

  17.

  National Library

  22,711

  245,465,034

  Question put and agreed to.

  CLASS V
  That a sum, not exceeding £427,524,786, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates, viz.:

  £

  1.

  Ministry of Housing and Local Government

  8,533,570

  2.

  Housing, England and Wales

  50,139,020

  3.

  Exchequer Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales

  45,800,000

  4.

  Ministry of Health

  2,274,740

  5.

  National Health Service, England and Wales

  267,886,215

  6.

  Medical Research Council

  1,336,160

  7.

  Registrar General's Office

  273,567

  8.

  Central Land Board

  499,500

  9.

  War Damage Commission

  537,000

  Scotland:—

  10.

  Department of Health

  1,383,130

  11.

  National Health Service

  35,784,040

  12.

  Housing

  6,682,500

  13.

  Exchequer Grants to Local Revenues

  6,355,000

  14.

  Registrar General's Office

  40,344

  427,524,786

  Question put and agreed to.

  CLASS VI
  That a sum, not exceeding £128,651,729, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates, viz.:

  £

  2.

  Board of Trade (Assistance to Industry and Trading Services)

  1,181,459

  3.

  Board of Trade (Strategic Reserves)

  1,198,000

  6.

  Export Credits

  90

  7.

  Export Credits (Special Guarantees)

  90

  9.

  Ministry of Supply

  121,488,000

  10.

  Ministry of Supply (Purchasing (Repayment) Services)

  90

  11.

  Royal Ordnance Factories

  4,722,000

  12.

  Ministry of Supply (Strategic Reserves)

  62,000

  128,651,729

  Question put and agreed to.

  CLASS VII
  That a sum, not exceeding £43,027,375, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending
  1456
  on the 31st day of March, 1956, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates, viz.:

  £

  1.

  Ministry of Works

  5,013,095

  2.

  Houses of Parliament Buildings

  256,000

  3.

  Public Buildings, United Kingdom

  17,502,000

  3A

  Field Marshal Smuts Memorial

  16,500

  4.

  Public Buildings Overseas

  1,217,000

  5.

  Royal Palaces

  328,000

  6.

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

  494,000

  7.

  Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments

  556,000

  8.

  Miscellaneous Works Services

  90

  9.

  Rates on Government Property

  9,093,590

  10.

  Stationery and Printing

  7,581,900

  11.

  Central Office of Information

  945,200

  12.

  Peterhead Harbour

  24,000

  43,027,375

  Question put and agreed to.

  CLASS VIII
  That a sum, not exceeding £24,699,907, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates, viz.:

  £

  4.

  Fishery Grants and Services

  2,460,080

  5.

  Surveys of Great Britain, &c.

  1,919,250

  6.

  Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands

  63,592

  7.

  Agricultural Research Council and Nature Conservancy

  716,400

  8.

  Development Fund

  612,000

  9.

  Forestry Commission

  5,001,000

  11.

  Ministry of Food (Strategic Reserves)

  12,093,000

  Scotland:—

  13.

  Fisheries (Scotland) and Herring Industry

  1,834,585

  24,699,907

  Question put and agreed to.

  CLASS IX
  That a sum, not exceeding £88,034,190, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates, viz.:

  £

  1.

  Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation

  5,341,000

  2.

  Road, &c.

  30,556,500

  3.

  Transport (Shipping and Special Services)

  1,328,000

  1457

  £

  4

  Civil Aviation

  5,294,000

  5

  Ministry of Fuel and Power

  2,302,130

  6.

  Ministry of Fuel and Power (Special Services)

  8,230,000

  7.

  Atomic Energy

  30,577,400

  8.

  Department of Scientific and Industrial Research

  4,355,160

  88,034,190

  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLASS X
  That a sum, not exceeding £287,803,570, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class X of the Civil Estimates, viz.:

  £

  1.

  Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  6,878,000

  2.

  Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance

  2,897,570

  3.

  War Pensions, & c.

  59,326,000

  4

  National Insurance and Family Allowances

  137,338,000

  5.

  National Assistance Board

  80,709,000

  6.

  Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, & c.

  655,000

  287,803,570

  Question put, and agreed to.

  ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1955–56
  That a sum, not exceeding £206,325,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, viz.:

  £

  1.

  Customs and Excise

  9,081,900

  2.

  Inland Revenue

  23,549,000

  3.

  Post Office

  173,695,000

  206,325,900

  Question put and agreed to.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1955–56
  That a sum, not exceeding £12,200,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence; expenses in connection with the International Defence Organisations, including an international subscription; and a grant in aid of certain expenses incurred in the United Kingdom by the Government of the United States of America.
  Question put and agreed to.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1955–56
  That a sum, not exceeding £196,524,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, viz.:

  £

  3

  Medical Establishments and Services

  1,512,000

  4

  Civilians employed on Fleet Services

  8,031,000

  5

  Educational Services

  1,099,000

  7

  Royal Naval Reserves

  1,955,000

  8.

  Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, & c.:—

  Section I.—Personnel

  38,834,000

  Section II.—Matériel

  49,330,000

  Section III.—Contract Work

  77,387,000

  11.

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  10,856,900

  12.

  Admiralty Office

  7,520,000

  196,524,900

  Question put and agreed to.

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1955–56
  That a sum, not exceeding £277,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services, viz.:

  £

  3.

  War Office

  3,380,000

  4.

  Civilians

  64,340,000

  5.

  Movements

  30,810,000

  6.

  Supplies, &c.

  49,470,000

  7.

  Stores

  129,000,000

  277,000,000

  Question put and agreed to.

  AIR ESTIMATES, 1955–56
  That a sum, not exceeding £139,860,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, viz.:

  £

  3.

  Air Ministry

  4,490,000

  4.

  Civilians at Outstations

  30,250,000

  5.

  Movements

  13,500,000

  6.

  Supplies

  86,000,000

  10.

  Non-Effective Services

  5,620,000

  139,860,000

  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow;
  Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, the sum of £2,451,986,045 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Heath.]
  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow;
  Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (HARMFUL PUBLICATIONS) BILL
Lords Amendment considered.

Clause 1.—(WORKS TO WHICH THIS ACT APPLIES.)
Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 6, after "which" insert:
"is of a kind likely to fall into the hands of children or young persons and "
9.1 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The object of the Amendment is to make it clear that the scope of Clause 1 is restricted to works
"of a kind likely to fall into the hands of children or young persons."
The House will see that at the end of the Clause there occur the words:
"into whose hands it might fall."
and "it" refers to the work in question.
Doubts have been expressed about the interpretation of those words and it has been suggested that they may be equivalent to others into whose hands the work might conceivably fall. The same words were used in the Hickling Judgment, which has been referred to in our debates, and recent judgments show that they are
1460
to be interpreted in such a way that the question whether the work in question is likely to fall into the hands of a particular class of person is a relevant consideration in deciding the case. If such an interpretation were applied to the words in the Bill, it would mean that the question whether the work concerned was
"of a kind likely to fall into the hands of children or young persons "
would be a relevant question in proceedings under the Bill.
Of course, the Hickling Judgment was dealing with the common law offence of publishing an obscene libel, that is to say, it is not the same offence as that constituted by the Bill and the words were not included in the Statute. There have been doubts and it is certainly desirable to remove any conceivable doubt. Therefore, the Government have accepted the Amendment and I hope that this House will agree.
Sir Frank Soskice: During the course of our discussions on the Bill, on both sides of the House anxiety was expressed about its possible scope. Endeavours were made to ensure that works that obviously were not intended to be within the scope of the Bill would not be accidentally included.
Speaking for myself, I think that the Amendment, which I hope we shall support, provides an additional safeguard by excluding from the Bill the kind of work against which the Bill is not aimed at all. Many examples have been given, such as that of pictures of atrocities to which grown-up people should have access because it is necessary from time to time to remind people of the sort of atrocities committed in concentration camps, and so on. They would be excluded by the insertion of these words. I believe that this Amendment provides a necessary and useful safeguard by limiting the purpose of the Bill to the kind of publication envisaged, which does, in fact, constitute the mischief at which we aim.
Question put and agreed to.

NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY DISPUTE (B.B.C. NEWS BULLETINS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]
9.5 p.m.
Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I am sorry to detain the House on this matter, but the dissemination of news by the B.B.C. during a newspaper strike is a matter of considerable importance to the general public. A few weeks ago, when I was fortunate in the Ballot for this Adjournment, the subject was very topical, but it is still important in case there should be a newspaper strike again. I propose to ask my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General to bring to the notice of the B.B.C. certain suggestions which I shall make.
I have no wish to attack the B.B.C. unfairly. I have occasionally been employed by the Corporation, although not to such effect or for so long as my right hon. Friend was employed by them in the past. My wish is to see that the B.B.C. operates with the greatest credit and to the fullest advantage of the whole nation.
The general opinion, I think, was that in the first few days of the newspaper strike we were relieved to be without the newspapers and without many things that we felt better without, but it became obvious after a few days that democracy could not operate without news. Consider Question Time in this House. Half the Questions that are put down arise from items of news of general interest and they give rise to news of the greatest interest to the public. People follow all these things in the newspapers very closely. I know, because I made my maiden speech during the time of the strike and my usually well-informed friends still ask me when I am to make my maiden speech. But I make no complaint about that.
The B.B.C. news bulletins first rose to importance and to influence in the country, I suppose, when Hitler marched into the Rhineland and later into Czechoslovakia. Before that, the news bulletins were taken rather light-heartedly. I seem to remember that their chief function was
1462
to describe the wanderings of depressions over Iceland, and so on. Then, in the war, we hung on every word of the bulletins and they became an integral part of our national life.
Now, what I call the official part of the news bulletins absorbs about the first 10 minutes of any bulletin, which covers such serious topics as four-Power talks, the situation in Indo-China, our serious debates in Parliament, and so on. But—let us be quite frank—the public listens to the first 10 minutes or so of any news bulletin with only half an ear. What people really listen to with the greatest interest is the five minutes of general and sporting news in the latter part of the B.B.C. bulletins.
My first criticism of the B.B.C. when there were no newspapers was that it was too slow to expand the bulletins to take in items of more general or popular interest. It took the B.B.C. about a week or 10 days to expand those news bulletins to satisfy a greater demand. If one analyses a daily newspaper, one finds that it is made up of about 70 to 100 different items of news—that is, hard news and not comment. The B.B.C, in its ordinary bulletins, deals with only about half a dozen of these items. I suggest that what was wanted during the strike was frequent bulletins of, perhaps, 10 minutes' duration, of a more general or popular nature. These might have been broadcast at every other hour, apart from the regular bulletins, or at half hourly intervals, in the Light Programme. I suggest that even the sacred Third Programme wavelength could well have been used for popular and general bulletins. The Third Programme wavelength is not used until 6 o'clock in the evening.
During the period of the strike, the B.B.C. programmes were too inflexible and not sufficiently imaginative use was made of them. We might have had bulletins more on the lines of the American approach—on the lines of news-casting—with a little more colour thrown into them.
Constituents of mine have given to me three detailed examples of complaints, and they have put them to me as follows. I am told that on Saturday evenings the results of the football matches were issued three times, at 5.30 in Sports Report in the Light Programme, at 6.15 after the

1463
news in the Home Service, and at 7.25 in the Light Programme. However, those results are not the only things people are anxious to know on Saturday evenings. They are very interested also in the Football League tables, and no such League tables were given out by the B.B.C. until Sunday mornings, when one had to get up rather early to listen to them.
Then there was a complaint about horse racing news. I am not particularly interested in that, but a number of people are very much interested in horse racing, and I do not see any reason why the betting odds could not have been broadcast, possibly on the wavelength of the Third Programme. Thirdly, not enough City news was broadcast.
I should like to make three suggestions to my right hon. Friend to pass on to the B.B.C. against the event of another newspaper strike. The first is that the news bulletins should be expanded more quickly than they were the last time, that is, in the first day or two. Secondly, that there should be inserted in the programmes bulletins of popular news value. Thirdly, that an alternative wavelength, possibly the wavelength of the Third Programme, should be used for this purpose of news broadcasting.
I believe that my right hon. Friend has the authority to take these matters up with the B.B.C. The relations between the State and the B.B.C. have been laid down in Agreements, Licences, and the Royal Charters. The first Agreement between the Post Office and the B.B.C. was drawn up in November, 1926, when the old British Broadcasting Company Limited was wound up and, in its place, was established the British Broadcasting Corporation under the Royal Charter of December, 1926, which came into force on 1st January, 1927. Now the relations between the Postmaster-General and the B.B.C. are governed by the Licence and Agreement of 12th June, 1952, and by the Royal Charter of 1st July, 1952.
The Preamble of the Royal Charter brings out one of the points I am putting forward. It says:
"And whereas in view of the widespread interest which is thereby and by other evidences shown to be taken by Our Peoples in the broadcasting services and of the great value of such services as means of disseminating information, education and entertainment, We
1464
believe it to be in the interests of Our Peoples in Our United Kingdom and elsewhere within the British Commonwealth of Nations that the Corporation should continue to provide broadcasting services pursuant to such non-exclusive licences and such agreements in that behalf as Our Postmaster-General may from time to time grant to and make with the Corporation."
One of the Objects of the Corporation set out in the Royal Charter, in paragraph (e), is:
"To develop, extend and improve the Home Services and the External Services and to those ends to exercise such Licence or Licences in such manner or by such means and methods as may from time to time be agreed by the Corporation and Our Postmaster-General, and to concur in any extension, adaptation or modification of the terms, conditions, provisions, restrictions or limitations of any such Licence or Licences as may to Our Postmaster-General seem fit."
Clause 3 (7) gives power to the B.B.C.
"to collect news and information in any part of the world and in any manner that may be thought fit and to establish and to subscribe to news agencies."
I suggest that under Clause 3 (d), dealing with the objects of the Corporation, the Postmaster-General has power to discuss these matters with the B.B.C, because the wording of the Clause implies that from time to time there shall be discussions between my right hon. Friend and the B.B.C. If my right hon. Friend does not take that view, then at least I ask that he should send a copy of the Report of the debate to the B.B.C. for study by the B.B.C. as a matter of importance and interest to the public so that the Corporation can modify its ideas about the dissemination of news in case there is ever again a strike in the newspaper industry.
9.16 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Peart: I wish to make a very short intervention. I hesitated to rise because I thought the Postmaster-General was about to reply to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and I thought he was also about to make a statement about television facilities in Cumberland. That is a wider issue which, no doubt, my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) will raise if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to stress what the hon. Member for Twickenham said about the importance of news to a democracy and I would also stress the value of sporting

1465
activities. We are a democratic community and we feel that our democracy is healthy partly because we have a safety valve in our enjoyment of sport. I want to stress the importance of the provision of sporting facilities and sporting entertainment by the B.B.C. for my constituents.
I raised this matter on Friday, and no doubt the Minister has read the report of my speech in HANSARD. He was not present, but I know the reason; he was journeying to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle and he well knows the position in Cumberland. The Minister, as a supporter of Luton, is an enthusiastic football fan. Luton have been very successful this season. I once had the privilege of watching them defeat Workington in the F.A. Cup, when the Minister was present. I know that I have the Minister's sympathy for Cumberland's claim that we should be able to watch the television of the F.A. Cup Final on 7th May.
Unfortunately, we get our reception from Kirk o' Shotts, which is a Scottish station but which caters for viewers in Cumberland as well as for viewers in Scotland. The Scottish Football Association has, unfortunately, decided that if the F.A. Cup Final is broadcast, Scottish viewers and my constituents will watch a cricket match between Poloc and the West of Scotland. I know that my Scottish friends in the area would rather watch the English Cup Final. After all, Newcastle United have several Scottish players and there are many Scottish players in many of the other English club sides. This is a programme which would interest Scottish viewers.
The Scottish F.A. has decided that it shall not be televised, however. It is not the fault of the B.B.C. in this case. The hon. Member for Twickenham was prodding the B.B.C. and asking the Minister to use his influence with them, but in this case it is not the fault of the Minister, who is sympathetic, and it is not the fault of the B.B.C, which is also sympathetic. I read this weekend a statement by a B.B.C. official, as follows:
"The Scottish F.A. would not give permission to televising the final as it might affect local club gates. Geographical and technical conditions are such that the B.B.C. cannot transmit to Cumberland from anywhere but Kirk o' Shotts."
1466
There was a statement that the B.B.C. had great sympathy with the viewers in Cumberland. I am sure that every hon. Member sympathises with my constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) and I sent a telegram to the Scottish F.A. I am rather perturbed about the reply which we received from the Scottish F.A. which was to the effect that the television of the Cup Final was subject to international agreement and that the Scottish F.A. could not intervene.
The position is that the B.B.C. desires to televise the Cup Final to this area, the Postmaster-General is certainly sympathetic, and Scottish viewers as well as my constituents certainly wish to see the match. The only people really responsible for the cutting down of the facilities are the Scottish F.A. This means that a small group of men can virtually decide what shall be the national programme broadcast to the country. They may be very worthy men, and I do not criticise them as individuals.
The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) says that this is an example of State planning. On the contrary, the State, through the B.B.C. which is a public Corporation, wishes to provide the television facilities and the Post Office, a State Department, also wishes to provide them; but a private organisation concerned about the commercial interests of football in Scotland is by its action denying people in the north of England opportunity to see a national spectacle. This is not a political matter, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Louth is in sympathy with my view.
It is important that a national spectacle which can be seen in other parts of the country, and which my constituents saw last year, should be broadcast to the whole of the country. I ask the Postmaster-General to use his good offices, either directly or indirectly, not to persuade the B.B.C. to televise the match but to enable the B.B.C. to make further approaches to the Scottish F.A.
The Postmaster-General is sympathetic, the B.B.C. is sympathetic, and I should like an appeal to the Scottish F.A. from this House not to be so mean and autocratic. I wish football in Scotland well; I hope that the Scottish clubs get good gates. I wish every success to their

1467
organisation, but I ask them to show a little tolerance. I hope that they will show as much tolerance as was shown to me on Friday, when I first raised this matter in the House. I hope that from this House we can take some initiative which will enable television facilities to be provided for an area which is very much isolated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle has for a year or two been agitating about television facilities for Cumberland, and I hope that he will pursue the matter even though this is the last week of the present Parliament. Cumberland is an isolated area. My constituents have to travel long distances to see First Division football, although we have a very successful Third Division side this year as well as a successful Rugby League side. However, my constituents wish to see this national spectacle which I know will be enjoyed by all our fellow countrymen next week.
This a non-political matter. I hope that there will be an approach outside this House so that we in Cumberland can watch this national spectacle which, after all, is a part of our English way of life.
9.24 p.m.
Mr. A. Hargreaves: I am glad to have the opportunity to support the representations made tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), especially as it seems to me, and to a number of people in the Carlisle and Cumberland area, that this limitation, which came to our notice with the issue of this week's "Radio Times," last Thursday, is an additional rebuff to us in our attempts to improve conditions in the area.
The Postmaster-General will probably know that not long ago there was an all-party approach from Cumberland and Westmorland to the Assistant Postmaster-General on the subject of television and sound radio. It is not a one-sided approach on this side of the House. Many people in the area feel that to a very great extent they are being neglected.
Had the right hon. Gentleman been in Carlisle a little later in the week than he was, he would have been surprised, as I was, by the amount of feeling that
1468
has been expressed this weekend not only in the local Press but in other ways. Messages have been sent to the British Broadcasting Corporation and, in addition, there was the effort made in concert between my hon. Friend the Member for Workington and myself.
As I have said, the efforts we have been making extend over a very long period of time and seem to show a neglect by the Corporation of the people living in that area. They are suffering from very wretched reception on the Home and Light Programmes, and as for the Third Programme we are not able to receive it at all. The Kirk o' Shotts television station serves the northern part of the county and the people there will be denied the opportunity of viewing this football spectacle, to which many thousands of people look forward at the end of the football season.
As my hon. Friend has indicated, we have gone as far as we can to bring some pressure to bear upon the authority in the hope that the wishes of the people in the area can be met. I am certain that even at this late stage, if the programme could be televised from Kirk o' Shotts, then announcements could be made in advance so that the people would be aware of the change which would ensure that they saw the Cup Final on television. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman, even now, will be able to do something which will result in the wishes of these people being met.
I indicated earlier that there has been really strong feeling for a long time at the neglect from which we have suffered. I have outlined the efforts that have been made. I could go through them in detail were that necessary, but they are all available in the Departmental records of the right hon. Gentleman, and no doubt he will consult them later. I do not want to detain the House in going over these details, but I should like to express the strong feeling that is felt on this question. The fact that the people will not be able to see this final, a decision made known to them only in this week's issue of "Radio Times," has aroused in Cumberland a very great deal of resentment. I hope that the Postmaster-General can help us to ensure that the people in this area are fully served by the television service from Kirk o' Shotts this coming week-end.
9.29 p.m.
Major Legge-Bourke: I certainly feel that anybody who asks for a B.B.C. televised outdoor event is to be encouraged, because my own experience from watching television programmes is that the most successful put out are the televising of outside events, especially sporting events. Whether one wishes to follow Chelsea or not, those who take an interest in football should be given a fair opportunity to see whatever game they want.
It seems to me, judging from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and from the subsequent speeches, that a matter of high principle is involved here. It seems open to question whether anyone—other than perhaps Parliament, the Churches and the Judiciary—should have the right to prevent television cameras from going anywhere. Television has come into our lives to such a great extent, and will intrude the more so in the future, that the question arises whether the television cameraman should have the same rights as the ordinary Press cameraman. I know that Press cameras are not allowed in this Chamber. I do not think that they are allowed in the Law Courts, and that only under certain special circumstances are they allowed in our churches. Otherwise, the Press cameraman is fairly free to roam where he wishes, and I think that wherever a cinema cameraman may go, the television cameraman should be able to go.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) said that he had nothing personal against the Scottish Football Association, and neither have I. But, sooner or later, we must take an important decision whether anyone should have the right to impose a bar on the television cameraman separately from the Press cameraman or the newsreel cameraman. We must adopt a broader outlook than we have at present on these matters. I am not saying that at present the time is ripe. But as television becomes more comprehensive, and as more programmes are available, we shall have to come to a decision, while ensuring that there is no risk of monopoly, or undue financial damage to any private concern.
During the newspaper strike I listened to one or two of the B.B.C. news bulletins and I think, purely from a technical
1470
point of view, that there is a limit to the time during which a news bulletin is topical. It takes far more concentration to understand and to follow what the announcer is saying in a 20-minute news bulletin than to read the leading articles in all the newspapers which one finds in this House. It is very difficult to concentrate, because the subjects change so rapidly. There is no break in the transmission. The announcer goes from one subject to another in a manner which is almost an encouragement to cultivate a grasshopper mind. Whether there be another newspaper strike or not—and it is to be hoped that there will never be another—I think we should be careful in suggesting that the B.B.C. should be under any obligation to allow a certain time for news bulletins.
The B.B.C. technicians are second to none when it comes to deciding what the public want. After the experience they have had, dating back to the days of 2 L.O., they should know how long the public desire news bulletins to last. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham that it might be possible to insert news bulletins in other programmes, but I think it would be a mistake to make the bulletins any longer, and that 20 minutes is the limit. I remember the days when, with a home-constructed crystal set, and after tinkering with the crystal and the cat's whisker, I listened to the music of Leslie Sarony coming from the Savoy Hotel. I think that my hon. Friend skipped a bit of history in his account.
I believe I am right in saying that the B.B.C. came into its own at the time of the General Strike, in 1926. It is perhaps rather quaint that until we had a newspaper strike, the B.B.C. was unable to take full advantage of giving a news service. If anyone suggested that the Government should tell the B.B.C. what it ought to do, I think that the right hon. Member for Lewisham. South (Mr. H. Morrison) would be the first to say that the B.B.C. must be allowed to decide these things for itself. I certainly would not suggest that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General should do it either.
I think that the best way of ensuring that the public is properly served in these circumstances would be for there to be more than one organisation disseminating information. I do not wish to be unduly

1471
controversial, but I honestly believe that there should be more than one organisation doing it. I suspect that the B.B.C. was most anxious throughout the newspaper strike to avoid exacerbating any feelings. It cannot have been an easy thing for it to do, because some of the men working for the B.B.C. belong to the same unions as those involved in the strike. That must have presented a difficult situation for the B.B.C.
On the whole, I think that, in the end, the B.B.C. provided most of the things which the public wanted so far as news was concerned. I still believe that for the future—let us hope that it will never be necessary to cover the sort of circumstances which my hon. Friend had in mind—we should have as great a variety of sources for putting over the air, whether pictorially or in sound, the information and programmes which the public want.
9.38 p.m.
Mr. Percy Collick: I rise to say a few words because I think that it would be quite wrong if the House allowed it to go out that the speech of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) had our general approbation. There may be a case for saying that the B.B.C. did not reach perfection in giving news bulletins during the newspaper strike, but I found it difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman when he said that, in his opinion, the B.B.C. ought even to have given the betting odds. It may well be that betting odds are of very great importance to his constituents in Twickenham, but I cannot imagine that they are of very great importance to the general population.
Mr. Cyril Osborne: Why do the newspapers give so much space to them?
Mr. Collick: I wondered whether the hon. Gentleman was going to be critical of the B.B.C. because it did not give the Stock Exchange prices.
Mr. Ede: It did.
Mr. Collick: I thought that if the hon. Gentleman had a case at all on those grounds, he might as well have been critical of the B.B.C. for not giving the Stock Exchange prices and all the rest. However interesting that might be to hon.
1472
Gentlemen opposite, I am certain that it is not a matter in which the general population have any concern at all.
9.39 p.m.
Mr. W. M. F. Vane: Instead of supporting the doctrine that an Englishman's home is his castle, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) said that he could go either into a church or come into this House to avoid the television camera. Although I differ from my hon. and gallant Friend on that and on other things which he said, I really rise to add my plea to that of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) who, in all seriousness, was complaining about the poor reception in Cumberland and Westmorland.
We know that we have rather a difficult geography and that we also have a large concentration of population on the west coast, which is very far away from any of the main broadcasting stations. For a very long time now we have been hoping that some means would be found of overcoming the technical difficulties which we all admit exist.
It is not so very long ago—all the same it is some months—that an all-party delegation met the Assistant Postmaster-General, who received us most kindly and led us to believe that some steps would soon be taken to improve the reception and perhaps even to build a new small station at Carlisle. Since then I have been expecting to hear something, and have been disappointed. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Carlisle has heard from the Post Office, but I hope that the Postmaster-General can tell us something about that matter, because I feel that some improvement in that direction is overdue for a large section of the country in the north-west of England.
9.41 p.m.
Mr. Ede: The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) must be rather surprised at the width the debate has taken from the comparatively narrow point which he raised; in fact, a debate of this nature upon an Adjournment approaches nearest to Lewis Carroll's axiom of oratory:
"Let it be granted that a speech may be made on any point and at any distance from that point."

1473
While the Chair, as a rule, prevents that from being an axiom of the House, debates perilously approach it upon occasions such as this.
Some of the criticisms of the B.B.C. made by the hon. Member for Twickenham indicate the dangers that might have been brought upon the B.B.C. It is not so much the odds after the race about which people are concerned as with what "Templegate," "Ajax" or "Uno" tell them before the race is run. Occasionally, at Epsom, I have seen Officers of the House studying the back page of the noon edition of the "Evening Standard."
Mr. John Baird: Or the "Daily Herald."
Mr. Ede: I have not seen Officers of the House doing that. I want to be strictly factual. Occasionally, they have been discriminating enough to find something which the newspapers have not suggested. It might be rather embarrassing if the B.B.C. had an official tipster. I understand that there is a young lady who has given tips upon more than one occasion upon television programmes and that, so far, not one has come off. I think that Prince Monolulu, giving his views on television about what might be happening within a few minutes—with appropriately censored patter—might cause very considerable embarrassment. All I can say is that once, as I was walking into the paddock at Epsom with a lady, I received a most obsequious salute from that gentleman, and my lady friend said, "Now I know that you really are a famous man."
The B.B.C. had a very difficult task to perform upon this occasion and I think that, generally speaking, it rose to its task, for it was very difficult, in the circumstances of that time, to give news without giving opinions. Most of us read the newspapers to get some idea of various opinions. In fact, a friend of mine who writes for a certain professional journal, after commenting upon having had to listen to impartial news for some days, said, "How glad I was to get back to something that had good, robust bias in it." Whether the bias is what one would like to put on the ball oneself or what an opponent has put on it, it does give that spice to even the most formal news which makes the reading interesting.
1474
I agree with the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) that it is very difficult to sustain interest in a B.B.C. bulletin dealing with a number of things in which one is interested when it is interspersed with a number of things which do not appeal to one at all. Frequently one finds that one's mind is wandering when listening to something in which one is not very interesting, and then, when the announcer gets to the end of a sentence, realising that he was saying something in which one imagines one would have been interested if one had been paying attention all the time.
I share with him the view that a 20 minute bulletin is quite long enough. Do not let us forget that even during the war, although we had very frequent bulletins at the beginning, it was not very long before the number was cut down. I think that the B.B.C. would be very severely criticised if it accepted the suggestion of an hourly bulletin of news or anything like that.
I join with my hon. Friends the Members for Workington (Mr. Peart), Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) and Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) and with the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) in their plea that some provision should be made for the North-West Coast and the other areas in England which would have difficulty in getting a television view of the Cup Final. Personally, I enjoy watching cricket on the wireless more than football.
Mr. Osborne: On television.
Mr. Ede: It is also wireless. Although we call it all wireless, it does originate in wires and is picked up by wires. I enjoy watching cricket rather more than football, but I cannot think that I should enjoy watching a Scottish cricket match rather than the Cup Final in England.
There are great occasions when one feels that one is part of a great national event and can participate in it by watching it on television. I certainly hope that in this matter, whatever the difficulties may be, they can be overcome. I am quite certain that there will be keen competition and I wish that it could be between two services by the B.B.C. on television on occasions such as this, when a second service is available. I hope that the B.B.C. will not be restricted by some such arrangement as, we understand, operated on this occasion, whereby it will

1475
be excluded from giving the service for which the majority of the people in the country wish.
I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to exercise influence which will enable the wishes of my hon. Friends' constituents and those of the hon. Member for Westmorland to get what I am quite sure will be the overwhelming desire of all viewers in that part of the country on the day of the Cup Final.
9.50 p.m.
The Postmaster-General (Dr. Charles Hill): It has been an interesting debate, not least because of the reminiscences, sporting and otherwise, of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). In most of what has been said it has been implicit that all that I can do is to convey to the appropriate quarter the views expressed.
There was a sentence in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) in which he quoted from the Charter. That quotation seemed to suggest that I, as Postmaster-General, have a power that can be exercised to secure the result that he wants. I must make it clear at the outset how limited—and in my view rightly limited—are the powers of the Postmaster-General in this respect.
My hon. Friend quoted from the Charter a statement of objects, from a clause which merely said that in granting the Licence the Postmaster-General might apply conditions. The important thing to remember is just what conditions are attached to the Licence today. In Clause 15 (2) of the Licence, the Postmaster-General is empowered to require the B.B.C. to broadcast an impartial account of the proceedings of Parliament. In Clause 15 (3) he is empowered to require the Corporation to broadcast Departmental announcements. Those matters would certainly not produce the kind of cosy colour which my hon. Friend sought to obtain during a newspaper strike.
Bearing in mind that Clauses 15 (2) and 15 (3) are so limited, that Clause 15 (4) gives the Postmaster-General power to forbid by written communication certain classes of matter, and that these are
1476
the only sources of authority for the Postmaster-General in the Licence, it is clear that Parliament has not intended the powers to be granted, for which I am truly grateful.
That is the position. I have no other power whatever to tell the B.B.C. to broadcast this or that. I have no power whatever to call upon it to broadcast from this or that station. Incidentally, there was a power of that kind in the earlier T.V. Licences of 1937 and 1946, but that power was never used and was not repeated in 1952.
Let me sum up. Within the limits I have described it is the B.B.C. which is responsible for the manner and the matter of its day-to-day programmes. It would be most undesirable to disturb that arrangement, however strong the arguments appeared to be in relation to a particular criticism. It has been said our recent experience might suggest the need for both methods of presentation: the impartial, factual method of the B.B.C. and the robust, biased, but coloured angle of presentation which we have become accustomed to have and to enjoy in the newspapers of our choice.
So, at the risk of repetition, I say that I have no power and no desire to intervene on any of the topics that have been raised by hon. Gentlemen here tonight. I shall not express any views on the suggestions that have been made to the B.B.C. of what it should do should there be a newspaper strike in the future. I am certain that the B.B.C. follows with interest what is said in this House about its activities.
On the other hand, I have made inquiries about the position in the North of England in relation to the Kirk o' Shotts Station, because it seemed to me to be a little odd that that part of England should be deprived of viewing the English Cup Final because, in fact, the transmitting station which served it is in Scotland. I want to report to the House what I have been informed as a result of those inquiries. It is that it was part of the agreement between the football associations—including, incidentally, those of European countries—that the F.A. Cup Final would not be televised in other countries when football league clubs were engaged on the same afternoon.

1477
Naturally, I have further inquired whether it was the case (that football league games were still continuing. I have been informed that next Saturday there are two charity cup semi-finals in Scotland involving Scottish League football clubs, that there are various Senior League county cup ties in which Senior League teams will be engaged, and finally, junior professional football games leading up to their final on 14th May. A further approach has been made today to the Scottish Football Association by the head of outside broadcasts of the B.B.C., and I can further report that the secretary of that body has reaffirmed that in view of the foregoing facts which I have recited the Football Association Cup Final cannot be relayed from the Kirk o' Shotts transmitter.
Mr. Osborne: Can my right hon. Friend tell us for how long this agreement lasts, and is there no means of breaking it? Is it going to stay for ever?
Dr. Hill: I cannot pretend to go into greater detail than I have done. Without notice, I do not know the length of period of the agreement; I know that it is in operation at the present time. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want deliberately not to be drawn too far into this matter because I want, above all, to retain the position that it is the responsibility of the B.B.C. and not of the Postmaster-General.
Sir William Bennett: Is it not a fact that the Kirk o' Shotts station was set up to serve Scotland and Scotland alone, that representations were made that it should not reach the Border and that another station was to supply that area?
Dr. Hill: I confess that I have had to say to people in that part of England which receives the Kirk o' Shotts transmission that that is the station to which they must look for their television. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Sir W. Bennett) knows, if I were not speaking as Postmaster-General I should hold some pretty frank views on that, and express them.
But there I must leave it. I have made inquiries. I hope that what has been said here today will lead those responsible so
1478
to re-examine the position as to make absolutely certain that they are right. For myself, I have not intervened, I cannot intervene and I will not intervene, as I have no power to require them to do what so many people in the North of England want them to do. The hon. Gentleman knows that I went for another purpose to Carlisle last Friday. I may tell him that the early stages of the conversation were not the oratory which the people might subsequently expect on wider topics but this particular problem of the denial to that area of the possibility of witnessing the Cup Final.
Mr. Hargreaves: Has it been reported to the right hon. Gentleman that the report to the head of outside broadcasts of the B.B.C. originated in the City of Carlisle arising from the strong resentment of the people there about their "lost weekend"?
Dr. Hill: I have no doubt from what I heard last Friday that considerable resentment was being expressed and would subsequently be expressed in other quarters.
It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]
Dr. Hill: I am aware of the other problems in Carlisle and generally in those counties. I shall not weary the House with details now, except to say in respect of sound broadcasting that the one really hopeful prospect of solving the difficulties of that area lies in the development of very high frequency broadcasting, the first station of which I had the honour earlier this evening to open—not, alas, in the North, but in Wrotham, in Kent. Secondly, the B.B.C. plans the construction by the end of 1956 of six low-powered television stations, including a station in the Carlisle area. The site has not yet been selected, but tests are now proceeding. To that extent I can give those tokens of my concern about reception in that area, as in other areas.
I would say to my hon. Friends—while denying myself the temptation to pursue

1479
the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) and the dangerous doctrine he was beginning to outline—that while a debate such as this affords an opportunity of plain speaking to whomsoever it may concern, I desire to
1480
make perfectly plain the absolute limitations—desirable limitations—on what the Postmaster-General can do in directing the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Ten o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Redundant Staff (Transfers)
  Redundant Staff (Transfers)
  Electrical Equipment (Earthing)
  Electrical Equipment (Earthing)
  Tillage Acreage
  Tillage Acreage
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Welfare Foods (Consumption)
  Welfare Foods (Consumption)
  Chiropody Service (Old People)
  Chiropody Service (Old People)
  Surgical Shoes, Cardiff
  Surgical Shoes, Cardiff
  Artificial Legs (Personal Case)
  Artificial Legs (Personal Case)
  Cancer (H.11 Treatment)
  Cancer (H.11 Treatment)
  Hospital Beds and New Health Centres
  Hospital Beds and New Health Centres
HOSPITALS
  Approved Building Schemes (Value)
  Approved Building Schemes (Value)
  Surgical Equipment (Private Patients)
  Surgical Equipment (Private Patients)
  Leeds Regional Board (Stapleton Park Farm)
  Leeds Regional Board (Stapleton Park Farm)
  Medical and Surgical Treatment
  Medical and Surgical Treatment
CROSS-CHANNEL DAY TRIPS (PASSPORTS)
  CROSS-CHANNEL DAY TRIPS (PASSPORTS)
  CROSS-CHANNEL DAY TRIPS (PASSPORTS)
DIVISIONAL COURT (POLICE APPEALS)
  DIVISIONAL COURT (POLICE APPEALS)
  DIVISIONAL COURT (POLICE APPEALS)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Widows
  Widows
  Retirement Pensions and National Assistance
  Retirement Pensions and National Assistance
  Pensions (Purchasing Power)
  Pensions (Purchasing Power)
  Pensioners (Earnings)
  Pensioners (Earnings)
  Grimsby Trawler Men's Dependants (Assistance)
  Grimsby Trawler Men's Dependants (Assistance)
  Old-Age Pensioners (National Assistance)
  Old-Age Pensioners (National Assistance)
  War Dependants' Pensions
  War Dependants' Pensions
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Contracts (Fair Wages Clause)
  Contracts (Fair Wages Clause)
  Aircraft Company, Coventry (Production Programme Change)
  Aircraft Company, Coventry (Production Programme Change)
ELECTRICITY (SINGLE WIRE SYSTEM)
  ELECTRICITY (SINGLE WIRE SYSTEM)
  ELECTRICITY (SINGLE WIRE SYSTEM)
NYASALAND (CONSTITUTION)
  NYASALAND (CONSTITUTION)
  NYASALAND (CONSTITUTION)
NIGERIA (ONITSHA TOWN COUNCIL)
  NIGERIA (ONITSHA TOWN COUNCIL)
  NIGERIA (ONITSHA TOWN COUNCIL)
ROAD, RUMNEY (AID TO PEDESTRIANS)
  ROAD, RUMNEY (AID TO PEDESTRIANS)
  ROAD, RUMNEY (AID TO PEDESTRIANS)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  DRAFT POTATO MARKETING SCHEME, 1955
  2.35 p.m.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN): My Lords, I do not propose to move the approval of this Order to-day.

DRAFT PLOUGHING GRANTS SCHEME, 1955
EARL ST. ALDWYN EARL ST. ALDWYN rose to move, That the Draft Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, April 27 last, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is the fifth Scheme to be made under the Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) Act, 1952. Its principal object is to encourage ley farming—that is, as your Lordships know, to keep the plough going round the farm on all suitable fields. Your Lordships will remember that in the White Paper which was published following this year's Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees, the Government undertook to increase the rates of grant by £2 an acre. The Draft Scheme which is now before the House gives effect to this undertaking and accordingly provides for two rates of grant: a standard rate of £7 an acre for land that has been continuously under grass for at least three years, and a higher rate of £12 an acre for bringing into cultivation difficult pre-war grass land where the costs of doing so are abnormally high. The conditions under which these grants are payable are the same as in the earlier Schemes, except for two slight relaxations. These are in Section 3 (1), and they have the effect of slightly widening the rules relating to the crop which follows the ploughing up.
In Part I of the Scheme for 1954–55—that is, the part dealing with the lower
648
rate of grant—a crop had to be produced on the land in the calendar year 1955 or, exceptionally, if the Minister gave approval before ploughing in, the calendar year 1956. In other words, a crop had to be produced within a maximum period of two years. In this Draft Scheme for 1955–56, two changes are made. Cropping will be acceptable which takes place in the last seven months of 1955 as well as in 1956 and, exceptionally, in 1957. The maximum period has, therefore, been extended to two years and seven months. The other change is that the Minister's approval to cropping in 1957 need not necessarily be given before ploughing. These, however, are minor alterations; the main principles remain unaltered.
Your Lordships will, I am sure, agree that the need for grants of this kind continues. They are undoubtedly doing the industry a great deal of good, and the Government attach very much importance to them. Without them it would not be possible to maintain the arable and tillage areas in this country at their present high level compared with the levels which were customary before the war. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, April 27 last, be approved.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like to endorse what the noble Earl said about the importance of continuing this subsidy, especially in view of the fall in the arable acreage last year. I am glad that the Government have taken this step, and I think the slight alterations in the scheme will, on the whole, be an encouragement to farmers to take advantage of it. I beg to support it.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, may I ask one question? I know very little about farming, but when I was in New Zealand I was enormously impressed—and I cannot generalise from a short visit about the particular time of year—with the quality of the grass which they had. I talked to many New Zealand farmers, and they were all immensely appreciative of the skill of our farmers over here. They said they did not think they could teach our farmers anything, which I think

649
is true. But when I pressed them, they did say that they thought our grass farming was perhaps not so good as theirs. I wonder whether it is not a fact that a great deal of our grassland ought to be ploughed up and sown back to grass in order to improve the quality of our crops. Is that being done? Is that commonly done? I do not think it is. Land is ploughed to put it to other crops. Does this ploughing scheme apply to the case where grassland is ploughed up with the deliberate intention of re-seeding it to grass again?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, a farmer may re-seed to grass with the permission of the county committee. That permission is normally given without any trouble if the committee are satisfied that it is in the interests of good husbandry that the land should be re-seeded directly rather than a cash crop taken first.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: My Lords, in any future orders, schemes or subsidies, will the Minister reconsider the method of allocating the ploughing grants for downland, especially in those areas scheduled under the National Parks Act? On the South Downs, indiscriminate ploughing right up to the escarpment will surely lead to erosion. By ploughing too much, and therefore right up to the verge of existing highways, no space is left for bridle paths for horsemen or turf footpaths for pedestrians. Once farmers have got their heavy machinery for ploughing and clearing up on to the hill, surely the temptation to plough the whole lot, suitable or unsuitable, is almost irresistible, especially with the larger subsidy. Trees and bushes uprooted by bulldozers, footpaths fenced in or entirely obliterated by the plough, seem to be the rule of the day. Could not certain downland in England in future come under one of the special categories?
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I should like to support the plea which has been put forward by the noble Marquess, Lord Willingdon. In order to attract the lower rate of subsidy under this scheme, one requires no permission, no inspection by anybody and no decision from anybody as to whether the land is, in fact, suitable land to be ploughed up. This
650
seems to me to be encouraging a form of mining of land. It is not, of course, my intention to oppose this Order to-day, but I should be grateful if the noble Earl could give us an assurance that this is a matter which his Department will look into.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I appreciate what my noble friend Lord Willingdon has said, about ploughing up downs and national park land. We must, of course, see that the amenities of the countryside are preserved, but I think the noble Marquess will find that that is taken care of in other ways. We have tried to keep this Scheme as simple as possible, and up to now I think we have succeeded; but if, in any particular circumstances, we made the £7 ploughing grant subject to Ministers' approval, we should inevitably be introducing considerable complications. Moreover, it is doubtful whether Ministers would be justified in using a Ploughing Grants Scheme, which was passed by Parliament in order to improve farming production, as a means of enforcing views on the amenities of the countryside. The responsibility for safeguarding the amenities of the South Downs rests with the local planning authorities. I have been in touch with the Minister of Housing and Local Government about this matter, and he is not aware that the ploughing of downland has given rise to any serious problems of access. It is true that the pattern of farming in downland areas is changing, but I do not think that the extension of the arable area should necessarily be regarded as detracting from the beauty or from amenities.
I am sure that under this Scheme there will be no question of the ploughing of land by farmers merely for the sake of getting the grant. They must plough and sow a crop, or get the Minister's approval to allow the land to lie fallow and then sow a crop. That, I think, covers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon. I understood him to suggest that farmers were ploughing in order to get the grant; but they have also to take a crop before they are paid the grant. Obviously, they will not go to the expense of planting and cultivating if they are not going to get any return other than the £7 an acre.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I should like to feel as confident as the noble Earl does that in fact these grants will not encourage the ploughing up of unsuitable land. May I ask the noble Earl to reconsider this matter before an Order of this kind is produced again?
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether, in connection with the administration of the many different problems arising under these grants, he will bear sympathetically in mind the problem affecting common lands which are still, in this last year, being ploughed up and which present a particular problem for succeeding years? The subject was explained in some detail by the noble Earl's predecessor, Lord Carrington, in this House last year. Would the noble Earl bear in mind that there is a serious danger of loss of national food production through the apparent inability to dovetail the matter of common rights and food production? In many parts of England, particularly in the South, a serious situation is arising: land which has been so cultivated and has attracted these grants apparently runs the risk of going out of cultivation, with a consequent lessening of food production.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, arising out of what the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, said, as I am not a member of the Procedure Committee, may I ask whether it would not be a good Standing Order of this House that these Draft Orders should be debated under Committee Rules? They do not usually lead to long discussion, but often there is a good deal of exchange about them.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, that we are in danger of having land ploughed up merely for the sake of ploughing. We have been into this matter carefully, and we are convinced that the situation is well in hand. As regards the question of commons, I do not think I can add anything to what I said in the debate in your Lordships' House on forestry and agriculture. I told your Lordships then, I think, that the matter was being considered carefully by the Minister and that in due course something might be said.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DRAFT AGRICULTURE (PLOUGH ING GRANTS) (SCOTLAND) SCHEME, 1955
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, this is a similar scheme to that which we have just been discussing. I do not think I need add anything to what I have already said. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) (Scotland) Scheme, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 27th of April last, be approved.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL
2.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, I think this Bill should be generally welcomed in all parts of the House. It arises from the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, to whom certain matters were referred in March, 1954. The House will note that the Government have not lost much time in implementing those recommendations. The Bill contains two main amendments to the National Insurance Act, 1946, which will be seen respectively in Clauses 1 and 2. Under the 1946 Act self-employed or non-employed persons could contract out of the insurance scheme, should they so wish, if their income did not exceed £104 a year. Owing to the rise in the cost of living since 1946, the Committee recommend that it would be proper to raise from £104 to £156 a year the limit below which a person can contract out. I think this will generally be regarded as reasonable. Clause 1 (2) slightly extends and formalises the present administrative practice. The Minister may now, by regulation, provide that the application to contract out may have retrospective effect for a limited period. This is not very much more than clarification.
The second clause deals with employed persons. At present, an employed person earning remuneration at a weekly rate of not more than 30s. pays less in insurance contributions than the normal employed

653
person, the employer having to make up the balance. In view of a misunderstanding in regard to what this 30s. means, may I remind the House that the First Schedule to the National Insurance Act, 1946, says:
"… a person shall be deemed to be earning remuneration at a weekly rate of thirty shillings or less if, but only if, his remuneration does not include the provision of board and lodging by the employer and the rate of remuneration does not exceed thirty shillings a week …"
That means that "living in" cases are excluded. At the present time the figure of 30s. is quite unrealistic, and the Committee recommend that this should be increased to 60s. a week—for very much the same considerations as those in the recommendations to which I have already referred. Under the new rates of contribution, to be paid from the beginning of June, the total National Insurance contribution of 11s. 10d. for an employed man will, for a low wage earner, be paid to the extent of 3s. 8d. by the employee and 8s. 2d. by the employer, instead of 6s. 4d. and 5s. 6d. respectively in the ordinary case. In the case of a woman, the total contribution of 9s. 10d. will be paid to the extent of 3s. 1d. by the employee and 6s. 9d. by the employer, instead of 5s. 4d. and 4s. 6d. The second paragraph of Clause 2 is really no more than clarification.
There are two other recommendations which the Committee made which are not included in this Bill because they can be dealt with by regulation. The first deals with disregarding for the purpose of the new exception limit, family allowances under the Family Allowances Act and allowances under the War Pensions Scheme for fatherless children. The second point is that an income should be held to be within the limit if the income does not exceed that limit by more than the amount of the insurance contribution. As I have said, both these points are in fact covered by administrative action. It is not possible to say how many people will be affected by these proposals, but at the present time the number of exception certificates has remained at about 200,000.
I should like to make one general observation in regard to exception certificates. The principle upon which the Insurance Act operates is, of course,
654
universality. The original scheme, however, frankly envisaged a lower level of income at which the payment of contributions would constitute a real hardship. None the less, it is hoped that the number whose incomes fall under that limit and who will choose to contract out will not be great, because there are very real advantages in maintaining insurance cover wherever it is at all possible for people to do so. The Insurance Fund itself is not affected by this Bill, because it is believed that the reduction in the benefit liability involved will cancel out any loss of contribution. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
2.56 p.m.
LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for explaining the provisions of this very short Bill. If I were promulgating a new Insurance Act I am not sure that I should be in agreement at all with the system of contracting out; but since the principle has been accepted, and the amendment proposed to-day merely brings the present proposals into line with the cost of living, obviously we can have no objection whatever to it. As the noble Earl said, the second proposal is merely administrative and is probably good in itself. With regard to the third, perhaps its main impact upon my mind is to emphasise the great difference between the earning capacity of the people to-day and what it was when the first National Insurance Act was passed. If I remember aright, in those days the low wage earners were those earning in the region of a few shillings a week, rather than 30s., or, as it is now, 60s. That emphasises the great change that has taken place in the community. I had hoped that, before we discussed this Bill, we might have initiated a debate on the general provisions of the Bill by discussing the Actuary's Report on the first quinquennial valuation. May I express the hope that when the noble Earl, who is so conversant with this subject, comes back on to this side of the House, he will initiate a debate on that all-important question. We have great pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

FINANCE BILL
2.58 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, it is customary, on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill in this House, for the debate to extend far and wide over the whole field of the Government's financial and economic policy. The observations which I shall make to the House this afternoon will not be long, but will, I hope, cover the essential topics which will be of some interest to the House. Noble Lords will be aware of the changes which have been announced by my right honourable friend in his Budget speech, and those changes are embodied in the Finance Bill before the House to-day, on which I shall have to say a few words in the course of my remarks.
I think the House will wish to know something of the recent economic developments and the prospects for the future. They are fully set out in the Economic Survey which is published from time to time, and therefore I need refer only to the more important points. First, let me try to review the general background of our economic situation. The prosperity of the nation, with rising production and full employment, has been not merely maintained but expanded. Our total production rose during the period by 4 per cent., after allowing for any price changes which may have occurred. In industry there was an increase of 6½ per cent. for the second year in succession. Both these increases were mainly the result of greater efficiency and only slightly of increases in employment.
Any increase in production over and above the present level must depend, in the main, upon greater productivity, and such progress as has been achieved is certainly a happy omen for the future. It would, however, be even more encouraging if progress had been uniform over the whole field of production. There are two basic industries—agriculture and coal mining—where, for different reasons, this progress has not been made. On whichever side of the House we sit we should all sympathise with the farming community who did so well in spite of the very severe weather of last year. This resulted in only a moderate harvest, obtained by enormous effort; nevertheless.
656
there was an increase in livestock. The output of the coal mining industry for 1954 remained at the same level as in 1953, but was still one million tons below the output in 1952. This occurred at a time when the all-round increase in production led to ever-increasing demands for fuel. To prevent a coal shortage in industry it was necessary not only to reduce our exports but also, unhappily, to increase our imports. This naturally had an effect upon our balance of payments which we can ill-afford.
Her Majesty's Government have always been anxious to bring about a steady and continuous improvement in the living standards of all the people, as part of a general rise in the prosperity of the country. In 1953, and again in 1954, total personal consumption, after allowing for price increases, rose by 4 per cent. This expansion is due to an increase in incomes which has been spread across the whole community. Let me here take the case of the wage earner, and look back to the day when this Government assumed office in 1951. Real wage rates, after making full allowance for changes in the cost of living, have increased by something like 6 per cent. since 1951, and real earnings in industry have risen by no less than 9 per cent.
I do not wish to leave this matter of wage increases without some reference to companies, to whom my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been accused, in some quarters, of disproportionate favour. Fortunately, commercial companies of all kinds, upon whom the prosperity of the nation and the people very largely depends, have continued to flourish. This is no doubt partly due to the confidence which has been generated by the incentives which my right honourable friend has given in his previous Budgets and which I believe are now coming into effect. During the last twelve months, perhaps for political reasons, we have heard much about the payment of higher dividends. I have never understood why any person who risks his money and his possessions in industrial and commercial enterprises should not receive a full and appropriate reward. What are the actual facts? According to the Economic Survey (the figures of which, I am informed, are universally accepted), as well as the White Paper on national income,

657
dividends and interest rose by nearly 50 per cent. less than wages and salaries. These figures speak for themselves, and certainly, to my mind (though a humble one in these great financial matters), they indicate no greed on the part of the great general body of shareholders.
Another feature of the situation which deserves the attention of noble Lords is the trend in National Savings. In the past year there has been a marked improvement. As my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out in his Budget speech, in the financial year just ended new savings have exceeded withdrawals by £120 million, whereas in the previous financial year, 1953–54, the position was the reverse, and there was a net reduction of £12 million. This means that we have seen an improvement from one year to another of over £130 million. Moreover, since 1951 the total of personal savings (of which National Savings are only one part) have shown a marked recovery from the low level to which they fell in the earlier post-war years. I consider this to be one of the most encouraging consequences of the more settled and prosperous conditions achieved since 1951.
I now pass to the subject of investment, in which there was an increase last year. New housing, which had already reached a very high rate, increased still further, and 354,000 houses were completed; but housing took a smaller, and industrial investment a larger, share of the increase. Investment in the nationalised industries rose substantially, and new industrial building has considerably increased. The increases recorded in the area of factory space for which industrial development certificates have been issued, and in the inflow of new orders for machinery, provided promising signs of an upward trend in the future plans of private industry.
I turn from there to say a few words about the difficult subject of balance of payments. The first half of last year showed a quite satisfactory current surplus of £148 million, excluding aid, or £172 million including aid. This favourable balance, however, was not maintained during the second half of the year, when there was a slight deficit. The position of the rest of the sterling area was also less favourable in the second half of the year. The main reason for this
658
adverse movement in our position was undoubtedly an increase in the value and volume of imports which was not matched by a corresponding increase in the value of exports. The figures for the six months, October, 1954, to March, 1955, compared with the corresponding period a year earlier, were 14 per cent., as against 3 per cent.
The House will remember that to stem this movement, which was having an adverse effect upon our gold and dollar reserves and on the position of sterling on the exchanges of the world, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on February 24 last, introduced measures to restrain credit and to support sterling. It is too early yet for the effects of these measures to have worked themselves fully through the whole economy of the State, but since February we have seen a definite improvement in the position of sterling, and the movement of the gold and dollar reserves has been more favourable. Here, without wearying the House, I should like to quote some figures. Undoubtedly, there is already greater confidence abroad, one result of which is shown in the official sterling-dollar exchange rate, which has risen from under 2·78½ dollars in the third week of February to nearly 2·80 dollars; while the rate for transferable sterling has risen from under 2·72 dollars to about 2·77 dollars.
The House will see at once that the measures adopted by my right honourable friend last February have undoubtedly helped our external position, although, as I have said, their full effects can be felt only after a lapse of time. It should not be forgotten that, if we are to remain prosperous, necessary increases in imports must be met with higher exports. The main problem which has therefore confronted my right honourable friend is to increase production as much as possible and, simultaneously, to increase exports. Throughout the period that my right honourable friend has been Chancellor of the Exchequer, his policy has quite deliberately been expansionist rather than restrictive—indeed, every one of his Budgets has made a contribution towards providing further incentives for the general growth of productivity.
Here I may be laying myself open to contradictions from noble Lords opposite, but I believe that the full and vital energies

659
of our race can be gradually sapped by a long period of excessive taxation when all incentives are seriously curtailed. I think we are agreed that the level of taxation has been much too high for much too long, and that all incentives have suffered in consequence. My right honourable friend has, I think rightly, reversed this process, which has been going on for too long. At the end of the last financial year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had realised an unexpectedly large "above the line" surplus of £433 million, and on the basis of existing taxation could expect a surplus for the current year of £282 million. He was therefore faced with the decision, the vital and all-important decision, whether all this surplus should be retained, in the interests of the economy, or whether a better purpose would be served by a reduction of taxation.
My right honourable friend decided that the burden of direct taxation was the major factor and that, while retaining a prospective surplus of £148 million, he could give relief to a figure of £134 million. This was done, as your Lordships know, by a reduction of 6d. in the standard rate of income tax and of 3d. in the reduced rates, as well as increases in personal and child allowances. These reliefs have been broadly and fairly distributed over the whole range of income tax payers, while no fewer than 2,400,000 income tax payers have been relieved altogether. The complaint has been made from the Benches opposite—and I venture to think for purposes other than financial—that those with large incomes benefit to a greater extent than those with smaller incomes. But with taxation as progressive as it is to-day, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to give relief which will not benefit those who are paying a substantial sum in taxation. It is even more difficult—and I hope we shall hear the answer to-day—by tax reliefs alone to benefit those who pay no taxes at all.
Your Lordships will realise that I have spoken only briefly on some of the major factors connected with the economy of the country. Let me, therefore, now turn to the Bill itself. Clause 1 alters the standard rate of income tax from 9s. 0d. to 8s. 6d., and the proviso lays down that any consequential changes in the
660
tax deductible or repayable under P.A.Y.E. shall operate as from July 6. The clause also fixes surtax rates for incomes over £2,000 a year for 1954–55 and 1955–56 at the same rate as those prevailing in the year 1953–54.
The second clause deals with the alterations in personal reliefs. For single persons, the allowance will be raised from £120 to £140, and for married couples from £210 to £240. Never before has this relief reached such a figure, and I feel that we can well be proud of what we have achieved. I must, however, point out that my right honourable friend's intention in making these changes is to meet the point made by the Royal Commission on Taxation of Profits and Income, that the starting points of tax liabilities for individuals are too low and should be raised without giving an advantage to those with higher incomes. For this reason the changes are accompanied by a cut from £100 to £60 in the band of income which bears the lowest reduced rate of tax. The allowance for children has been increased from £85 to £100, which is also a record, and will be of undoubted assistance and benefit to all parents. Provision is also made for a higher income limit for small income reliefs and for minor changes in the old age and dependent relative reliefs. The table in subsection (7) shows the new reduced rate bands and prescribes the rates of taxes on them.
I do not think I need say any more. That is the Budget which my right honourable friend presented to another place this year. In my judgment, it gives fresh incentives and new hopes to throngs of deserving taxpayers. Her Majesty's Government place abundant hopes on the ordinary citizens, who we believe will accept our policy that the expansion of our economy will, and can only, take place under conditions of ever-widening freedom. We do not accept now, and will not accept in the future, the bitter barrier of restrictions. I believe that the monetary policy that has been followed by my right honourable friend during the whole period of this Government is one which is right and proper, and I commend it wholeheartedly to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Munster.)
3.22 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl who has moved this Motion for the care he has taken to expound the Bill and for the remarks he has seen fit to make in regard to it. Before I come to those, there are a few introductory matters to which I should like to make reference, because I think they will show how different the Budget is to-day from what it was in days gone by. When I first began to take an interest in political affairs, which was long before I obtained a seat in the other place, Budgets were a comparatively simple and straightforward matter. The Budget dealt solely, or mainly at any rate, with the receipts and payments of the Exchequer, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not greatly concerned with the finance and economy of the country as a whole, except in so far as it was reflected in the receipts and payments which he had to make and which he had to allow for in his balance. He regarded such things as inflation and deflation almost as acts of God for which he was not in any way responsible and over which he had no control.
Personally, I never agreed with that point of view. I always argued—and I argued it throughout the country—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the Finance Minister of the nation, ought to concern himself with all these wider issues, and the reason why he did not do so was because he was not really fully master in his own house. Much of his authority had been usurped by successive Governors of the Bank of England, who in their board room and through their relationships with the City of London exercised a far greater influence upon the life and prosperity of the nation than did even the Minister himself through his Budget and his taxation. When I went to the Treasury as Financial Secretary in the year 1929 I found ample proof of that view that I had held. Most of your Lordships who have been junior Ministers will probably bear me out when I say that one of the first things a junior Minister discovers is that when he makes a proposal to one of the permanent officials in his office he is met with something which I can only describe as, "You had better ask Papa." But in the Treasury it went a good deal further than that: it was not only necessary to ask
662
Papa, but it was necessary to ask uncle—namely, the Governor of the Bank of England, who was the guiding influence of a great part of the Treasury business. Not until, first, the sanction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and then the sanction of the Governor of the Bank of England, had been obtained, could any proposal—of certain kinds at any rate—submitted by the junior Minister be looked into.
At this distance of time I think I may quite properly disclose a private conversation that I once had with Mr. McKenna, the famous chairman of the Midland Bank. He told me that Mr. Montagu Norman, who was then the Governor of the Bank of England, had told him that if he were confronted with a Chancellor of the Exchequer who had a definite financial policy of his own he would quite willingly toe the line to that policy, even though he disagreed with it. But that was not to be the case. Your Lordships will probably realise that, taken broadly, Chancellors of the Exchequer are not chosen because they are great financiers: they are shrewd men who know how to get good advice from those who know more about finance than they do themselves. In those circumstances, the policy of the Governor of the Bank of England at that time, who was not only a shrewd and diplomatic person but also a great financier, prevailed for a great many years, as opposed to any possible policy that any of the Chancellors of the Exchequer of that time could have put up. That went on for some time, and it brought considerable trouble on this country.
At about that time several committees were set up, one of which was the Macmillan Committee, and that Committee discovered that there was no real machinery in the City of London for providing money for internal domestic investment; that was a grave gap which the City did not fill. Not only that, but no one in the City knew what, in fact, was the liability of the country abroad; and that, again, was a great gap. Whereupon Mr. Neville Chamberlain, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, took the first big step to change the position. He introduced the Exchange Equalisation Account, and made the important decision that the conduct of that Account should be open to Parliamentary interrogation. That meant that the Chancellor

663
of the Exchequer and the Treasury had to be fully en rapport with the major issues of exchange and of financial policy, which had previously been the strict prerogative of the Bank of England and on which the Treasury had never had an opinion of its own until the Bank of England had been consulted. That drove a breach right through the old tradition, and was a most important factor in bringing about the change.
The next important change was made when Sir Kingsley Wood was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was one of those shrewd Chancellors who knew when to take good advice from people who knew a great deal about finance, and he realised what a fine financier was the late Lord Keynes—then he was Sir Maynard Keynes. Keynes advised him to publish what has now become the Economic Survey and give all the details regarding the economy and the finances not only of the State but also of that much larger entity, the nation as a whole. From those days we have inherited that wonderful mine of information which successive Governments have continued to produce. The next step which, though it may sound the main feature, was really almost a recognition of something that had already happened, was the nationalisation of the Bank of England. By that time the Bank of England had come very much more into line with the Government of the day, and when it was finally nationalised, in 1946, that was only a recognition in terms of what had largely happened in practice. Following that out, the Chancellor of the Exchequer now announces that he intends that the bank rate shall be raised, and it is never denied that although it is still the Bank of England that nominally decides the change, it is, in fact, the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The final phase of the changes that have taken place during my political life is the drawing of the line at the bottom of the Budget proper. Of course, the "below the line" amounts are of supreme importance for the economy of the country. Whereas the figures above the line are merely the incoming receipts and outgoing payments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the "below the line" figures, in some cases much larger sums,
664
represent the capital expenditure and capital recovery of the nation as a whole which pass through the Exchequer. Even then it is not the whole account, because a large number of items, being purely private in their character, do not enter into the figures, though they do enter into the considerations which should affect Government policy.
I have made these preliminary observations because it is on them that I want to found what I have to say. The policy of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer differs from the policy of his predecessors largely in one fact. The noble Earl, Lord Munster, who opened the debate, said that the Chancellor had shown that the present Conservative policy was not restrictive. Of course, that is not correct. The raising of the bank rate is one method of restriction, and physical control is another method of restriction. It is no good pretending that the first method is not a form of restriction. It is designed for restrictive purposes. Both these methods are designed for restrictive purposes. One might argue that one is better than the other, but, broadly speaking. I think it is true that those who sit with me on this side of the House are in favour of physical controls, whereas the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, presumably supported in his views by Members on the Government side of the House, prefers monetary controls through changes in the bank rate.
If we were to be candid about this subject, I suppose that both sides would admit that there are many disadvantages in either of these ways, and when restriction has to be made it is a question of which is the more efficacious method. But the fact is that they are both designed to exercise restraint upon investment and to rein in the provision of capital equipment, whether for national or private enterprise, which, if not so reined in, would result in runaway inflation. In reference to that matter, I would only remark that it is better to have to rein in a splendid horse that wants to go too fast than to urge on a sluggish horse to exertions beyond his inclination. The Chancellor has had his way of doing it. Some people think it has been a success and some people think it has been a failure or, at any rate, it has not failed to bring injurious consequences. I certainly do not want to repeat here to-day

665
some of the things I have said in the House in days gone by about the demerits of raising the bank rate, but I would say this: whether it is right or wrong, good or bad, I should have thought nobody could deny that it is expensive, it is ruthless, it is non-discriminating, and that a fluctuating bank rate enriches some people and impoverishes others quite fortuitously. I do not think that these things can be denied. There is no reason why it should not be applied, if necessary, but we should all recognise that fact, on whichever side of the House we sit.
I am not going to make that the main feature of what I am going to say to-day. Let us assume that the method chosen to enforce restriction is that of the bank rate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer presumably came to that conclusion at the beginning of this year when he thought it was necessary to put up the bank rate, first to 3½ per cent. and then to 4½ per cent., in order to improve our balance of payments position and keep up the exchange value of the pound. Yet in the Budget he has thought it proper to reduce taxation on a large scale. Though, of course, all reductions of taxation are claimed to be inflationary, it would appear to act in precisely the opposite direction. As politicians sitting on these Benches, even though we are not in the active conflicts of another place, we can appreciate the strong pressure on Mr. Butler to give away considerable sums in the Budget in this particular year; but as Members of this semi-detached and non-elected Chamber we should at least be aware of the discrepancy between the Chancellor's two lines of approach.
I thought the noble Earl who introduced this Bill was somewhat complacent in his discussion of the position at the present time. He dealt with the balance of payments, but I do not think he even mentioned the drop in the gold and dollar reserve. However, there are at the present time many things of which I cannot imagine the Government can be altogether proud or with which they can be altogether satisfied. Whether we analyse the recent trend in the terms of trade, which after a long period of good fortune have turned a little against this country; whether we consider the rise in exports compared with those taking
666
place in other countries of Europe; whether we look at the heavy toll we have to pay for our imports; whether we look at the balance of payments of this country alone or at the balance of payments of the whole sterling area; or whether we look at the gold and dollar reserves which have taken a turn for the worse, I think there are a good many disquieting features there which I must say I thought the noble Earl was just a little inclined to underestimate. I do not honestly think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite so complacent about those things as the noble Earl appears to be.
I do not want to go into these figures at any great length. I think what I have said covers the ground in broad outline. My right honourable friend who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labour Government, Mr. Hugh Gaitskell, made an admirable speech in another place in which he elaborated many of the rather unpleasant signs in our present economy. Noble Lords who wish to be seized of the position should read some of the things he said. When I say, "unpleasant signs," I think your Lordships will acknowledge that when the economy has been going well under the present Government I have not hesitated to say so. At the present time, I think there are many disquieting features, and I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer is fully aware of those facts.
Now I turn to quite a different aspect of the Budget, which is the distribution of tax relief. I do not personally think it is appropriate in your Lordships' House to argue across the floor the aspect of the relief given as it affects the individual; that is eminently the business of the other place. In that House, Members who are not even referred to by their own name in the debates, but are referred to as "the Member for so and so," are there to further the interests of their constituents, and as such it is only right that they should fight the battles for the people whom they represent in the country. Our position on this matter is a little different. We do not represent anyone but ourselves, and though we may have strong opinions I think it would be rather unseemly for us to start a wrangle in this House about whether somebody was getting too much out of the Budget and somebody else too

667
little. Nevertheless, I think your Lordships ought to be aware of the true facts of the case, and I will endeavour, before I sit down, to give you a presentation of the facts of the distribution of relief which I think may surprise some of you and, from what the noble Earl said in his opening remarks, will, I imagine, rather surprise him. Personally, I do not in the least agree with the idea that in every Budget the relief of direct taxation can possibly give as much to the low tax paying person by way of relief as it can to the upper ranges of income. That, of course, is quite absurd. But when the noble Earl hears what I have to say, I think he will find that our complaint about the distribution of relief is something quite other than that and far more cogent than he imagines it to be.
Let me come, in the first place, to the question of the 2,400,000 persons who are being relieved altogether of income tax by the Chancellor's Budget. I do not suppose there is anybody on either side of the House who does not rejoice at that fact. There are one or two people who are what I might call purists in taxation and who think that everybody ought to bear a bit of income tax, even a person who gets only a few pounds a year, because it is good for him to know that there is such a thing as income tax. I know people like that and they, of course, will regret this change. Personally, I do not regret it. I think it is very sensible, particularly in view of the fact that the burden of these 2,400,000 people on the Inland Revenue officials is very considerable. I do not know how much saving will be effected by their not having to work out all these figures, but at any rate it will be of a large order and will be a great saving of time and trouble to them and to the persons who did pay income tax and will not have to pay it in the future. I do not want to underestimate that relief, but I should like to point out that as the whole relief consists of £4 million a year and as there are 2,400,000 people involved, it is something under £2 a year a head, or rather less than one half of one per cent. increase in their income. Even though it is a small relief they will be glad to have it, and I think it is an excellent thing, so far as it goes.
In passing, I should like to warn noble Lords not to be surprised if they do not find the number of income tax payers
668
falling and gradually being reduced to the full extent by this method, because, owing to the rise in the cost of living and to the rise in income, people are continually seeping back. You may cut out 1 million one year, 2 million the next year and 100,000 the next, but you will not find at the end of three years that there are 3,100,000 fewer people paying income tax, because they gradually seep back. Though you keep on cutting them off, they continue to come back.
Now I come to comparisons with people who do pay income tax, and I want noble Lords to understand the comparison of relief given to people of various ranges of income—people whose gross incomes are three figures up to £1,000 a year, people whose incomes are four figures from £1,000 to £10,000, and people whose incomes are five figures from £10,000 upwards. I shall not say anything about the £500 a year people, because I do not think it would be fair to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We all agree that their relief represents only a small proportion of their income. Therefore, I take as typical the £1,000 a year person (which is the most favourable income from the point of view of the Chancellor); the man with a gross income of £5,000, the man with a gross income of £20,000 and the man with a gross income of £50,000. What I am going to lay before your Lordships is the change in the net income of those four people.
Owing to the changes in this recent Budget, the net income after the payment of income tax of a person having a gross income of £1,000—and I am going to take in every case a married man with two children—is increased from £898 a year to £914 a year; that is, by 1·7 per cent.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Is the noble Lord referring to income tax only?
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It increases his net income by 1·7 per cent. Whereas his net income is taken as 100 before the change, it is now 101·7 per cent. I think that is quite clear. What matters to the man is what net income he is going to have. I am considering the change that has an effect upon his net income, after deduction of tax.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one

669
moment? Is he discussing the net incomes which will result to these individuals in the various categories of income due to relief in income tax in the Budget, and income tax only?
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Yes. I do not see what the noble Earl means. I do not understand the difficulty.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Is the noble Lord including reliefs given for children, et cetera?
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am including all that. I am taking this from the table of what a man earning £1,000 a year gross income will pay in income tax after all the changes, the children allowances and everything else. I am including all those. I have purposely taken a man with two children to be perfectly fair to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I include all the advantages that he proposes. I have deducted the income tax that he would have paid last year and found that he would have had left £898. I have taken from the table what the same man with £1,000 with two children will now pay in tax, and I have deducted that from £1,000. I find that that leaves him £914: that is to say, he has gained £16, which is worth having. It is 1·7 per cent. of the net income that he had last year. Now I come to the man with £5,000 a year. His net income, without the change in the Chancellor's Budget, would be £2,688. He gains by having it brought up now to £2,800—that is an increase on his net income of 4·1 per cent. I take the man with £20,000 a year; his increase is 10·8 per cent. on his previous net income. I take the man with a gross income of £50,000 a year and find that he has increased his income from £5,989 to £7,226—that is, by 20 per cent.
I remembered that in the last Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a number of small reliefs without giving any reduction in the general rate of taxation, so I thought it was much fairer to go back. Therefore, I take the years of the Chancellor's four Budgets. These are the figures I get by doing that. The man with £1,000 a year gross income now obtains an increase on his net income of 2·9 per cent.; that is for the present year as against four years ago. The figure for the man with £5,000 a year is 8·3 per cent. The figure for the
670
man with £20,000 a year is 23 per cent. and the figure for the man with £50,000 a year is 51·8 per cent—that is to say, his net income is half as much again owing to the changes that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made, compared with what it was under the taxation system of four years ago. The noble Earl will see that there is nothing about a larger amount. Whereas the £1,000 a year man gets an increase of 2·9 per cent., the £50,000 a year man gets an increase of 51·8 per cent. It may be right, it may be wrong, but it is no good getting away from the facts, and these are the facts.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The facts are not right.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: If the noble Earl says they are not right, I can assure him that I have done this calculation with great care. I think he will find that I am right. I will tell him, if he wants to know, why it works out like this. The reason for it is that whereas before the present Chancellor of the Exchequer took office, in the highest ranges of surtax, the surtax payer got only 6d. in the pound on the highest ranges of income, under the new system he is going to get 18d. in the £1. That explains how this very large increase has taken place. If these figures are not absolutely correct to the last decimal, they are right in substance. As I say, I believe these to be the facts. If they are wrong, I am open to have them disproved, but I think the noble Earl will find that substantially, even if not down to the last decimal, they represent the facts.
What are the arguments put forward in defence of this distribution of relief? The answer put forward mainly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that it is necessary to give incentives. Of course, there is something in that. The question then arises whether this unequal distribution of relief is really the best method of achieving the purpose. On that point, I should like to read what was stated in the issue of The Economist of April 23, at page 264:
"If incentive is the object, much more effect could have been achieved at smaller cost by concentrating the reliefs on the earned income allowance, and in particular by adopting the Royal Commission's proposal that it should be extended into the range of incomes above £2,000. So far as company profits are concerned, a reduction of the standard rate, which

671
accrues to the receivers of interest and dividends as well as to the retained earnings of the companies, will lead to more spending and less saving than the same amount of money applied to profits tax."
That is what The Economist says. I do not always agree with that journal, by any means, as your Lordships know. It is not always very kind to the Party I represent, but at any rate on this particular point it evidently shares a good deal of my anxiety.
The only other argument, which is not an argument which I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has used, relates to savings. There may be some of your Lordships who will say: "It is better to give relief in income tax to some of the higher income persons because the savings on which the country's investments depend come largely from the well-to-do. Money given to people in the lower grades of income tax will probably all be spent." I will give this answer to those who make that argument: that that may have been true fifty years ago. The people at the bottom of the scale or even people of the lower ranges of income were so badly off that if they received a little more money, they bought a little more food or something of that kind; they certainly did not save it. But I very much doubt whether that is true to-day.
I have thought a good deal about this matter and I am of the opinion that the savings of this country upon which the nation depends for its investment come quite as much from the lower incomes as from the higher incomes—that is to say, that £100 million of relief given in taxation is likely to bring back quite as much, possibly a little more, in the shape of savings as £100 million distributed to the larger income receivers. I admit that that is only an opinion of mine and I cannot produce documentary evidence in support of it. I have tried to get figures of savings with an indication of the class of society from which they come. I have collected a number of figures but, on reflection, I have come to the conclusion that I should not be right to use them, for two reasons: first, because, not being in touch with official sources, it is not possible for an amateur to judge whether different sets of figures are cumulative or whether they overlap. Therefore one might very easily be counting the same sums twice. The second reason, which I think will be obvious to everybody, is
672
that small savings are not necessarily identical with the savings of people with small incomes. Quite wealthy people invest in savings certificates which are included in the small savings category. So I think only an official source will supply the correct statistics upon which some opinion can be based.
I was asked whether I had any questions to put to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who is, I understand, to reply to the debate. In passing, may I say how glad we are to see him back, looking so well; I hope he has benefited fully by his holiday. I want to ask whether he is in a position to give any reply on the point I have just raised. If it is possible for him to do so, I hope he will. I can only say that there are a large number of forms of saving which are taken advantage of by the lower income categories—there are the Trustee Savings Banks, the Post Office Savings Bank, savings certificates, building societies, industrial insurance societies, the superannuation schemes of private employers, and a number of others which probably I have not thought of. Certainly, I should hazard a guess that when you have taken all those into account they must run into at least several hundreds of millions of pounds a year, which is quite a substantial matter to be considered when the interests of the nation, to obtain savings to make investments and thereby to increase productivity, are under discussion.
So, my Lords, I draw to a close with this observation: that so far as the distribution of the Budget relief given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is concerned, without discussing the merits, as to whether it is right or wrong to give more to one individual as against another, looking at it from the point of view of its effect on the economy of the country, I personally think that the distribution would have been better in other forms. With that, so far as I am concerned, I say farewell to the discussions in this House in this present Parliament.
4.5 p.m.
LORD BRAND: My Lords, before I begin the principal part of my remarks to your Lordships, I should like to make one or two comments about the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down. It is true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the noble Lord's early days, and in mine too, did not have to

673
bother about inflation and deflation: it was the Governor of the Bank of England who more or less decided, in conjunction with the Chancellor, what means could be put into force to stop booms or slumps. Before the first war it was not a question of inflation, in the sense of our currency losing its value, because under the gold standard that did not happen; it was a question of stopping booms or slumps. Now, all that has been replaced by a system whereby the currency of a nation is not unalterably fixed in relation to others: there is no definite, fixed convertibility. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer tries to do is to stop inflation or deflation. The Governors of the Bank of England may not have been very good—certainly, they were not perfect at stopping booms and slumps. At present, in conditions of very great difficulty, Chancellors of the Exchequer find an equal, indeed, probably a greater, difficulty in stopping inflation. We are all looking to them, with the help of the Bank of England, to do much better than we did in the old days; but at present we live only in hope, because the tendency towards inflation is enormously strong. That is one of the points I wish to make in my remarks.
I might perhaps make one other small correction. I was a member of the Macmillan Committee. I do not think we ever said that big British industry could not find the money it wanted—because any really big British company could make public issues in the City of London—but that there was a gap (it has since been called "the Macmillan gap") where industries of middle size which wanted more than a bank was prepared to lend them on overdraft, and less than was feasible for a public issue, found a difficulty in getting money. To some extent, at least, that gap has been replaced by the institutions presided over by the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce of Melbourne, and the noble Lord, Lord Piercy. To that extent, the situation has certainly improved.
Not being very good at figures, I should not like to venture on an explanation of Lord Pethick-Lawrence's percentages. I have a vague impression that the size of the percentages is due to the steepness of the progression in British taxation. If an enormously progressive tax is placed on the rich, they must gain considerably
674
when taxation is reduced. I do not think percentages are the best means of comparison in circumstances of that kind.
Every noble Lord knows that important things have been happening in the country, quite apart from the question of the General Election. I agree here with the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence: that certain indications show that in the next year or so we are going to suffer serious difficulties from our usual problem—the balance of payments.
I intend, however, to say very little about the Budget for it is a very simple one; the only important change is the reduction in income tax. When taxation is as excessive as it is today, any reduction is welcome. It is true that the level of consumption in the country now appears to be clearly beyond our present means, and that, if monetary policy is to put a sufficient brake on what is happening, it will have to be made very effective, either by our present Chancellor of the Exchequer or by some new Chancellor after the Election. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer can excuse himself as to income tax reduction and can plead that "if there was a baby it was only a very little one." The proportion of the amount of the total reduction in income tax which is likely to be spent on consumption in relation to our total national income is a minute figure, and I do not consider that the reduction will have any great effect in that way. I hope that, on the other side, it may encourage greater energy and greater productive effort and savings. I do not accept the critics' view that the reduction was unfair as between different classes. Any reduction in income tax must be made all round, and if that is done, and the big incomes get a similar reduction to the small incomes, it stands to reason that the big incomes get off much better than the small ones; but if you do anything else you would be imposing progressive taxation in reverse. Both coming and going, the rich, or moderately rich, man would have imposed upon him progressive and obviously unfair taxation.
Turning to the general economic position, and particularly to our Achilles' heel, the balance of payments, to which neither of the Party Manifestoes refers, it would, I know, be difficult to make the public understand a great deal about it; and to do so would not gain many votes

675
for a Party that tried to discuss it; but doubtless Party leaders may say a good deal about it in their speeches. In this respect I believe that the year 1955 is going to be a difficult one for our country. No doubt the facts are well-known to your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, gave some broad figures with regard to the reduction in exports and the great increase in imports. I will take only the figure for this March. In that month exports amounted to £273 million and imports to £365 million, the excess in one month being £92 million. In the first quarter of 1955, imports averaged £325 million, or 23 per cent. higher than in the corresponding quarter of 1954. It is therefore quite clear that the gap between our imports and our exports is rapidly widening. I have tried to examine certain possibilities as to what might happen in the year 1955, as compared with 1954. The figures I give are nearly all hypothetical, but they may show the kind of problem we face.
In 1954, consumer expenditure in this country went up by £400 million, and it is this which accounts for the gap in our balance of payments. This was due to a genuine increase in spending by the community. It was not due, or was due only to a very negligible extent, to the less favourable terms of trade, which have recently developed. I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said he expects consumer expenditure in 1955 to increase by some lesser amount. Suppose it increases by £300 million in this next year, against the £400 million last year, how is that extra consumer expenditure to be met? Can it be met by increased production? There are indications that our production is increasing considerably, and at the present rate it looks as if it might be higher in 1955 by £300 million. I hope that it may go even further. But the recent adverse movements of the terms of trade (if they get no worse) will swallow up, with the same volume of imports, about £180 million, which would leave a remainder of £120 million. But Her Majesty's Government propose to spend a good deal more money, and we hope that there will be considerably increased capital investment, which may amount to between £100 million and £200 million, which would wipe out the remaining balance.
676
How then would the £300 million of increased consumption be met? There one comes to the effect on the balance of payments. Temporarily, some of it might be met out of the deficit, if we were to have a big one, because a deficit on the balance of payments enables you to cover it for the moment by borrowing abroad—in fact a deficit means that we do borrow the money for the time being from other countries, and, therefore, can temporarily meet the balance out of a deficit. It will be only temporary for it will be borrowing short. Alternatively, we might meet the deficit out of our reserves. Anyhow, it looks as though we shall certainly have very considerable difficulty in balancing our position in the next year. Clearly, too, there will be the most compelling reasons why the deterioration in our balance of payments should be checked soon; clearly, too, consumption in the country is at present too high unless it can be balanced by a big increase in production.
This balance of payments development coincides with two others. Simultaneously, as noble Lords will know, there is a demand for very large wage increases which will add to consumption; and there is a deterioration in the position of some other sterling area countries, particularly Australia, the burden of which may fall upon us and on our reserves. I read in your Lordships' Library today a message from a correspondent in Australia, from which country I have just returned. I thought the message was most apposite. The correspondent wrote
"The conviction is gaining ground here that there is a chronic tendency for Australia's imports constantly to outpace exports. The basic factors of full to overfull employment, labour shortages, the pressure of population-growth on resources and sustained internal spending are now being augmented by marginal wage-increases for skilled workers. All these factors tend to increase consumption."
That could, I think, have been applied almost word for word to this country. I found that the problems of inflation in Australia are almost identical with the problems we have here. In particular, a tremendous discussion was going on about what they call the "margins issue," which is the same issue as that raised by the engine drivers in this country—namely, that the skilled men have not kept up, so far as their pay is concerned, with the unskilled

677
men, and that this should be put right. There has been a decision by some arbitral authority in Australia that all margins must be increased by 2½ per cent. on the margin that existed in 1937. That has been found to be so expensive by the Government that I understand they have refused to accept it for the Civil Service.
In our present circumstances, the instrument which a Conservative Government have at hand to remedy our position is monetary policy effectively applied. In my opinion, they rely, rightly, on this and not on direct controls; and if the present Government are returned at this Election, presumably monetary policy will now be tested and must be made effective. Our difficulties here, like those in Australia, and in some other countries, arise fundamentally, I think, from the fact that monetary stability has occupied a very lowly place in the minds of the electors, and Governments cannot go much faster than electorates. The result is a tendency almost everywhere, in all countries—fortunately for us—towards inflation and to perpetuating the well-known "vicious circle." I need not enumerate its causes. I believe, however, that there is a widespread habit now of accepting inflation as inevitable. This habit exists in some business circles, too, and in industry, of course, inflation has some advantages. There is apparent prosperity; profits increase, and dividends get larger. This last is then complained of by the wage earners who are demanding high wages, and yet it is these high wages that make high dividends.
As I say, there is a widespread habit now of accepting inflation as inevitable, and believing that it is not so bad if it does not go too fast. I personally do not accept this view. I think that least of all countries can we afford monetary instability. In the first place, we are banker to the sterling area, and if, as a banker, you pay people back with money which is not quite as good as money they lent to you, you will not be regarded as a good banker. The whole sterling area looks to us to keep our money at the value it was when they put their money with us. Bankers have to be careful that they do not go insolvent and that they remain very strong. A second reason is that we have an extreme dependence on
678
exports. So long as other countries inflate equally with us, our exports will compete with theirs. There is no reason why they should not. But, of course, if other countries cease inflation and we do not, we are in difficulties at once, and we shall be unable to compete.
If we do not provide the sterling area and the world, for which sterling means so much, with a stable sterling currency, I think that other countries—Germany, for instance—may seek stability without us. And if, on the contrary, we continue to inflate we shall get into immediate difficulties. The German workman, unlike the British workman, has full knowledge of what inflation means. There is still a generation which has experience of it, and the workers are not going to risk it. Nor would the British worker really accept it, if he knew what it might mean. We should therefore not contemplate for ever leaving ourselves open to the evils of inflation, to constant balance of payments crises, constant uncertainty in the world about sterling, constant labour troubles and strikes, constant injury to the fixed income classes, constant trouble about inflationary profits and increases in share values (which are then inevitable) and distrust in all monetary values. A very prominent businessman said to me recently that he did not think inflation mattered if it went only at the rate of 1 or 2 per cent. per annum. Well, if you take a holder of Government securities—you having advised him to invest in British Government securities—and tell him that, of course, there is likely to be a 2 per cent. annual inflation, so that he must take it that in ten years he will have lost 20 per cent. of the value of his money invested, he will not be very pleased. In twenty years he would lose 40 per cent.
I could go on with various other arguments against inflation, but I think I have said enough. I have no illusions about the great difficulties in stopping it. It means a change of heart in electorates, and certainly a change of heart on the part of Governments. I should like here to read to your Lordships a quotation from an article by a friend of mine, Sir Dennis Robertson, who is one of the most prominent economists in England and also one of the most fair-minded of men.

679
In an article which he wrote recently he said:
"Such minor modifications"—
he was referring to certain policy modifications—
"in policy or propaganda would still, however, leave us face to face with the two major mutually-reinforcing obstacles to genuine long-term stability of prices—the monopolistic powers of trade unions and what may be called for brevity the 'full employment pledge'. As regards the former, I do not wish to be too pessimistic about the hopes widely entertained that experience of the mutual damage that can be inflicted upon one another by bodies of workpeople attempting to force up their own wages will eventually impose a greater moderation in the use of monopoly power. But I think there has been an excessive naivetè over this matter in the past; and I would myself rather stress the importance of ensuring that the preachers and propagandists of moderation are given a favourable climate in which to operate. And that to my mind means reconstructing so far as is possible, the framework of monetary discipline within which in the old days the fashioners of trade union policies were well, if only subconsciously, aware that they were obliged to act."
I believe all that to be true, though I am sure that a cold shudder goes down the backbones of many noble Lords when the words "full employment" are mentioned.
I have read certain criticisms of the Conservative Manifesto, but I myself find it an admirable document. It was intended for intelligent and adult men and women. It is moderate in statement and clear in reasoning. As to the Labour Manifesto, with its red banner in front, no doubt I am prejudiced. I do not feel that it is directed to wholly adult men and women, but to those classes of the electorate who are looking for some gift or other. It reminded me of a parent thrush going to its nest and finding a lot of little ones with their mouths wide open, waiting for worms. Every class in the State has been considered by the Labour Party from that point of view—"How can we find a worm for this or that section?"
If the Labour Party is returned, I take it that, although we have a difficult situation, either the huge expenditure contemplated in their Manifesto will be entered into, in which case I see no chance whatever of stopping inflation, or that side of the Manifesto will not be implemented and the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer will be given a chance.
680
Then I imagine that what he is likely to do is not to use monetary policy—though perhaps he will go on with the 4½ per cent. bank rate; I do not know—but to return to quantitative import restrictions, which I think will lead to many other restrictions and get us further and further away from a free and stable system. If the Conservative Government are returned, no doubt we shall see the greatest possible effort to retain the present freedom and to find a solution through effective monetary policy.
There is one good reason for feeling optimism in this country. From the examples of the United States, Canada and other countries, we know perfectly well that, if we like, a great increase of production is possible, a much greater increase than we have had up to now, if all parties—employers and employed and savers of capital—co-operate to secure it. In my opinion, there is no reason why we should not attain it in a few years. It may well be, indeed, that in the next year or two we shall see a big increase of production as the fruit of all the capital expenditure we have made in the last few years. But we must somehow avoid recurrent crises, and for this we require a different policy—not simply restriction, but a policy which will secure both stability and freedom. It is just as important that all Parties should pursue this objective together as to have a bipartisan policy for foreign affairs. No doubt I shall be told that that is absolutely impracticable. But it is of vital importance to the world that our currency should be stable. If we could only discover some common policy on this question, it would be an enormous step forward. I have never seen the possibility of full convertibility with one Party in the State taking the view that it does about steel: namely, that when it comes into power it will pursue quite another course. That is not the way in which we can persuade the world to have complete confidence in sterling.
4.36 p.m.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Brand, because he speaks with such authority on an abstruse subject and he deals with it objectively. The only fault I found in his speech was when he tried to indulge in Party politics. I think he stands above Party politics. I expected a little shadow-

681
boxing and we have had it up to now. I appreciate that anything we say in this House on the Finance Bill is a pure waste of time, because we cannot do anything about it; but it is true to say the same of speeches in the Lower House, so we need not be worried about that. We are practically the same in both Houses.
I want to raise a point as an ordinary man in the street. The question I want to raise is the question of surpluses. The Budget of last year has produced the enormous surplus of £400 million. I may be a simple soul, but I have a strong dislike of being overtaxed to the extent of £400 million. We talk about next year's expenditure on the basis that we have this surplus. The assumption is made that exactly the same taxation will go on under exactly the same world conditions and that exactly the same surplus will occur. And the question is asked: "What are we going to do about it?" That is not what occurs at all. What happens is that the surplus is used for paying off the National Debt. That is what happens to it ultimately. I know that it is a tradition and the practice in the Treasury to put the surplus for the redemption of the National Debt. That is called true Gladstonian finance, a theory which is held by all Treasury officials with the fervour of religion. When that theory was started, there might have been a possibility that one could pay off the National Debt, but to-day £400 million towards paying off the National Debt is just a drop in the ocean.
I think we have to take a new outlook on this matter of surpluses. We all know that if this country is to be successful in the world and hold its own, it wants an immense amount of capital equipment, for which vast sums of money are required. For the development of electricity, ports and roads, capital equipment is urgently wanted. We are always told by the pundits that we cannot afford it. The tragedy of it is that we have already paid for it, but we are not allowed to use it. This £400 million, which we could use so readily for equipment, is going back for the sterile purpose only of reducing the National Debt. I suppose that next year there will be the same demand for new capital expenditure on these necessities, and the Government will say that they cannot afford it. But supposing they were persuaded to spend it, what would
682
be the result? We should have paid for all that capital equipment exactly twice. We have paid for it this year and it has not been used, and we shall have to pay for it again when the Government make up their mind to spend it. What company in the world would ever think of wiping off their capital and at the same time asking for money for capital expenditure? It is a situation which I frankly think is ridiculous in these days. It may indeed appear revolutionary, but that does not mean it is not common sense to deal with surpluses from a capital commitment point of view instead of paying them back to the redemption of the National Debt. I know that I cannot ask the Minister who is going to reply to say anything in favour of my proposal, because he would be torn to bits by Treasury officials; but that does not mean that it is not a right policy and one which should be thought of seriously in the future.
4.42 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, I had not intended to say anything this afternoon, but I was surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, use percentages for part of the argument that he was putting forward. That reminded me of a book that is full of the misleading results of the use of percentages, called, I believe, How Not to Use Statistics. As the noble Lord used percentages in the way that he did, perhaps it would be useful if we looked at the percentages that different categories of taxpayers pay in tax. The £1,000 a year man pays 8·5 per cent.; the £2,000 a year man 20 per cent.; the £5,000 a year man 42 per cent.; and the £20,000 a year man 75 per cent. If percentages are to be given in the way they were given by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, then I think these percentages also should be given.
I was glad to hear the noble Earl, Lord Munster, say that the level of taxation is too high. Certainly with the level of taxation at £4,600 million we cannot expect the value of our money to be maintained. I listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place saying that he had been through all items of expenditure. If we come down to percentages again, on £4,600 million the reduction of taxation is £134 million, which is about 3 per cent. Surely it is possible to find some means of saving a

683
greater amount of the £4,600 million expenditure, and I would urge that there should be a further and more rigorous investigation into that amount of expenditure to see whether, instead of 3 per cent., at least 10 per cent. cannot be saved.
EARL JOWITT: I rise to ask this question of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara—but I see that he is not here.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: He asked to be excused because he has to go to a meeting.
EARL JOWITT: I was going to ask the noble Lord this purely factual question. He assumed that the surplus on the Budget is allocated to the reduction of the National Debt. Is that right? The National Debt between 1954 and 1955 has gone up by nearly £400 million. I believe that the surplus is used—I speak as a child in this matter—for all sorts of other expenditure, such as loans to local authorities, loans abroad and so on. I see the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, sitting there, and he could tell me in a moment whether I am right. Is it right to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, said categorically, that the surplus is used for the reduction of the National Debt?
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: I think it is purely a matter of accounting.
4.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I think, if I may confirm that, that it is generally used for paying what is known as the below-the-line expenditure. When noble Lords opposite were in power they deliberately set that figure high as a form of forced savings. That practice has not been followed so closely recently.
We always enjoy listening to the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, speaking with that great objectivity and experience which he brings to our discussions. I am bound to say that, on the whole, I thought his economics better than his politics. When he was talking on an economic level I found him most interesting, especially in his reminiscences. I would pick him up only on one point. He said that the Exchange Equalisation Account was subject to Parliamentary control.
LORD GREENHILL: Parliamentary question.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not think the operation of that account is open to public inspection.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: What I meant was that the policy employed now is under the Chancellor of the Exchequer and is open to Parliamentary question and that, as a consequence—and this is the point I was making—the Treasury must have officials in the Treasury who understand it, and who work it, instead of the whole thing being dealt with, as previously, under the control of the Bank of England.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I appreciate what the noble Lord says. I thought he meant that Parliament could get details of the operation of the account, which, of course, would be nonsense. The noble Lord asked about small savings. I am sorry, but I cannot give him an answer to that question. It is one of those subjects on which we have not got full information. I can give the noble Lord figures about general savings, which have increased substantially in recent times.
LORD GREENHILL: Am I not right in thinking that figures for the National Savings Movement are available, but that there are many more institutions which collect savings, the figures for which are not easily available, although in past years I believe they have been collated, in response to a Question in another place?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not think they are necessarily relevant.
LORD GREENHILL: That is another matter.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: One of these is building societies. Their figures may increase, but they may or may not be small savings. It is for that reason that I do not think the figures are particularly relevant to the point.
I was rather pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, speaking more gently about the high bank rate. He merged the Bank rate with physical controls and said that it was a matter of choice. That, of course, is a closer proximation to our point of view. The noble Lord used to be a violent opponent to the use of the bank rate as a control. But it seems to me that there is one great difference between the two: the use of the bank rate leaves the individual with a choice, whereas once you

685
have physical controls, whether you degenerate it into rationing or not, you take away the individual's choice. The noble Lord says that it is non-discriminatory. But every law in this country is non-discriminatory. That is the whole point of law: that it does not discriminate between individuals.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Everything must be non-discriminatory in respect of individuals. You must not stop Mr. A from doing something that you allow Mr. B to do. The point I was making was that when you have a physical control you restrict the enterprise of things which are of no national value, but allow those of national value to go forward. But raising the bank rate may prevent an important enterprise from getting the money and allow an unimportant and useless enterprise to get it because it is financially stronger.
LORD GREENHILL: May I supplement that point by asking in what sense is it a matter of individual choice? What choice is there when the bank rate is raised? Is it suggested that a Government will increase the bank rate for reasons other than very pressing reasons, and not necessarily internal reasons? They may be external to domestic necessities.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The bank rate leaves a choice because the man is free to use it or not. But if you have your steel or meat rationing, you have no choice—the decision is made for you. The noble Lord seemed to me to step right into this point because what he suggested is that some official should discriminate. That is highly discriminatory. This official would decide that one important business is in the national interest and the noble Lord's is not. That would be an example of very sharp discrimination.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The Capital Issues Committee.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is still retained, but on the whole we think that discrimination between officials is bad. A man may decide that it is worth getting money at a high price because the particular project is important.
LORD GREENHILL: I dislike interrupting again, but I think there is a danger of being misled. It is quite true
686
that when the Bank of England decides to raise the bank rate potential borrowers in this country may hesitate to borrow because of the increase. But that, I suggest, is not the whole reason for imposing a higher bank rate. It may also be in order to avoid balances, other than sterling balances, leaving this country. That is another reason for raising the bank rate, so the matter is not quite so simple.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I never suggested that it was simple. I entirely agree that it is a most complex matter. Perhaps we might leave that for the moment. I should also like to pass over the question of the accusation that my noble friend Lord Munster is complacent in this matter, and pass to the question of the distribution of tax reliefs. The interesting thing which emerges is that the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, said he would like to distribute these reliefs in other forms. By that I understood him to mean other forms which could be described as electorally more popular.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I was quoting the Economist.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I under-stood the noble Lord to say "distribution in other forms." He also quoted the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Gaitskell, who referred to reduction of tax on tobacco, beer and petrol. Surely, that proposal is inflationary in character, and certainly more inflationary than a flat reduction in income tax.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The noble Earl must not misquote me. What I said about Mr. Gaitskell's speech was that he pointed out the various things that were going wrong in this country at the present time, and I thought the noble Earl, Lord Munster, was too complacent about it. I was supported in that by the noble Lord, Lord Brand. What I said about the reliefs was that there were other forms in which they could have been given; and in order to show what other forms there were I quoted the Economist.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am glad to hear that. I got the impression that the noble Lord intended to make what I describe as more popular reliefs. If the noble Lord is going to talk about percentages in the higher ranges of income, perhaps we might look at it from another

687
angle, because these percentages can be made to represent anything you like. I should like to remind the noble Lord of this fact. If we divide our people into five categories, and compare the level of taxation under the present Bill with the level of taxation when the Labour Government were in power, it will be seen how we stand. Of course, we must recognise that we have in this country a progressive system of taxation. We all agree about that, but it does not mean to say that it is possible to have an equally progressive system of tax reduction. In fact, as I shall show, we have a powerful regressive system of tax reduction.
May I give the figures? Persons with incomes of over £2,000 a year would have paid 12 per cent. more tax under a Labour Government; those with incomes of £1,000 and £2,000 would have paid 37 per cent. more; those with between £500 and £1,000 would have paid 75 per cent. more; those with between £250 and £500 would have paid 100 per cent. more, and those receiving under £250, 400 per cent. more. There is a marked regressive element in the manner in which taxes have been reduced in the four Budgets which my right honourable friend has produced. It is important to look at the matter from that angle. I think everyone agrees that there should be a much more marked disparity between the married and the single person. That has certainly given a curious twist in some aspects of the graduation, but I think it follows the lines of the suggestion of the Royal Commission—indeed, in many respects, it carries them rather further.
The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, suggested that we were rather complacent. I do not think anyone underestimates the importance of what the noble Lord, Lord Brand, has said to us, and, if I may say so, we have every year examined some aspect of the economy which needed careful examination. Your Lordships may remember that two years ago, at the end of the Korean war, we were concerned in case the dislocation which might follow would lead to certain unfortunate trade reactions. Last year we were concerned about capital investment and the trade recession in the United States of America. That might have been a serious matter, but the latent
688
strength of the economy of this country enabled us to ride through without any serious disadvantages. To-day we are concerned, as we have been reminded, with inflationary pressure and with balance of payments problems. We are quite aware of that. We do not want in any way to pretend that these problems do not exist. But I do think we must recognise that the general structure of economy in this country is much stronger than it was four years ago. My noble friend told us of certain action taken in February, which was pretty strong action. One has only to quote the words of Mr. Gaitskell, when he spoke of it in extremely strong language. My noble friend has said that saving is still up, which is an important point.
I should like to compare one or two of the aspects which exist to-day with the conditions which existed in the spring of 1952, because there has been a considerable development during that time. In the first place, the latest figures, for the spring of this year, show that production is up by somewhere about 16 or 17 per cent., and exports by about 20 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, using figures which were quoted by Mr. Gaitskell, said that this compared unfavourably with other countries. You can jostle the dates about as you like, but I think the noble Lord may agree to this: that for the last two years our exports have compared favourably with those of all countries except Japan and Germany. The noble Lord may take it that the rise in that sphere is something with which we may be fairly satisfied.
I am aware of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Brand, and I will come to them in a minute. The Economic Survey shows that there is an encouraging sign in the private sector in regard to the development of factories. Many of us can vouch for that from our own personal experience. I would also add this, because it enlarges the point. In the period from 1952, wages and salaries have increased by £11,000 million. We find that personal incomes from rents, interest and dividends have increased by about £170 million. That is a very big increase in demand and in that sense gives a much better assurance of the home market necessarily, as such.
LORD GREENHILL: What inference is to be drawn from those two sets of figures?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The inference to be drawn, to my mind, is that in the first place it reflects substantially the increased industrial production, which can be set at about 132, over 114 in 1952. Accordingly, it ensures a sounder home market on which the export trade can be based.
May I turn now to Lord Brand's statement, which, as I have said, no one can fail to take seriously. The noble Lord blames internal consumption, which I think is a little too much for the difficulties we are in. But what the noble Lord emphasised—and I am sure he agrees with me here—is the importance of increased production, as such. There can be no doubt about that. Of course, that is going on.
LORD BRAND: And the importance of increased capital expenditure. That is why I do not want to see ordinary consumption go up too much, because we want to spend in order to have greater production. We must be sure to spend enough capital.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I appreciate that point. I can give the noble Lord my figures, if he likes, of capital expenditure. They are encouraging at the present moment. The noble Lord is worried about the question of full employment. That is the point where politics and economics necessarily go apart, because here we are dealing with a question which cannot be answered entirely in terms of economics. It is a matter on which political Parties are united in this country, and, I suggest with great respect, not for any idle reason; they are united because there is a considerable moral issue concerned which I do not think anyone can possibly misunderstand. The second point mentioned by the noble Lord concerned the monopoly of the trade unions.
LORD BRAND: May I say that I think the noble Earl misinterprets me? He has in mind, I think, that, as things go at present, full employment can always be assured. Of course, if that is so, if there is no danger whatever in the future about full employment plus stability in currency, I am all for it. But my view is that nothing in the new economics can make certain that, if we have bad times or if our money situation becomes bad, any Government can keep full employment here.
690
I want currency stability in order to maintain, not to do away with, full employment. I think we have not yet really begun the experiment of full employment. It has to go through all sorts of difficult times, particularly in a country which depends on foreign trade. At any rate, I am as much for full employment, if it can be maintained, as is the noble Earl.
LORD GREENHILL: May I offer a comment on this question of full employment? For myself, I think it is mainly an economic reason, although it has a moral value. In the interesting account which the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, gave of the significant changes that have taken place in recent years, one that I did not hear him give was the one that Keynes was responsible for in his well-known book. We do not need to be Keynesian supporters in order to realise the great significance of the change that his book effected in our attitude towards employment. Many of your Lordships will remember that he goes to the length of saying that it would pay to dig a hole and have it filled by someone else if you can keep up the employment factor during times of unemployment. That is a totally opposite conception from the kind of conception that used to be in vogue and which I rather suspect is held by the noble Lord, Lord Brand, today. In 1930 or 1931 the May Committee examined our bad industrial position, and the only remedy they could suggest was the cutting down, instead of the expanding, of services, with the result, of course, that we had deflation—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Brand, has said. I wanted to clear that point up, because it seemed from what he said that he was putting the importance of full employment too low. May I refer to one other point raised by the noble Lord? He talked about the monopoly of the trade union organisation. I think we should to-day recognise what happened the day before yesterday. In the circumstances, it is fair to recognise the immense measure of responsibility which those who are carrying that high power are facing at the present time.
I have been interrupted a good deal. I think I have been speaking to your Lordships too long. My noble friend has

691
really covered the matter in point, but I think to-day it is fair to recognise that we have had four remarkable Budgets in the last four years. Those Budgets have brought the United Kingdom and the sterling area broadly into balance. We have maintained full employment; production has increased, and increased very considerably; and the social services over the whole field have been extended, particularly in the field of housing. Initial steps to achieve equal pay in the Civil Service have already been introduced. Rationing has been abolished, with the single exception of coal; and we have absorbed the burden of a very heavy Defence programme, whilst at the same time reducing both direct and indirect taxes.
692
In that respect, it is interesting to note that, compared with the last year in which the Labour Government were in power, direct taxes have been reduced by £787 million a year, which is a substantial sum. I think it is fair to say that almost every section of the community now has a higher standard of living with a much wider choice of consumer commodities at their disposal. This is a very solid achievement, especially when viewed in the light of the difficulties which beset the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he came into office and which I think the country will very readily recognise.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
House adjourned at nine minutes past five o'clock.